A S. RAMACHANDRA RAJU

v.

STATE OF ORISSA

AUGUST 31, 1994

f ,

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Service Law

Orissa Service Code: Rule 7l(a).

c Compulsory Retirement-Government should exercise the power only

in public interat-Entire service record of employee should be con-

sidered-Where the order was passed without considering the entire record

and

was based on solitary adverse remarks it was held to be arbitrary exercise

of

Powei--Order held illegal and qu•~hed.

D

Conjident1'al Repo~eporting Officer-Duty of-Reporting Officer

should eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudice or proclivity and make

objective assessrnent.

The appellant, a Lecturer in a Government College, was given adverse

E

comments for the year 1987-88. His service record earlier and later .to

1987 ·88 was meritorious. He mad•: a representation for expunging the

adverse remarks alleging

that

remarks were made due to ma/a jides and

personal vendatta by the Principal. In the meanwhile, he was promoted as •

Reader. However, by proceedings dated May 28, 1991 he was compulsorily

F

retired from service under Rule 71(") or the Orissa Service Code. The sole

foundation for the exercise of the power of retiring the appellant from

service

was the adverse

remarks foic 1987-88 and the recommendation of

the

Review Committee which also relied on the said adverse

remarks only.

His representation for expunging th1e remarks was rejected. The appellant

unsuccessfully challenged the order of compulsory retirement before

the

G

Administrative 'fribunal.

Io appeal to this Court

it was contended on behalf of the appellant

that the Tribunal erred in its

cooclu'iioo because appellant's entire service

,,,,. _

record was not ~oosldered and the order was based only on the Report of

the

Review Committee which was founded only upon the adverse remarks

H of the Principal for one particular

yi:ar.

828

t

. ....,

S.R. RAJUv. STATE OF ORISSA 829

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of compulsory A

retirement, this Court

HELD : 1. The exercise of power by the government falls in the

category of arbitrary exercise of power

or failure to take the total record

of service into consideration objectively as only the solitary adverse

~eport B

for the year 1987-88 has been taken as a foundation to compulsorily retire

the appellant from service. The

Review Committee as well considered only

that report; neither earlier reports nor subsequent reports were

con­

sidered. The appellant was promoted as a Reader after the adverse _report

and the adverse comments were communicated to him and in a mechanical

way they rejected the representation to expunge the adverse remarks, even C

without going into the contention of the appellant that the then Principal

was actuated with

ma/a fides by submitting wrongly or falsely in

confiden·

tial report which appear to have some foundation or suspicion, for such a

consistent record earlier

and later periods would

establish· that the appel·

lant bas meritorious record of service as a teacher. Therefore, in that D

background the exercise of the power is illegal. (838-G-H, 839-A, BJ

2. Though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment

and the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits includ-

ing pension, the government must exercise its power only in the public

interest to effectuate the efficiency of the services. The entire service record

E

or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the

back drop material for consideration

by the Government or the Review

Committee or the appropriate authority.

On consideration of the totality

of the facts

and circumstances alone, the government should form the

opinion .that the government officer needs to

be compulsorily retired from F

service. Therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest,

would form the foundation for the opinion

and furnish the base to exercise

the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government

officer.

(837-G, 838-B, CJ

3. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity G

in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of

compul­

sory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a

check

and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from

corruption

and incompetence. The officer

would live by reputation built

around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidecne

H

830 SUPREME q:mRT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his

conduct and reputation

may be

meh that his continuance in service would

be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest.

B

c

[837-G-H, 838-B]

4. When an officer reaches the age of compulsory retirement, he

could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens

with the pension or other benefits

he gets and thereby he would be

subjected to great hardship and

family would be greatly affected. There­

fore, before eJtercising the power,, the competent appropriate authority

must

weigh the pros and cons ancl balance the public interest as against

the individual interest.

On total evaluation of the entire record of service

if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in

the public interest the officer

needls to be retired compulsorily, the court

may not interfere with the exercise of such

bonafide exercise of power but

the court bas

)lower and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not

as a court of appeal but in its

"xercise of judicial review to consider

D whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated

either

by ma/a fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary

in retiring the government officer

eompulsorily from service. [838-D, E]

Shyani Lal v. State of U.P., [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26; Union of India v. Col.

E /.N. Sinha & Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 7911; B.R. Chadha v. Union of India & Ors.,

[1980] 4 S.C.C. 321; C.D. Ai/awadi v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. (1990)

S.C. 1004; Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, Vol. 78 -(1991) FJ.R. p.

11 = [1990] 3 SCR 504 and Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical

Officer,

[1992] 2

S.C.C. 299, refer ... d to.

F 5. Writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the

reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices

or

proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment. It is needless

to emphasise that the career prospect of a subordinate employee largely

depends upon the work

and character assessment by the reporting officer.

G The latter should adopt fair,

obj<:ctive, dispassionate and constructive

commends/comments in estimating

or assessing the characterability,

in­

tegrity and responsibility displayed by the concerned employee during the

relevant period for the above objectives if not strictly adhered to in making

an honest assessment, the prospect

and career of the subordinate officer

being put to great jeopardy. The reporting officer is bound to lose his

H credibility in the eyes of his snbordinates and fail to command respect and

'•

f

,., .

•

·~

!

S.R. RAIUv. STATE OFORISSA IK. FAMASWAMY. J.J 831

work. from them. [839-E to G]

6.1. The writing of the conlidentials is contributing to make the

subordinates work

at least to some extent. Therefore, writing the

confiden­

tial reports objectively and constructively and communication thereof at

the earliest would pave way for amends by erring subordinate officer or to

improve the efficiency in service. At the same time, the subordinate

employee/officer should dedicate to

do hard work and duty; assiduity in

the discharge of the duty, honesty with integrity in performance thereof

which alone would earn his usefulness in retention of bis service. Both

would contribute to

impro\-. excellence in service. [839-H, 840-A, BJ

6.2. Io the instant case the facts are eloquent. When anterior to or

subsequent to 1987-88 Respondent was a man of ability and of integrity,

how the same would become below average only for the academic year

1987-88 without discernible reasons. It would speak volumes on the objec­

tivity of assessment by the reporting officer i.e. the Principal. This conduct

A

B

c

is much to be desired. [839-D] D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5815 of

1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.93 of the Orissa Ad-

ministrative Tribunal, Bhubneswar

in

O.A. No. 686 of 1991. E

S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant.

A.K. Panda for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court

was delivered by F

K. RAMASWAMY, J, Leave granted.

The appellant

was initially appointed as a Lecturer on September 29,

1965 in a private college which was taken over by the government with G

effect from March

9, 1971. He was transferred from that college in 1978

to Bhawaoipatna College. For the year 1987-88, the Principal one Mr. U.C.

Mohapatra made adverse comments for the period 1.4.1987 to 29.2.1988.

Thereon the appellant had submitted his representation alleging that the

remarks were made due to

mala fides and personal vendetta by the Principal. In the meanwhile on March 20, 1991 the appellant was promoted H

832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A as a Reader in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700 lo 5700. By the proceeding dated

May 28, 1991 he \'as compulsorily retired from scr\i.ce. His representation

was rejected on December 5, 1991. When he challenged the order, the ,;

8

c

Administrative Tribunal by order dated January 25, 1993 dismissed the

petition. Thus this a.ppeal.

It was contended and slated in the grounds of appeal that despite

his request, the tribunal did not call for his ser\ice record nor considered

the totality· of his ser\ice. It relied upon the only report of the Re\iew

Committee which

in turn was founded upon the adverse remarks based on

the report of the

Principal. We directed the State to produce the entire

record of the appellant and his confidential reports

in his service record

of his character roll. Accordingly they have been placed before

us. We have

perused the entire record. The record disclosed that from the year

1973-74

onwards, the year in which the College was taken

over, his work was

commended as good, sincere and satisfactory. He is a sincere teacher,

D helpful in maintaining discipline, a strong-minded person 'and willing

worker. For the year 1980, the government communicated that his work

was unsatisfac!ory for the years 1976-77, while the Principal recorded for

the same year that his integrity

was goods, his zeal was fair, his work was

fair but relations with the students

was average.

Same was the report for

E

F

the year 1979-80. For the year 1980-81, the Principal also reported th~t his ·

integrity was good. He was a good teacher his conduct was good and work

was satisfactmy. Same was the report for the year 1981-82. The government

communicated to the appellant that he had not conducted any research

work. The report for tae year 1982-83 equally was satisfactory and he was

advised to publish papers. For the year 1983-84, the report was that his

conduct was good, his integrity was good, he is a good teacher, his work

was fair and his relation with the students was good. The government

reiterated that he did not conduct

any research work. For the year 1984-85 his knowledge on the subject was good, his work as a teacher was very

good. He takes pains

in imparting lectures. He is a sincere worker, his zeal

G is good, integrity is good, official conduct is good, work as a proctor is

good, his relationship with the students is good. For the year 1985-86, the

remarks of the

Principal was that his work as a teacher and knowledge on

the subject

is satisfactory, his work as a proctor is satisfactory, his integrity

upto the mark,

his relationship with the students is satisfactory. We do not

have the report for the year 1986,87. For the year

1987-88 the report of

H the

Principal is that his knowledge on the subject is average, work as a

I

f

)

•

--

S.R. RA.JUI'. STATEOFORJSSA[K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 833

teacher is below a\'erage. He is inclined to drop classes when not watched. A

His relationship \Vith the students average, work as a proctor average,

official conduct average, zeal below average, integrity below average, in

general remarks, it was stated that he is a disintegrated officer, constantly

grumbling O\'er his last opportunity and neglect his duties, he prefers to

stay

away from the college as long as possible. It was communicated by the B Gmt. on December 5, 1988, the record also shows that his representation

was considered to expunge the remarks for 1987-88 and was rejected. For

the year

1988-89 another Principal in his report dated May 13, 1989 stated

that appellant's knowledge on the subject

is good, his work as a teacher is

good, other works in the department is good, in his

ei<tra-curricular ac­

tivities as Vice President of humanitarian society

his work is commendable, C

his power of taking responsibility is good, his relationship with the students

is good, his work as a proctor is fair, official conduct good, zeal good,

integrity fair and in general remarks

"a very responsible and disciplined

teacher". In the year 1989-90 it was reported that his knowledge on the

subject

is good, his work as a teacher is good, his work in the department D

is good as a Vice President of the humanitarian society and as a Judge of

several debate competitions he exhibited good work, his relationship with

the students

is good, his work as a proctor fair, official conduct good, zeal

fair, integrity

is good and in the general remarks "he is a polite and reliable

officer" which received on June

20, 1990 and the same was the remarks for ·

the year 1990-91. E

The question, therefore is whether the government, while exercising

its powers of compulsorily retiring the appellant under Rule 71(a) of Orissa

Service Code and G.A. Department circular No. 30495/GA, dated Novem­

ber 24 1987, had exercised its power in the public interest and the order

is legal. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed in this Court as well F

as in the tribunal that the sole foundation for the exercise of the power of

retiring the appellant compulsorily from service

is the "gross adverse

remarks for the period 1.4.1987 to

29.2.1988" and the recommendation of

the Review Committee. It

is well settled law from a leading judgment of

this Court by a Constitution Bench in

Shyam Lal v. State of

U.P., (1955] 1 G

SCR p.26, that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or

removal from service within the meaning of Art.

311 of the Constitution. It

is neither punishment nor visit with loss of retiral benefits. It does not cast

stigma. The officer

will be entitled to the pension that is actually earned

and there

is no diminution of the accrued benefits. The object to exercise

H

834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the power to compulsorily retiring the government employee was con­

sidered and held

in Union of

India v. Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr, [ 1971] 1 SCR

791 at 795 'D', that power can be exercised subjeci to the conditions

mentioned

in the rule, (Rules 56(J) of the Fundamental

Rules), one of

which

is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in

B

public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the

correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is

open

to the aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been

formed or-the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an

arbitrary decision. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences.

While exercising the power various considerations would weigh with the

C appropriate authority. In some cases the government may feel that a

particular post

may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer

more competent than the one

who is holding the office is not inefficient

but the appropriate authority

may prefer to have a more efficient officer

or in certain

key posts public interest may require that a person of

undoubted integrity

wd ability would be there. "There is no denying the

D fact that. in all organizations and more so in government organisations,

there

is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the

same. Fundamental Rule

56G) holds the balance between the rights of the

individual government servant and the interest of the public. While a

minimum

servire is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Govern­

ment

is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient ..

E by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in

public interest". In that case only the contention raised

was that no oppor­

tunity of hearing was given before compulsorily retiring the respondent.

The contention

was negatived holding that the rules of natural justice are

not embodied' in exercising the power under Rule

56G) of the Fundamental

F

Rules and that no prior opportunity should be given to the concerned

government retirement. That

was found favour with the High Court and

was confirmed by this Court.

In

B.R Chadha v. Union of

India & Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 321, this Court

while consid~ring the scope of judicial review of the exercise of the power

G to compulsorily retiring a government servant held at p.325 that the Ad­

ministration, to be competent, mm.t have servants who are not plagued by

uncertainty about tomorrow. At the age of 50 when you have family

responsibility and the somber problems of one's

own life's evening, your

exper\ence,

accomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the

H Administration, if and only if you are not harried or worried by 'what will

•

•

,.

S.R. RNUv. STATEOFORISSA[K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 835

happen to me and my family?' 'Where will I go if cashiered?' 'How will I A

survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be

superannuated?' These considerations become

all the more important in

departments where functional independence, fearless scrutiny, and

freedom to expose

evil or error in high places is the task. And the

Ombudsmanic tasks of the office of audit vested

in C and AG and the

entire army of monitors and minions under him are too strategic for the

nation's financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats

B

and oblique over-awing is very much in public interest.

So it is that we must

emphatically state that under the guise of 'public interest' if unlimited

discretion

is regarded

acceptable for making an order of premature retire­

ment,

it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for

unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. To con­

stitutionalise the rule, we must so read it as to free it from the potential for· the mischief we have just projected. The exercise of power must be

bona fide and promote public interest. When an order is challenged and

its validity depends on

its being supported by public interest the state must D

disclsoe the material

so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not

bad for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man

reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of

'public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant.

Judge~·

cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are

not absolved from the minimal review

well settled in administrative law and E

founded on constitutional obligations. The limitations on judicial power in

this area well known and

we are confined to

an examination of the material

merely to see

wh,ether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the

compulsory retirement of the officer concerned

is necessary in public

interest. F

The whole purpose of the rule

is to weed out the worthless without

the punitive extremes covered

by Art.311 of the Constitution. After all,

Administration, to be efficient, must not be manned by drones, do nothings,

incompetents

·.and unworthies. They may not be delinquent who must be

punished but

may be a burden on the Administration if by insensitive, G

insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the flow or promote

stagnation. In a country where speed, sensitivity probity, and non-irritative

public relations and enthusiastic creativity are urgently needed, paper­

logged processes and callous cadres are the besetting sin of the Ad­

ministration.

It is in public interest to retire a never-do-well, but to juggle H

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. '

A with confidential reports when a man's career is at stake is a confidence

trick contrary to public interest. Moreover, confidential reports are often

subjective, impressionistic and must receive sedulous checking

as basis for

decision-making. The appropriate authority, not the court, makes the

decision, but

even so, a caveat is necessary to avoid misuse,

B

This Court considered the whole service record. In that case some

anterior record in which the Review Committee found that the perfor­

mance of the appellant

was below average and that, therefore,

he was

compulsorily retired. But the service

of latter years disclosed that there was

considerable improvement in the efficiency of the appellant. While con-

C sidering the exercise of the power

im that background this Court held that

one wonders how an officer whose continuous service for

14 years crossing.

the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with

no adverse entries for

five years immediately before the compulsory retire­

ment, could be cashiered on the

score that long years ago, his performance

D had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the

efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut

may often be wrong cut. The

order of compulsory retirement

fails because vital material, relevant to the

decision, has . been ignored and absolute material, less relevant to the

decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers

E

F

from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, willfully or otherwise, vital

facts bearing on the decision is bad

in law. Accordingly the appeal was

allowed and the order of compulsory retirement was set aside. In

C.D.

Ailawadi v. Union of India & Q,,., AIR (1990) SC 1004, this Court

reiterated that the order of compulsory retirement

is liable to be upset if

no requisite opinion

was found on the basis of the total evolution of the

record or

it

~.,; based on collateral grounds or the decision is arbitrary.

On the facts that the Committee had found in the character rolls of the

appellant that he did not

have unblemished record of service, this Court

upheld the

ordeir of compulsory retirement. In Ram Ekbal Shanna v. State

of Bihar, Vol. 78 (1991) F.J.R. p.1, the facts were that the appellant had

excellent record of service and

was successively promoted to various high

G echelons from time to time. Departmental proceedings were initiated

against

him. Midway it was dropped and exercising the power under Rule

74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, he

was compulsorily retired from

service which was challenged but

when became unsuccessful in the High

Court, on appeal, this Court held that though the order of compulsory

H retirement was couched in an innocuous language the Court

could look

. '

•

S.R.RAJUv. STATEOFORISSA(K.RAMASWAMY,J.) 837

into the record by lifting the veil and consider whether the order was by A

way of punishment. On the facts it was found that the order of compulsory

retirement

was by way of casting a stigma on the reputation or career of

the appellant and that, therefore,

it was held to be in contravention of Art.

311 of the Constitution.

In

Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, [1992] 2

SCC

299, a qench of three Judges of this Court was to consider whether

uncommunicated adverse remarks

would be considered to order compul-

B

sory retirement. This court considering the scope of Fundamental Rule 56ij) on the anvil of a<lministrative law, held that the order of compulsory

retirement has to be passed on forming the opinion. that it

is in the public C

interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. Though the order is

passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government, the government or

the Review Committee shall have to consider the entire record of service

before taking a decision in the matter, of course, attaching more impor­

tance to record of and performance during the later years. The record

so D

considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records

Character rolls, both favourable and adverse. The order of compulso1y

retirement is not liable to be qnashed on mere showing that while passing

it uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. Further

this does not mean that judicial scrutiny

is excluded altogether. Though the

court would not examine the matter

as an appellate court, they may E

interfere if the,y are satisfied that the order is ma/a fide or passed on no

evidence or that

is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would

form the requisite opinion or the

given material, in short, if it is found to

be a perverse order, the remedy under Article

226 is an important

safeguard, since the remedy

is an effective check against arbitrary, mala

p

fide or perverse actions.

It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement

is not a punishment and the government employee is entitled to draw all

retiral benefits including pension, the government must exercise its power G

only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The

dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public

service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory

retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check

and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from

corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built H

838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence

to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct

and reputation

is such that his continuance in service would be a menace

in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record

or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back

B

drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Com­

mittee or the appropriate authority.

On consideration of the totality of the

facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion

that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service.

Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form

the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power

C under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When

an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement,

as was pointed out

by this Court, he could neither seek alternative

appointment nor meet the

family burdens with the pension o:r other benefits he gets and thereby he

would be subjected to great hardship and

family would be greatly effected.

Therefore before exercising the power, the competent appropriate

D authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as

against the individual interest.

On total evaluation of the entire record of

servir,e if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion

that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the

court may not interfere with the exercise of such

bonafide exercise of power

but the court has power and duty to exercise the power

of judicial review

E not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider

whether the power has been properly exercised or

is arbitrary or vitiated

either by

malafidc or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in

retiring the government officer compulsorily from service.

f Keeping these principles in mind and on considering the facts ex-

tracted hereinbefore we find that the exercise of power by the government

falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power or failure to take the

total record of service into consideration objectively but has taken only the

solitary adverse report for the year

1987-88 as a foundation to compulsorily

retire the appellant from service. The Review Committee as well con-

G side red

only that report, neither earlier reports nor subsequent reports

were considered.

It is seen that admittedly the appellant was promoted as

a Reader after the adverse report and the adverse comments were com­

municated to him and in a mechanical

way they rejected the report to

expunge the adverse remarks, even without going into the contention of the

H appellant that the then

Principal was actuated with ma/a fides by submitting

. ,

..

•

S.R. RATU v. STATE OF ORISSA [K. RAMA5WAMY, J.] 839

wrongly or falsely in confidential reports which appear to have some

foundation or suspicion for such a contention consistent record earlier and

latter periods would establish that the appellant has meritorious record of

service

as a teacher and that his devotion to the service is good and fair

and that

he maintains discipline, good relations with the students and

imparts teaching to the students fairly

with good knowledge as a teacher.

Therefore,

in that background the exercise of the power is illegal.

The facts are eloquent. From

1973-74 the appellant started with. a

commendation of his performance

to be

"satisfactory" to "fair" in the year

1990-91. Would it be comprehendible that in the year 1987-88 whether he

would suddenly drop down and become an average or below average

teacherYWhen he was a responsible teaher and he had cordial relations

with the students' community, and

was taking pains to impart lessons to

the students, would it be believable that he avoids

to take classes and drops

down

"if not watched"? When anterior to or subsequent to 1987-88 he was

A

B

c

a man of ability and of integrity, -the same would become below average D

only for the academic year 1987-88 without discernible reasons. It would

speak volumes on the objectivity of assessment by the reporting officer i.e .

the Principal. This conduct is much to be desired. This case would establish

as a star! reality that writing confidential reports bears onerous respon· .

sibility on the reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal

prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment.

It is needless to emphasise that the career prospect of a subordinate

officer/employee largely depends

upon the work and character assessment

by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispas­

sionate and constructive commends/comme~ts in estimating or assessing

the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the con·

cerned officer/employee during the relevant period for the above objectives

if not strictly adhered to

in making an honest assessment, the prospect and

career of the subordinate officer being put to great jeopardy. The reporting

officer

is bound to lose his credibility in the eyes

·of his subordinates and

E

F

fail to command respect and work from them. The constitutional and G

statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became

responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their

duties and make it impossible to the superior or controlling officers to

extract legitimate work from them. The writing of the confidentials

is

contributing to make the subordinates work at least to some extent.

There·

fore, writing the confidential reports objectively and constructively and H

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A communication thereof at the earli<:st would pave way for amends by erring

1

subordinate officer or to improve the efficiency in service. At the same

time, the subordinate-employee/officer should dedicate to do hard work

and duty; assiduity

in the discharge of the duty, honesty with integrity in

performance thereof which alone would earn

his usefulness in retention of

B his service. Both would

contribute to improve excellence in service.

Accordingly the appeal

is allowed. The order of the compulsory

retirement

is set aside and the

OA. is accordingly allowed with all conse­

quential benefits and with costs quantified as Rs. 5,000 .

. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

(

•