http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12

PETITIONER:

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/1998

BENCH:

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, S.P. KURDUKAR.,

JUDGMENT:

--------

S. SAGHIR AHMAD J,

-----------------

Leave granted

The State of Gujarat is in appeal before us against

the judgment dated 11.2.1998, passed by a Division Bench of

the Gujarat High Court by which the judgment and order dated

17,11.1997 passed by the Single Judge, was set aside and the

Writ Petition of the respondent by which he had questioned

the validity of the order dated 21.7.1986, by which he was

compulsorily retired from service, was allowed.

The respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the

office of Food Controller, Ahmedabad and after about twenty

one years of service, he was promoted as an Assistant Food

Controller (Class-ll) in the Office of Food Controller,

Ahmedabad. In 1983, certain complaints were received

against the respondent regarding permits for cement having

been issued Illegally by him and, Therefore, he was placed

under suspension on 31.5.1983 and an inquiry by the State C.

1. D. (Crime and Railway) was ordered into the matter of

issuance of bogus cement permits. On the receipt of the G.

I. D. enquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of

issuing cement permits to bogus institutions which were not

"in existence in Ahmedabad, a first information Report under

various Sections of the Indian Penal Code read with the

provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was filed

against the respondent on 23.12.196S. Another FIR was

lodged against the respondent on the same day in respect of

offences committed by him for fabricating the rubber stamp

of the Government ana fabricating bogus permits in favour of

equally bogus parties.

In the meantime, the respondent made two applications to the

appellants for revocation of the suspension order out this

was not done. By another order dated 21.7.1983, passed

under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rule, i959, the

respondent was comulsorily retired from service in public

interest. It was this order which was challenged by the

respondent in a Writ, Petition before the Gujarat High Court

which was initially dismissed by the Single Judge but was

allowed, in appeal, by the Division Bench by the impugned

judgment dated 11.02.1996 which has compelled the State to

approach this Court under Article 136 of the constitution.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12

During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Single

Judge, original records including the proceedings dated 9.2.

1988 of the Review Committee as also the notings of the

Secretary, which he had made after discussing the matter

with the Chief Secretary, were placed before the Single

Judge. After going through the records, the learned Single

Judge observed as under:-

The Review Committee has doubted the

integrity of the petitioner and it has been opined

that it is not advisable to continue the petitioner

in service for further period. The Review Committee

has further opined that looking to the seriousness

of the charges levelled against him, there is a

possibility of serious punishment of dismissal of

the petitioner. The Review Committee has next

opined that in the circumstances if the petitioner

retires at the age of 50 years then such proceedings

cannot be continued further and serious punishment

cannot be inflicted. It has further been opined

that the step concerning to reduction of pension

also cannot be taken. At that point of time the

petitioner was under suspension and it has been

taken by the Review Committee that as he is under

suspension and not in actual service, there is no

question of damage to public and the Government.

So, the Review Committee was of the opinion that the

petitioner should be continued in service so that he

may be dealt with severely for the alleged serious

misconduct. This note had been placed before the

Secretary, who had raised a question as to whether

the Government can wait till the CID inquiry is

over. The matter was further discussed and it has

been decided that he should be retired prematurely

and thereafter the cases against him withdrawn

though with a further note "Provided he does not go

to Court in issue of premature retirement." The

matter has thereafter been discussed with the Chief

Secretary and a decision has been taken that if the

petitioner goes to the Court against the order of

premature retirement then the cases against him

should not be withdrawn.

Admittedly, against the petitioner two

criminal cases for the offences as punishable under

the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act

have been filed. In one case the final report has

been submitted by the Police and in the other case

matter is under investigation. It is equally true

that there are serious charges of corruption against

the petitioner. The criminal against the

petitioner. The criminal liability of the

petitioner is one thing and his continuation in

service when his integrity is doubtful, is another

thing. In between these two there is another aspect

that for the alleged serious charges of corruption

the petitioner could have been dealt with

departmentally also and if the charges are proved

the minimum penalty could and should have been, as

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the

case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteen Thakar v. State

of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1997 (1) SCC

299, would have been dismissal or removal. The

order of premature retirement has not been

challenged by the petitioner on the ground of mala

fides. The petitioner has not alleged any mala

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12

fides against any of the officers i.e. the Members

of the Review committee as well as the Secretary

concerned, or the Chief Secretary concerned, of the

chief secretary.

If the integrity of the officer is doubtful, then

his retention in public service cannot be said to be

in the public interest. There cannot be two opinion

on this question. In such matters it is difficult to

accept that the petitioner has been prematurely

retired by way penalty.

xxx xxx xxx

In the present case as recorded earlier the

proceedings of the Review Committee have been

produced on the record of this Special Civil

Application by the respondents. The Review

Committee has found that nothing adverse has been

recorded in the C.R. file of the petitioner

regarding his integrity. It has also been noticed

by the said Committee that the petitioner has been

promoted with effect from 16.5.1981 and therefore,

C.Rs. of the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are required

to be considered. The C.Rs. of those two years

were not available. On reading the aforesaid

portion of the report of the Review Committee, what

I gather is that it has proceeded on presumption

that whatever service record of the petitioner was

available was of the period earlier to 16.5.1981 and

it stood washed off on his getting promotion on that

day. After reaching that conclusion the Review

Committee has not bothered to look into the service

records of the petitioner for the period earlier to

16.5.1981.........."

The learned Single Judge further observed as

under:-

"At one point of time, I though of to sent

the matter back to the respondent-State to

reconsider the case of compulsory retirement of the

petitioner. But, from the record I find that the

Review Committee found strong grounds of doubtful

integrity of the petitioner and the review Committee

has opined that it is not advisable to continue the

petitioner in service for further period. However,

the Review Committee has further opined that when

there are serious charges against the petitioner if

felt that there are probabilities that the

petitioner may be given major penalty of dismissal

and in case he is retired at the age of 50 years

such disciplinary proceedings for major penalty

cannot be continued and no punishment can be

imposed. The Review Committee also observed that

step for reduction of pension also cannot be taken.

So, the review Committee was of the opinion that as

the petitioner's integrity is doubtful he should not

be allowed to continue in service............."

The learned Judge further proceeded to say as

under:-

"So, the opinion of the Review Committee was that

the petitioner, whose integrity is doubtful, should

be dismissed from service. After forming this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12

opinion the Review Committee has observed that he

should be continued in service under suspension so

that enquiry can be held against him and appropriate

major penalty can be imposed on him.

The Report of the Review Committee was

placed for consideration before the Secretary

concerned and the Chief Secretary and ultimately,

the chief Secretary has opined that the petitioner

should be compulsorily retired. However, the Chief

Secretary has opined that in case the petitioner

goes to the Court challenging the order of

compulsory retirement, case pending against him

should not be withdrawn. In other words, if he does

not challenge the order of compulsory retirement

case against him may be withdrawn.

From the proceedings of the Review Committee

as also the discussion of the Secretary concerned

and the Chief Secretary, it is clear that the Review

committee has formed an opinion that the

petitioner's integrity is doubtful. SO far as the

law on the point of compulsory retirement is

concerned, it is a consensus that in case of

employee/officers of doubtful integrity or

dishonesty retention of such employee/officer would

not be in public interest. Not only this, but to

maintain efficiency and honesty in services such

officer/employee has to be chopped off from service.

It is true, as opined by the Review Committee, that

such person should not be allowed to go with all

rewards of pension and other retrial benefits and he

should be dismissed from service............."

It was also observed as under:-

"I may revert back to the facts of this case and

admittedly there were two cases against the

petitioner for offence punishable under the

provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is

true that in one case "A" Summary has been filed and

in the other one charge-sheet has been filed and

case is pending in the Court. Only question which

now requires consideration of this Court is, whether

on the basis of this material the review Committee

and the Disciplinary Authority could have formed

bona fide opinion, to compulsorily retire the

petitioner or not. The contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of

these two criminal cases, the petitioner could not

have been ordered to be retired compulsorily. But,

in view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court this contention may not be of much

substance and certainly the Review Committee and the

Disciplinary Authority could have formed and opinion

on the basis of the material available whether the

integrity of the petitioner is doubtful or not...."

The portions of the judgment of the Single Judge

have been extracted above to show that the original records

were placed before him, who, after perusing those records,

has specifically and categorically referred all the material

which existed on that record and which constituted the basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12

of the opinion of the Review Committee that the respondent

may be retired prematurely, although, what we feel is that

on this question, namely, on the question of premature

retirement, the Review Committee itself appeared to be in a

dilemma and could not be said to have been consistent on the

question of its recommendations:

From what has been extracted above, it would be seen

that the Review Committee was of the opinion that :

(1) There was no a a verse entry or remarks recorded in

the C.R. Fife of the respondent regarding his integrity,

(ii) Respondent was promoted to the higher post on 16th of

May, 1981 and, therefore, the Review Committee wanted to

look to the entries made subsequent to the date of

promotion, but it noticed that the character roll entries

for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were not available.

(iii) There were two First Information Reports lodged

against the respondent under various Sections of the Indian

Pena? Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. In one

FIR, final report had been submitted, while in the other the

charge sheet was filed.

(iv) The integrity of the respondent was doubtful and,

therefore, he was not fit to be retained in Govt. service.

But he should be continued in service, so that he would be

available for severe departmental punishment and can be

removed from service and dealt with severely for the alleged

serious misconduct.

These recommendations of the Review Committee were

placed before the Chief Secretary with a note of the

Secretary, who had raised the question whether the

Government could wait till the CID inquiry was over.

Thereafter, the matter was further discussed and it was

decided to retire the respondent prematurely and to withdraw

the criminal cases against him, "provided he does not go to

court on the issue of premature retirement." There was a

subsequent opinion recorded on the file that it could not be

said with certainly that the respondent would not go to

court on the question of premature retirement. The matter

was, therefore, again discussed with the Chief Secretary and

a decision was taken that if the respondent approached the

court, the criminal cases pending against him would not be

withdrawn. It was in these circumstances that the decision

to retire the respondent compulsorily, at the age of 52, was

taken.

This decision was taken under Rule 161 of the Bombay

Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provides as under:

"Rule 161

---------

(1)[a] Except as otherwise provided in the other

clauses of this rule, the date of compulsory

retirement of a Government servant other than a

Class IV servant, is the date on which he attains

the age of 58 years,

Provided --

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12

(i) (Deleted)

(ii) (Deleted)

(iii) He may be retained in service after the date

of compulsory retirement only with the previous

sanction of Government on public grounds which must

be recorded in writing.

[(aa) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause

(a) :-

(i) An appointing Authority shall, if he is of the

opinion that it is in the public interest so to do,

have the absolute right to retire any Government

servant to whom clause (a) applies by giving him

notice of not less than three months in writing or

three months pay and allowance in lieu of such

notice:

(1) if he is in Class I or Class II service or

post or in any unclassified gazetted post, the age

limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which

is below 35 years, on or after the date on which he

attains the age of 50 years, and

(2) if he is in any other service or post, the age

limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which

is below 40 years, on or after the date on which he

attains the age of 55 years.

(ii) any Government servant to whom clause

(a) applies may be giving notice of not less than

three months, in writing to the appointing

authority, retire from service after he has attained

the age of 50 years, if he is in Class I or Class II

service or post or in any unclassified gazetted post

the age limit for the purpose of recruitment to

which is below 35 years and in an other case, after

he has attained the age of 55 years.

Provided that it shall be open to the

Appointing Authority to withhold permission to

retire to a Government servant who is under

suspension, or against whom Departmental proceedings

are pending or contemplated and who seeks to retire

under this sub-clause.]

(b) A Government servant .................."

Sub-clause (aa) of Clause (1) of this Rule gives

power to the Appointing Authority to retire a Government

servant in public interest by giving him three months'

notice in writing or three months's pay in lieu thereof at

any time after the date on which he has attained the age of

50 years.

What is 'public interest' was explained in the

classic decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Col.

J.N.Sinha & Anr. (1970) 2 SCC 458 = AIR 1971 SC 40 = 1971

(1) SCR 791. It was pointed out that the object of

premature retirement of a Govt. servant was to weed out the

inefficient, corrupt, dishonest employees from the Govt.

service. The public interest in relation to public

administration means that only honest and efficient persons

are to be retained in service while the services of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12

dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost dead-wood, are to

be dispensed with. The court observed :

"Compulsory retirement involves no civil

consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56(j) is not

intended for taking any penal action against the

Government servants. That rule merely embodies one

of the facts of the pleasure doctrine embodied in

Article 310 of the constitution. Various

considerations may weigh with the appropriate

authority while exercising the power conferred under

the rule. 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. It may be that the officer

who is holding the post is not inefficient but the

appropriate authority may prefer to have more

efficient officer. It may further be that in

certain Key posts public interest may require that a

person of undoubted ability and integrity should be

there. There is no denying the fact that in all

organisations 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 56 (j) holds the interests of the

public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to

the Government, the Government is given power to

energies its machinery and make it more efficient by

compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion

should not be there in public interest........." It

is true that a compulsory retirement is bound to

have some adverse effect on the Government servant

who is compulsorily retired but then as the rule

provides that such retirements can be made only

after the officer attains the prescribed age.

Further a compulsorily retired Government servant

does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till

the date of his retirement. Three months' notice is

provided so as to enable him to find out other

suitable employment. In our opinion, the High Court

erred in thinking that the compulsory retirement

involves civil consequences."

This was also the view of this Court in H.C. Gargi

vs. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 158 = AIR 1987 sc 64.

In Gian Singh Mann vs. High Court of Punjab &

Haryana & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 266 = AIR 1980 SC 1894, it was

pointed out that 'the expression 'public interest' in the

context of premature retirement has a well settled meaning.

It refers to cases where the interests of public

administration require the retirement of a Government

servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased

to possess the standard of efficiency, competency and

utility called for by the Government service to which he

belongs."

In Kailash Chandra Agarwal vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

(1987) 3 SCC 513 = AIR 1987 SC 1871, it was pointed out that

the order of compulsory retirement, if taken in public

interest, could not be treated as a major punishment and

that Article 311(2) of the Constitution could not be

invoked, as the employee concerned was no longer fit in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12

public interest to continue in service and, therefore, the

was compulsorily retired.

In Union of India vs. M.E. Reddy & Anr. (1980) 2

SCC 15 = AIR 1980 SC 563, it was pointed out that the object

of compulsory retirement was to weed out the dead-wood in

order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and

initiative in service. Rule 16(3) of the All India

(Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958, empowered the Govt. to

compulsorily retire officers of doubtful integrity. The

safety value of public interest was the most powerful and

the strongest safeguard against any abuse or colorable

exercise of power under that rule.

A three Judge Bench of this Court in Baikuntha Nath

Das & Anr vs. Chief District Medical Officer Saripada & Anr.

(1992) 2 SCC 299, laid down the following five principles:

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a

punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion

of misbehavior.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the government

of forming the opinion that it is in the public

interest to retire a government servant

compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective

satisfaction of the government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place

in the context of an order of compulsory retirement.

This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is

excluded altogether. While the High Court or this

Court would not examine the matter as an appellate

court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that

the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is

based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in

the sense that no reasonable person would form the

requisite opinion on the given material; in short,

if it is found to be a perverse order.

(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as

the case may be) shall have to consider the entire

record of service before taking a decision in the

matter of course attaching more importance to record

of and performance during the later years. The

record to be so considered would naturally include

the entries in the confidential records/character

rolls, both favorable and adverse. If a government

servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding

the adverse remarks such remarks lose their sting,

more so, if the promotion is based upon merit

(selection) and not upon seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not

liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the

showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse

remarks were also taken into consideration. That

circumstance by itself cannot be a basis of

interference."

This decision was reiterated by another three Judge

Bench of this Court in Posts & Telegraphs Board & Ors. vs.

C.S.N. Murthy (1992) 2 SCC 317, in which it was laid down as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12

under :

"An order of compulsory retirement is not an order

of punishment. F.R. 56(j) authoresses the

Government to review the working of its employees at

the end of their period of service referred to

therein and to require the servant to retire from

service, if in its opinion, public interest calls

for such an order. Whether the conduct of the

employee is such as to justify such a degree as to

require the compulsory retirement of the employee

are primarily for the Government to decide upon.

The courts will not interfere with the exercise of

this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis

of material available on the record."

(emphasis supplied)

In K. Kandaswamy vs. Union of India. (1996) 6 SCC

162, this court observed that:-

"While exercising the power under Rule 56(j)

of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority

has to weigh several circumstances in arriving at

the conclusion that the employee requires to be

compulsorily retired in public interest. The

Government is given power to energies its machinery

by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and

people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily

retiring them for service. When the appropriate

authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory

retirement of the government employee is in the

public interest, court would not interfere with the

order."

The Court, however, added that the opinion must be

based on the material on record otherwise it would amount to

arbitrary or colorable exercise of power. It was also held

that the decision to compulsorily retire an employee can,

therefore, be challenged on the ground that requisite

opinion was based on no evidence or had not been formed or

the decision was based on collateral grounds or that it was

an arbitrary decision.

In. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India. (1979) 2

SCC 491, this Court held the order of compulsory retirement

as a gross abuse of power as there was nothing on the record

to justify and support the order.

In Baldeo Raj Chaddha vs. Union of India, (1980) 4

SCC 321, it was held that although the purpose of FR 56 was

to weed out worthless employees without punitive extremes,

if, under the guise of "public interest", an order of

premature retirement is made for any other purpose, it would

be the surest menace to public interest and the order must

fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and "disguised

dismissal".

Baikuntha Nath's case (supra) was considered by this

Court in M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 1998 (6)

SC 34 and it was laid down as under:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12

"Judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature

compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is

either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on

no evidence. The observation that principles of

natural justice have no place in the conext of

compulsory retirement does not mean that if the

version of the delinquent officer is necessary to

reach the correct conclusion the same can be

obviated on the assumption that other materials

alone need be looked into."

It was further observed as under :

"While viewing this case from the next angle for

judicial scrutiny, i.e. want of evidence or

material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that

want of any material is almost equivalent to the

next situation that form the available materials no

reasonable man would reach such a conclusion.

In order, therefore, to find out whether any Govt.

servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily

retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient

administration, an objective view of overall performance of

that Govt. servant has to be taken before deciding, after he

has attained the age of 50 years, either to retain him

further in service or to dispense with his services in

public interest, by giving him three months' notice or pay

in lieu thereof.

The performance of a Govt. servant is reflected in

the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the

methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty of integrity

of a Govt. servant is to look to his character roll entries

for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which

decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is

obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse

entries or the overall categorization of the employee is

poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his

integrity, such a Govt. servant cannot be said to be

efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal

assets, thickest of which is the stick of "Integrity". It

this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. A Govt.

servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight.

Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn

the Govt. servant to mend his ways and to improve his

performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the

adverse entries so that the Govt. servant, to whom the

adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to

explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was

wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter

and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified

such an entry, to improve his performance.

Applying the principles laid down above to the

instant case, what comes out is that in compulsorily

retiring the respondent from service, the authorities

themselves were uncertain about the action which was to be

taken ultimately against him. In fact, there was hardly any

material on the basis of which a bona fide opinion could

have been formed that it would be in public interest to

retire the respondent from service compulsorily. The

material which was placed before the Review Committee has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12

already been mentioned above. To repeat, respondent was

promoted in 1981; the character roll entries for the next

two years were not available or record; there were no

adverse entries in the respondent's character roll about his

integrity; he was involved in two criminal cases, in one of

which a final report was submitted while in the other a

charge sheet was filed. Although there was no entry in his

character roll that the respondent's integrity was doubtful,

the Review Committee, on its own, probably on the basis of

the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion

that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity. The

review Committee was constituted to assess the merits of the

respondent on the basis of the character roll entries and

other relevant material and to recommend whether it would be

in public interest to compulsorily retire him from service

or not. The Review Committee, after taking into

consideration the character roll entries and noticing that

there were no adverse entries and his integrity was, at no

stage, doubted, proceeded, in excess of its jurisdiction, to

form its own opinion with regard to respondent's integrity

merely on the basis of the FIRs lodged against him. Whether

the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether he

is efficient and honest, is the function of the Appointing

Authority or the immediate superior of that employee to

consider and assess. It is not the function of the Review

Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a

person of doubtful integrity. Moreover, the Review

Committee did not recommend compulsory retirement. It was

of the opinion that the respondent had committed grave

irregularity and that he must be retained in service so that

he may ultimately be dealt with and punished severely. The

Secretary and the Chief Secretary, who considered the

recommendations of the Review committee, had other ideas.

They thought that the investigation and subsequent

prosecution of the respondent would take a long time and

that it would be better to immediately dispense with his

services by giving him the temptation of withdrawing the

criminal cases and retiring him compulsorily from service,

provided he does not approach the court against the order of

compulsory retirement. This proposal too was not

immediately acted upon and it was thought that nobody could

say whether the order of compulsory retirement would be

challenged by the respondent before the court or he would

merely submit to it on the withdrawn. It was at this stage,

that the or the order of compulsory retirement was passed.

The whole exercise described above would, therefor,

indicate that although there was no material on the basis of

which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the

respondent had outlived his utility as a Govt. Servant or

that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood,

he was compulsorily retired merely because of his

involvement in two criminal case pertaining to the grant of

permits in favour of take and bogus institutions. The

involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean

that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of

law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the

court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But

before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to

deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of

his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere

involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant

material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon

the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12

allegedly committed by the employee.

There being no material before the Review Committee,

in as much as there were no adverse remarks in the character

roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the

character roll entries subsequent to the respondent's

promotion to the post of Asstt. Food Controller (Class II)

were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that

the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could

have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent

was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service.

The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive

having been passed for the collateral purpose of his

immediate removal, rather than in public interest. The

Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting

aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing

reinstatement of the respondent.

We find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed

without any order as to costs.