1979 (9) TMI 201 - SC - Indian Laws

Government's Compulsory Retirement Order Upheld by Supreme Court Under Rule 16(3)

UNION OF INDIA ETC. Versus M.E. REDDY AND ANR

UNION OF INDIA ETC. Versus M.E. REDDY AND ANR - 1980 AIR 563, 1980 SCR (1) 736, 1980 SCC (2) 15 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order.2. Allegations of mala fide intent.3. Adverse entries in the confidential report and their communication.4. Applicability of the principles of natural justice.5. Review Committee's role and its consideration by the Government of India.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Compulsory Retirement Order:The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the compulsory retirement order passed by the Government of India under Rule 16(3) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958. The Court emphasized that the rule confers an absolute right on the Central Government to retire a member of the service in public interest, provided the member has completed 30 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years, and the order is issued with at least three months' notice. The Court clarified that compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor a stigma, and it does not attract the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The objective of the rule is to maintain a high standard of efficiency and to weed out officers who are inefficient or of doubtful integrity.2. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent:The Court rejected the allegations of mala fide intent against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, who was alleged to have influenced the compulsory retirement order. The Court noted that Reddy had withdrawn all allegations of mala fide against the Chief Minister in a previous writ petition. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of victimization or arbitrariness in the impugned order. The history of Reddy's service, including his promotions and reinstatement, did not support the claim of mala fide intent.3. Adverse Entries in the Confidential Report and Their Communication:The Court addressed the argument that the compulsory retirement order was based on non-existent materials, as adverse entries in Reddy's confidential report were not communicated to him. The Court clarified that not all adverse entries need to be communicated under the rules. Remarks based on general reputation or personal supervision by superior officers may not be communicated. The Court found that Reddy's overall service record, including assessments of his integrity and efficiency, justified the compulsory retirement order.4. Applicability of the Principles of Natural Justice:The Court held that Rule 16(3) expressly excludes the application of the principles of natural justice. The rule grants the Government an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest without the need for a formal inquiry or hearing. The Court reiterated that compulsory retirement under this rule does not involve any civil consequences or stigma, and therefore, the principles of natural justice do not apply.5. Review Committee's Role and Its Consideration by the Government of India:The Court examined the role of the Review Committee and its consideration by the Government of India. It was contended that the Government did not consider the Review Committee's report before passing the compulsory retirement order. The Court found that the report of the Review Committee was indeed considered by the Government, as evidenced by the confidential file and the note sheet signed by the Home Minister. The Court emphasized that the recommendations of the Review Committee are not binding on the Government, but they must be considered before making a decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and restored the compulsory retirement order of Reddy. The Court found no legal error in the impugned order, which was justified under Rule 16(3) and in consonance with the law laid down by previous decisions. The Court rejected all contentions raised by Reddy's counsel, including allegations of mala fide intent and the applicability of the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed without any order as to costs.