# Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 768
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-01
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/diwakar-purohit-assistant-electrician-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43687
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Serious misconduct - Compulsory Retirement - Unauthorized Occupation of Official Residence -
Commercial use of Government premises -Relevant factor - Petitioner unauthorisedly occupied residence
meant for Deputy Superintendent, despite repeated directions to vacate - ran a cybercafé/STD
booth/canteen from government premises- incurred large arrears of rent and penalties-Such conduct
demonstrated persistent disregard of official discipline and justified compulsory retirement. (Paras 8-12)

Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Rule 56(c), 56(2) & 2-A, U.P. Fundamental Rules - Scope and
Principles - Order of compulsory retirement does not constitute punishment and involves no civil
consequences - It is founded on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority that the employee's
continuance is not in public interest - Principles of natural justice do not apply-Judicial review limited
to grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, perversity or absence of evidence. (Paras 20-24)

Service Record - Entire record relevant - Adverse entries (including uncommunicated) - Old warnings
and past misconduct - Consideration permissible - Rule 56(2) mandates that no part of service record is
excluded from consideration while determining public interest - Petitioner's record revealed repeated
warnings since 1984, complaints of non-performance, habitual absenteeism despite marking attendance,
indiscipline, prior suspensions, and misuse of official accommodation-Uncommunicated adverse entries may
also be relied upon in case of compulsory retirement. (Paras 8-12, 21-24, 27)

Mala Fides - Allegation vague and unsubstantiated - Burden not discharged-Plea that Principal of college
acted mala fide due to contempt proceedings filed by petitioner's wife held unsupported by material-General
allegations without specific averments cannot establish mala fide. (Paras 13, 25-26)

Presumption under Rule 2-A- Public Interest - Not rebutted-Rule 2-A presumes every compulsory
retirement order to be in public interest-Petitioner failed to rebut presumption-material on record
established unsatisfactory conduct. (Paras 21-24, 27)
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

769
Held-Sufficient material existed to form bona fide opinion that petitioner was unfit for continued service and
had become a liability. No mala fide, arbitrariness, or perversity shown in the impugned order.

Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 28-31)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,744 of 50,251. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39744 for what follows._

768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ A No.- 27038 Of 2011

Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Serious misconduct - Compulsory Retirement - Unauthorized Occupation of Official Residence -
Commercial use of Government premises -Relevant factor - Petitioner unauthorisedly occupied residence
meant for Deputy Superintendent, despite repeated directions to vacate - ran a cybercafé/STD
booth/canteen from government premises- incurred large arrears of rent and penalties-Such conduct
demonstrated persistent disregard of official discipline and justified compulsory retirement. (Paras 8-12)

Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Rule 56(c), 56(2) & 2-A, U.P. Fundamental Rules - Scope and
Principles - Order of compulsory retirement does not constitute punishment and involves no civil
consequences - It is founded on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority that the employee's
continuance is not in public interest - Principles of natural justice do not apply-Judicial review limited
to grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, perversity or absence of evidence. (Paras 20-24)

Service Record - Entire record relevant - Adverse entries (including uncommunicated) - Old warnings
and past misconduct - Consideration permissible - Rule 56(2) mandates that no part of service record is
excluded from consideration while determining public interest - Petitioner's record revealed repeated
warnings since 1984, complaints of non-performance, habitual absenteeism despite marking attendance,
indiscipline, prior suspensions, and misuse of official accommodation-Uncommunicated adverse entries may
also be relied upon in case of compulsory retirement. (Paras 8-12, 21-24, 27)

Mala Fides - Allegation vague and unsubstantiated - Burden not discharged-Plea that Principal of college
acted mala fide due to contempt proceedings filed by petitioner's wife held unsupported by material-General
allegations without specific averments cannot establish mala fide. (Paras 13, 25-26)

Presumption under Rule 2-A- Public Interest - Not rebutted-Rule 2-A presumes every compulsory
retirement order to be in public interest-Petitioner failed to rebut presumption-material on record
established unsatisfactory conduct. (Paras 21-24, 27)
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

769
Held-Sufficient material existed to form bona fide opinion that petitioner was unfit for continued service and
had become a liability. No mala fide, arbitrariness, or perversity shown in the impugned order.

Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 28-31)

List of Cases cited:

1. Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr., (1970) 2 SCC 458

2. Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299

3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551

4. State of U.P. & Another v. Lalsaram, (2001) 3 SCC 389

5. Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 800

6. State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109

7. Yogendra Nath Tripathi v. Inspector General, CISF & Ors., 2008 (6) ALJ 57

8. Dwarika Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2010) 2 UPLBEC 1587

9. Sidheswar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2006 (9) ADJ 2007

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. Pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2015,
a detailed supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and in reply a supplementary rejoinder
has also been filed. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being
disposed of finally at this stage itself.

3. Petitioner, who was working as Assistant Electrician in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical
College, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Medical College'), has come up challenging the order
dated 22.9.2008 passed by the respondent no. 2-Principal of the Medical College whereby he has
been compulsorily retired. Further prayer is that he may be permitted to discharge his duties
without any hindrance and be paid his salary.

4. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the
Medical College in the year 1981. During service, being aggrieved by non-payment of salary on the
post of Assistant Electrician, he filed a writ petition no. 28261 of 1995 claiming salary on the basis
of equal pay for equal work. According to the petitioner, to attend emergency duty the petitioner
was provided one vacant portion of his own official quarter by the Deputy Superintendent of the
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Medical College. Subsequently, an order dated 20.3.1989 was passed by the Principal of the
Medical College for recovery of rent from 3.12.1983 to 30.4.1995 and from 1.11.1995 to 31.1.1999
amounting to Rs. 5040/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 336/- per month in 15
installments. Aforesaid amount was recovered from the salary of the petitioner and again, when
petitioner remained in unauthorized occupation of the said house, an order dated 21.1.2003 was
passed whereby a sum of Rs. 2,96,285/- was directed to be recovered from the salary of the
petitioner at the rate of Rs. 3871/- per month since 18.3.1996. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.3.2003
passed by the respondent no. 3-Chief Medical Superintendent, the petitioner was directed to attend
night duties from 8 pm to 4 am in the hospital. It appears that the petitioner filed one Original Suit
No. 110 of 1996 (Diwakar Purohit vs. Principal, Medical College, Jhansi & others) in the Court of
Civil Judge, Junior Division regarding the accommodation in his possession. It appears that one
Suit No. 72 of 2003 under the Public Premises Act filed by the petitioner was also pending and,
therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner requested that the deduction of Rs. 1650/- per
month, which was being made towards arrears of rent, may not be made. Wife of the petitioner
Smt. Saroj Purohit has also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 42895 of 2007 with the
prayer that the representation of the petitioner dated 18.7.2007 may be decided by the respondent
no. 3. When her representation was not decided, she filed a Contempt Application No. 4376 of
2007 against Dr. Ganesh Kumar, the then Principal of the Medical College, in which after hearing
the parties this Court vide order dated 13.12.2007 issued notices to the respondent no. 4, which is
pending for orders. It is further alleged that since the salary of the petitioner was stopped since
March 2008, the petitioner approached Human Rights Court/Additional District Judge, Jhansi by
means of filing a Case No. 1 of 2008 wherein summons were also served upon Dr. Ganesh Kumar,
Principal of the Medical College. Certain allegations regarding marking attendance in the
attendance register have also been made that the same have been manipulated at the instance of the
respondent no. 3 with the assertion that the petitioner was continuously discharging his duties but
due to non-availability of the attendance register for a certain period, he could not mark his
attendance and one attendance register with his single signature was prepared as per oral direction
of the respondent no. 3. Allegation is that the order of the compulsory retirement dated 22.9.2008
was passed by the Principal of the Medical College as he had received summons/order dated
9.10.2008 issued by the Human Rights Court/Additional District Judge, Jhansi and notice issued by
this Court in the contempt petition. The order of compulsory retirement was published in the
newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 5.10.2008.

5. Present petition was filed in the year May 2011. Laches were explained by pointing out that
the petitioner had filed a letter petition addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High
Court sent through registered post on 18.12.2008. The petitioner was ultimately informed vide
letter dated 18.4.2011 that the said letter petition was found not to cover any of the category
mentioned in the PIL guidelines for Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and has been consigned to
record after approval of Hon'ble Chairman (PIL).

6. A counter affidavit was filed on 3.12.2011 where allegations of the petitioner were denied
generally, however, when this Court was not satisfied with the reply in the counter affidavit, this
Court in its order dated 8.12.2015 observed that counter affidavit has been filed without bringing
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

771
on record full and correct facts and directed the respondent no. 2 to produce the original record
relating to the case. After perusal of the record, on 10.12.2015 this Court granted time to file
supplementary counter affidavit placing on record all relevant facts and documents. Pursuant
thereto, a detailed supplementary counter affidavit has been filed.

7. It is relevant to note the contents of the supplementary counter affidavit, as it is a case of
compulsory retirement, the material available against the petitioner on record assumes important.

8. Supplementary counter affidavit indicates that vide office letter no. 4309 dated 3.3.1984 the
petitioner was given a warning for not complying the order of the officers; vide office letter no.
4206 dated 9.12.1986 the petitioner was directed to correct himself as he was not working properly;
vide office letter no. 2556 dated 2/3.7.1987 he was again warned for not taking interest in work;
vide office letter no. 1062 dated 9.3.1987 he was again warned that he is not taking interest in
work; vide office letter no. 1789 dated 24.4.1987 he was directed to meet the Principal of the
College but he did not come; vide office letter no. 318 dated 16.12.1987 the Incharge officer
(Electrical) informed the Principal of the college by means of a detailed complaint that he is not
attending the work and is habitual of remaining absent; he is also indiscipline person and all the
Incharge officers (Electrical) have made adverse remarks against him; apart from recommending
disciplinary action, it was also requested by him that he should be transferred to some other
medical college or place; vide office letter no. 992 dated 25.3.1988 the Principal of the College
attached him to the department of Chief Medical Superintendent; when he did not work properly,
the Chief Medical Superintendent vide its letter no. 980 dated 13.8.1990 released him from the
hospital, which was subsequently stayed on 1.9.1990; the Chief Medical Superintendent vide its
letter no. 2196 dated 23.5.1992 informed the Principal of the College that it is not possible to take
work from the petitioner because he has no administrative control over him; vide office letter no.
2412 dated 16.7.1994 the petitioner was again sent back to the Medical College after recalling his
attachment with the hospital; vide office letter no. 4151 dated 7.11.1994 the petitioner was again
issued a warning as he was not taking interest in work and was interfering in other official matters
and he was also warned that a disciplinary action may be taken against him; vide office letter no.
1235 dated 25.4.1995 because of his dissatisfactory working, he was removed from the electricity
department of the college and was attached to the Bhawan and Jal Kal Vibhag for running a tube
well; when the petitioner was found almost incurable, the Principal of the College vide office letter
no. 1044 dated 21/22.3.1996 wrote a letter to the Director General, Medical Education & Training,
Lucknow for transferring the petitioner to some other place; the petitioner by his application dated
25.9.1996 made a complaint against the Incharge officer of Bhawan and Jal Kal Anubhag; again
when he was not found to be working properly and was not behaving properly, his attachment to
the said anubhag was withdrawn and he was sent back to the electrical department; vide application
dated 10.2.1996 after retirement of the Deputy Superintendent, the petitioner moved for allotment
of the said house to him, whereupon since the petitioner was not eligible for the said
accommodation as he was only an Assistant Electrician and the official accommodation was for the
Deputy Superintendent of the Medical College, vide office letter no. 590 dated 16.2.1996 he was
informed that he is not eligible for the same; despite of the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner moved
another application dated 12.12.1996 that the rent of residence of the Deputy Superintendent be
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deducted from his salary on which vide office letter no. 5561 dated 27.12.1996 the petitioner was
warned against making all such correspondence; subsequently vide office letter no. 676 dated
27.2.1997 the petitioner was suspended from service; Dr. R.K. Gandhi, who was the Inquiry
Officer, issued him a charge-sheet; during pendency of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer
was threatened by the petitioner and, therefore, vide office letter no. 3517 dated 30.9.1997 he was
issued a warning; the petitioner had put a wooden kiosk inside the medical college campus and was
doing business, which could be removed with great difficulty; vide office letter no.3772 dated
27.10.1997 the petitioner was reinstated in service; vide office letter no. 268 dated 24.8.1998 the
petitioner was allotted a quarter no. 1/47 with a direction that the charge of house (official
residence of the Deputy Superintendent of the college), which he was occupying, be handed over
within a week; vide office letter no. 4368 dated 7.11.2001 he was warned against non-working and
that after making signature he goes away and provokes other employees also not to work; vide
office letter no. 262 dated 26.11.2011 he was again warned that after making signature he is not
working; a news item published in the newspaper dated 27.12.2001 is also on record to indicate
that the petitioner is running a cybercafe and canteen from the residence of the Deputy
Superintendent, which was occupied by him unauthorizedly and was not being vacated despite of
the specific directions and several warnings; a copy of the application dated 28.12.2001 was given
to the Principal of the College by the petitioner has been placed on record to indicate that some
persons have come to his residence and have broken the chairs, computer tables and computer
chairs, which indicates that the news published in the newspaper was correct to the extent that he
was running a cybercafe; vide office letter no. 1148 dated 5/6.5.2002 the petitioner was asked to
submit his explanation why he is not attending the duties despite of the specific directions whereas
he is putting his signatures in the attendance register and as such, his payment of salary for the
month was stopped; vide office letter no. 2427 dated 7.9.2002 the petitioner was again asked to
submit reply that after making his signatures in the attendance register, he is not attending the
duties and he was informed that in case no explanation is submitted, disciplinary action may be
taken against him but this letter was refused to accept by the petitioner; again on 3.9.2002 vide
office letter no. 203 Incharge Officer (Electricity) informed the Principal of the College that he is
not attending the work after making signatures; because of his not performing duties in the
electricity department of the college, vide office letter no. 1072 dated 3.3.2003 he was again
attached to the office of the Chief Medical Superintendent; vide office letter no. 1713 dated
21/23.6.2005 he was directed to deposit arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 6,94,429/- plus 12%
interest as directed by the Investigating Team, Allahabad on the report of Auditor General, UP,
Lucknow because of his unauthorized occupation of the residence of Deputy Superintendent; wife
of the petitioner had sent one speed post dated 17.6.2006, which contain only a blank paper and as
such, vide office letter no. 1781 dated 21.6.2006 she was informed as to why such kind of post was
sent by her and the petitioner was also warned that he should not correspond through his wife;
when the petitioner was demanding advance from GPF for repair of his house, vide office letter no.
2291 dated 29.7.2006 he was informed to supply details of the house which he has purchased and
submit any other official document to indicate for which house he is asking for such advance; one
Sri Ratan Lal Ahirwar, MLA of Babina had also written a letter dated 5.5.2015 to the Government
complaining that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the house and is running STD
booth and canteen; the Government, in turn, had asked the Principal of the College to submit his
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

773
report in this regard, which was submitted vide office letter no. 883 dated 30.3.2006 with a request
that the petitioner be transferred to some other place; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited had also
asked the petitioner vide its letter dated 10.9.2006 to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,977/- towards
payment of electricity charges; the petitioner, time and again vide office letter no. 4191 dated
28.11.2002, was specifically asked to vacate the house of Deputy Superintendent, which was in his
unauthorized occupation; since he did not vacate the house, a sum of Rs. 3781/- per month was
liable to be paid by him but since more than 50% of the salary could not have been deducted, a sum
of Rs. 1650/- was directed to be recovered from his salary and the balance amount was directed to
be recovered from his gratuity, pension and other retiral dues.

9. In paragraph 43 of the supplementary counter affidavit, certain other complaints have been
noticed. Thereafter in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985 as provided in
paragraph 7, the Financial Controller was asked to submit a report on the conduct of the petitioner,
who submitted his report dated 22.9.2008, which is annexure-29 to the supplementary counter
affidavit. A perusal of the aforesaid record clearly indicates that apart from noticing other facts, it
has also been noticed that the work and conduct of the petitioner was never satisfactory; he never
improved despite of various warnings and the news published in the newspaper; he had never
joined despite of the letter dated 29.8.2008 directing last opportunity to attend the office; he had
also not cooperated in the inquiry proceedings despite of the fact that a public notice was given in
the newspaper to be present to submit his explanation; as such the Financial Controller
recommended that since the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.1.1957 and his date of initial
appointment is 14.8.1981, he can be retired compulsorily after giving payment in lieu of three
months notice. The said report of the Financial Controller was accepted and consequently the order
dated 22.9.2008 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed by the Principal of
the College, which was published in the newspaper. All such documents as mentioned in the report
of the Financial Controller have been annexed collectively as Annexure-29 to the supplementary
counter affidavit.

10. In reply, a detailed supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed wherein documents
regarding recovery of rent from the petitioner; alleged reply given to the inquiry officer in the year
2008, which was allegedly refused by the Inquiry Officer; service book to indicate that the
petitioner was permitted to cross efficiency bar and various documents to indicate that he has
attended the work, have been annexed. He has also annexed copy of the reply submitted by him,
which was initiated against him in the year 1997 and ultimately his suspension order was recalled
and he was reinstated in service.

11. For the purpose of deciding the controversy in the present case as to whether there was
sufficient material on record against the petitioner on the basis of which he could have been retired
compulsorily, record has to be taken into consideration. The fact that the petitioner remained in
unauthorized occupation of the official residence of Deputy Superintendent of the Medical College,
to which he was not entitled being only an Assistant Electrician, is not in dispute; admitted
recovery of arrears of rent and penalty for his unauthorized occupation is also on record; initiation
of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the year 1997 is also not in dispute;
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
although the petitioner was reinstated in service, however, suffice to note that while replying
charge no. 3 of the charge-sheet dated 30.4.1997 at page 29 internal page 8 of the supplementary
rejoinder affidavit, it has been noticed in paragraph 3 that the petitioner has replied that for the
adverse entries made in his character roll in the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 he
was never informed separately in each year about such entries and the petitioner was informed
about these adverse entries vide letter no. 4206 dated 19.12.1986 intimating therein that he was
permitted to cross efficiency bar after three years and he claimed that this exercise was not correct
as he should have been informed about the adverse entries so that he could have represented against
the same; he further claimed that since he had already been awarded censure entry, as such no
further action can be taken against him as he cannot be punished twice for the same charge.
Therefore, it appears that there were adverse entries against the petitioner but even if the assertion
made by the petitioner that they were never communicated to him, is correct, the fact remains that
there were certain adverse entries against him.

12. A perusal of annexure-5 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, which includes a reply
under the RTI Act dated 27.9.2000 shows that the official residence allotted to Sri K.M. Saxena,
Deputy Superintendent of the college, the petitioner was given one room by Sri K.M. Saxena, the
then Deputy Superintendent in an unauthorized manner and for retaining the same the petitioner
filed a Suit No. 110 of 1996 on 17.3.1996 and, therefore, the Committee was formed to find out as
to whether Sri K.M. Saxena is continuing in occupation or not and what amount is payable. It was
recorded that Sri K.M. Saxena was not living in the house since 18.3.1996 and the petitionerDiwakar Purohit was found in unauthorized possession of the same. Recommendation to recover
the arrears of rent was also made.

13. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated
22.9.2008 of compulsory retirement by the respondent no. 2 (Principal, Maharani Laxmi Bai
Medical College, Jhansi) is mala fide, inasmuch as the same has been passed on being annoyed
with the petitioner having filed a contempt petition against him by wife of the petitioner and
summons having issued by the Human Rights Court/Additional District Judge, Jhansi. He further
submits that no public interest is involved in the retirement of the petitioner, inasmuch as there was
no adverse entry on last three years and no punishment has been awarded to the petitioner; the
impugned order was passed by the Principal in capacity of temporary Incharge Principal of the
College and as such, he has no right to pass order of compulsory retirement even if he was
confirmed as Principal of the college. As such, the order impugned herein is wholly illegal, unjust
and improper.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 to contend that there was no
adverse entry in the petitioner's record and without awaiting for conclusion of the inquiry officer
his services were dispensed with merely on the basis of allegations, which were not proved. He has
also relied on decisions of this Court in the case of Dwarika Singh vs. State of U.P. and another,
(2010) 2 UPLBEC 1587 and Sidheswar Mishra son of Raghunath Mishra vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2006 (9) ADJ 2007 in support of his argument.
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

775

15. For ready reference, Rules 56 (c), 2 and 2-A of Chapter IX of Compulsory Retirement of
Financial Hand Book are quoted as under:-

"56 (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) of Clause (b), the appointing
authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or
temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years
or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any
time after attaining the age of forty five years or after he has completed qualifying service for
twenty years.
(d).........
(i)..........
(ii)..........
.....................

(2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a
Government servant to retire under Clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration
any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to
excluded from consideration-

(a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to
cross any efficiency may or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive
capacity or on ad hoc basis; or

(b) ................

(c) ...............

(2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Col. J. N. Sinha and another, 1970 (2) SCC 458, wherein
powers of the authority under Rule 56 (j) was considered and it was held that the appropriate
authority has absolute right to retire the government servant. Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment
is quoted as under:-

"9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the
appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that
it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute
one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule.' one of which is
that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in 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 an 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. The 1st respondent
challenged the opinion formed by the government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has
failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion
formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the
government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in
public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights
acquired by him before retirement. 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 facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. -
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 a 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 organizations and more so in government
organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same.
Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant
and the interests of the public. 'While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant,
the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by
compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest."

(emphasis supplied)

17. He has further placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in
Yogendra Nath Tripathi Vs. Inspector General, CISF and others, 2008 (6) ALJ 57. Relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-

"In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the Fundamental Rules confer an
absolute right to retire an employee on the happening of certain events, namely, that the employee
attains the age of 50 years. Further, the Courts have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the
exercise of powers if it is arrived at bonafidely on the basis of the material available on the record.
Further, premature retirement is required to be made in public interest in the case where the
Government servant has outlived his utility or has become a dead wood. The conduct and the
performance of the Government servant is reflected in his service record which forms the basis of
consideration in public interest in the matter of premature retirement.

In the present case, the entire service record has been taken into consideration by the
authorities, including the adverse entries. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the adverse entries lost its sting, and could not be taken into consideration when
he was promoted after issuance of these censure entries, is patently erroneous. The Supreme Court
in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra) and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay
Kumar Jain (Supra) has clearly stated that the entire service is required to be taken into
consideration and that the vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out on the ground of
lapse of time. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the adverse entries was
for a limited period which came to an end upon its expiry and could not be considered while taking
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

777
action under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules is patently erroneous. The respondents have
categorically submitted in their counter affidavit that the entire service record was taken into
consideration and it was found that the petitioner was not found fit for further retention in service in
public interest on the basis of his poor service record. This fact has not been denied by the
petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit and the only ground urged is that no prudent man could form an
opinion of not finding the petitioner fit for service on the material available on the service record of
the petitioner.

In my opinion, since the petitioner has not denied the fact that the entire service record of
the petitioner was not considered and only the adverse entries was considered, consequently, the
Court is not inclined to go into a roving and fishing enquiry and it would be sufficient for this Court
to hold that the order was passed by the authority on forming an opinion that it was in public
interest to retire the petitioner prematurely and that the said order was passed on the subjective
satisfaction of the authority. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired under clause (j) of Rule 56 of
the Fundamental Rules." (Emphasis supplied)

18. A reference may also be made to Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules as considered in
the above noted decisions, which is quoted as under:-

"(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in the rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it
is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any
Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months'
pay and allowances in lieu of such notice."

19. A reference may also be made to a latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Babu Lal Jangir, 2013 (10) SCC
551. Paragraph 24 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-

"24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely
conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan
Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the
ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken
into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire
service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out
prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past
record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively.
What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come
to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public
interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of
the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in
spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in
public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee
"rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the
exercise of its limited power of judicial review."

27. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the order of compulsory retirement is neither
punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited
scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of
non application of mind, malafide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance of statutory
duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily, the government servant in terms of
service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bonafide opinion that compulsory
retirement is in public interest."

(emphasis supplied).

20. It is a settled law that the appropriate authority has the absolute power to retire a
government servant if it is in the public interest to do so. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. There is no requirement of giving
any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing in such matters. It is the satisfaction of the
appointing authority in the present that the services of the petitioner are no longer required in
public interest and he should not continue in public interest.

21. From perusal of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha (supra) and of Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation and
others Vs. Babu Lal Jangir (supra) clearly, it is the overall performance, on the basis of entire
service record is to be seen by the authority concerned and in spite of satisfactory performance, the
Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, if in the opinion of the
said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is
sufficient material on record to show that the employee rendered himself a liability to the institution
and there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial
review. It is a settled law that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic
and if is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer a very limited scope of judicial review is
available in such cases.

22. A reference may also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of
Baikuntha Nath Das and another vs. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another,
(1992) 2 SCC 299 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"(i) an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any
suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on 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.
4 All. Diwakar Purohit, Assistant Electrician Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

779

(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
favourable 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. The circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

(Emphasis supplied)

23. A reference may also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of State of
U.P. and another vs. Lalsaram, (2001) 3 SCC 389 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs
11 and 13 has observed as under:

"11.