# Salig Ram v. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 417
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-05-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16308 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/salig-ram-v-the-labour-commissioner-u-p-kanpur-and-others-40387
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Rule
56
(c)-
Constitution of India, Article 226, U.P.
Servant
(Disposal
of
Representation
Against
Adverse
Annual
Confidential
Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995R.4-Compulsory
Retirement-Non
communication
of
adverse
entriesPetitioner's
representations
against
adverse
entries
not
decided
in
accordance with law-Non application of
mind
by
Competent
authority-Non
consideration
of
previous
and
subsequent entries in ACR-Screening
Committee not report about petitioner's
utility after assessing his work and
conduct-Hence opinion of appointing
authority to retire him in public interest,
held,
vitiated-Further,
Dy.
Labour
Commissioner was prejudiced against
petitioner-Allegations of malafide held,
proved against him-Impugned orders set
aside.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the
petitioner's
representations
against
adverse entries were not decided in
accordance with law. The competent
authority did not applied his mind and
that the manner and method in which
the representations were decided was
arbitrary and unfair. The Screening
Committee did not consider the previous
and subsequent entries in the annual
confidential roll of the officer and only
raised a question on the assessment of
his work and utility to the department.
It did not positively report about his
utility after assessing his entire work
and conduct and thus the opinion of the
appointing authority to retire him inn
public interest was not justified and is
vitiated. I further find that Sri Ram
Singh was prejudiced against petitioner
and allegations of malafides are proved
against him.

Para 29
Case law discussed:
(1992) 2 SCC 299
AIR 1971 SC 40
(1970) 2 SCC 876
AIR 1992 SC 1020
(1993) 2 SCC 179
AIR 2001 SC 1109

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
417
and requires no interference in the present
appeal.

8. The appeal, thus, having no force
is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.5.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16308 of 2002

Salig Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Financial Hand Book, Vol. II Part II to
IV-Fundamental
Rule
56
(c)-
Constitution of India, Article 226, U.P.
Servant
(Disposal
of
Representation
Against
Adverse
Annual
Confidential
Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995R.4-Compulsory
Retirement-Non
communication
of
adverse
entriesPetitioner's
representations
against
adverse
entries
not
decided
in
accordance with law-Non application of
mind
by
Competent
authority-Non
consideration
of
previous
and
subsequent entries in ACR-Screening
Committee not report about petitioner's
utility after assessing his work and
conduct-Hence opinion of appointing
authority to retire him in public interest,
held,
vitiated-Further,
Dy.
Labour
Commissioner was prejudiced against
petitioner-Allegations of malafide held,
proved against him-Impugned orders set
aside.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the
petitioner's
representations
against
adverse entries were not decided in
accordance with law. The competent
authority did not applied his mind and
that the manner and method in which
the representations were decided was
arbitrary and unfair. The Screening
Committee did not consider the previous
and subsequent entries in the annual
confidential roll of the officer and only
raised a question on the assessment of
his work and utility to the department.
It did not positively report about his
utility after assessing his entire work
and conduct and thus the opinion of the
appointing authority to retire him inn
public interest was not justified and is
vitiated. I further find that Sri Ram
Singh was prejudiced against petitioner
and allegations of malafides are proved
against him.

Para 29
Case law discussed:
(1992) 2 SCC 299
AIR 1971 SC 40
(1970) 2 SCC 876
AIR 1992 SC 1020
(1993) 2 SCC 179
AIR 2001 SC 1109

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for respondents.

2. Sri Ram Singh, Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Ghaziabad was impleaded
as party respondent in both the writ
petitions. He has filed his counter
affidavit dated 24.1.2004 in writ petition
No. 16308 of 2002.

3. In Writ Petition No. 16308 of
2002, the petitioner who was serving as
Labour Enforcement Officer in the office
of Labour Commissioner, U.P. has prayed
for quashing adverse entries awarded to
the petitioner for the years 1996-97, 1997-
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
418
98 and 1998-99 (for three months mid
term), the order dated 6.4.2002 by which
the Additional Labour Commissioner,
U.P. had communicated to the petitioner
that his representation against the adverse
entries of the years 1996-97,1997-98 and
1998-99 has been dismissed by the
Labour Commissioner, U.P., and the
order dated 19.3.2002 (challenged by an
amendment application) by which the
Labour Commissioner, U.P. had rejected
the representation. In writ petition No.
20209 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed
for quashing the order dated 24.4.2002
passed by Labour Commissioner, U.P.,
Kanpur retiring the petitioner from
service
compulsorily
and
the
consequential
order
dated
27.4.2003
forwarding the copy of the order dated
24.4.2002 passed by Additional Labour
Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly
and has also prayed for treating him in
service and to pay regular salary month
by month. The petitioner had attained the
age of 52 years at the time when he was
compulsorily retired.

Brief facts as stated in the writ
petition are given as below:

4. The petitioner was appointed as a
clerk in the Labour Department of the
State on 4.11.1977. He was selected by
U.P. Public Service Commission and was
appointed
as
Labour
Assistant
on
18.1.1981 and was promoted as Housing
Inspector
on
11.8.1987.

He
was
thereafter
promoted
as
Labour
Enforcement Officer on 28.9.1975 by an
order passed by the Labour Commissioner
in the pay scale of Rs.5000-7000 on a
non-gazetted class III post. The then
Deputy Labour Commissioner Bareilly
Sri Ram Singh transferred the petitioner
from Bareilly to Gorakhpur. The
petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 171 of
1997 against the transfer order dated
19.12.1996. This Court vide interim
order dated 9.1.1997 stayed the transfer
order. The Court noted the arguments
that the transfer in quick succession with
proper
justification
is
nothing
but
malafide and that the petitioner was
transferred four times in a year. The
transfer order dated 19.12.1996 was
directed to be kept in abeyance till further
orders. The petitioner serve the stay order
upon Sri Ram Singh on 9.1.1997 and
made a complaint on 7.2.1997 alleging
that after receiving the order of the High
Court Sri Ram Singh had abused the
petitioner and used improper language
against the Judges of the High Court. It
was also alleged in the complaint that Sri
Ram Singh has not treated him properly
and humiliates him by using cast relating
aspersions and threats.

5. A notice was issued to the
petitioner by Sri Ram Singh on 17.2.1997
to show cause with regard to the
allegations made by the petitioner against
him in his letter dated 7.2.1997 and to
give parawise reply to the letter. The
show cause notice alleged that on
5.1.1997 both Sri Ram Singh Deputy
Labour Commissioner and the petitioner
were on leave and that the petitioner had
made false allegations with regard to the
talks between them. The petitioner gave a
reply to this show cause notice on
21.2.1997 reiterating the allegations. In
para 3 it was submitted that the date of the
talks
between
them
was
wrongly
mentioned as 5.1.1997 by a typing
mistake whereas this date was 5.10.1997
and once again alleged that Sri Ram
Singh has not been treating petitioner
fairly,
and
was
prejudiced
with
petitioner's caste.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
419

6. It is stated in the writ petition that
Sri
Ram
Singh
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
was
transferred
from
Bareilly to Kanpur on 9.8.1998 and that
before his transfer he gave adverse entries
to the petitioner which were after thought
and ante dated. These entries relate to the
period 1997-98 (1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998)
communicated on 17.10.1998 to which
the
petitioner
gave
his
reply
on
28.11.1998. The second adverse entry
relate to the period 1996-97 (22.7.1996 to
31.3.1997) dated 30.6.1997 which was
served on the petitioner on 8.2.1999
against which he sent representation on
6.3.1999 and the third entry dated
7.7.1999 relates to the period 1.4.1998 to
8.7.1998
(mid
term)
which
was
communicated
to
the
petitioner
on
30.8.1999 and against this entry the
petitioner
made
his
representation
18.9.1999.

7.

The
petitioner
has
made
allegations of malafides against Sri Ram
Singh. It is contended that all these
adverse
entries
should
have
been
communicated to the petitioner within 45
days in accordance with Rule 4 of the
U.P. Government Servant (Disposal of
Representation
Against
the
Adverse
Annual Confidential Reports and Allied
Matters) Rules, 1995 (in short Rules of
1995), made under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India, and
published on 10th July, 1995. By a letter
dated 6.4.2002 of the Additional Labour
Commissioner, Kanpur the petitioner was
communicated with the order of rejection
of his representations by the Labour
Commissioner, U.P. dated 19.3.2002. In
para 26 of the writ petition it is stated that
the representations made by the petitioner
to the aforesaid entries on 28.11.19989,
6.3.1999 and 18.9.1999 were decided by
the Labour Commissioner on 19.3.2002,
much after the period of 120 days from
the date of expiry of 45 days of receipt of
the representation under sub rule (3) and
sub rule (4) to Rule 4 of the Rules of
1995. It is contended that according to
Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995, except as
provided under rule 56 of the U.P.
Fundamental Rules, where adverse report
is not communicated or representation
against adverse report has not been
disposed of in accordance with Rule 4,
such report shall not be treated as adverse
for the purposes of promotion, crossing of
efficiency bar, and other service matters
of the government servant.

8.

A
Screening
Committee
consisting of Labour Commissioner, U.P.,
two Additional Labour Commissioners,
the Director of Factories, U.P. and two
Deputy Labour Commissioners, in its
meeting dated 23.3.2002, under the
Chairmanship of Labour Commissioner,
U.P. considered the character roll of all
those employees who had completed 50
years of age on 31.3.2002 for compulsory
retirement. The Committee found that
there are 47 employees against whom,
there are warning/adverse entries out of
whom 7 had received adverse entries of
serious nature. The petitioner was
considered at Sl. No. 6. The proceedings
of the Committee have been annexed as
annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit of
Sri
A.K.
Gupta,
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner. The Committee found,
while considering the matter petitioner Sri
Salig Ram that he had received adverse
entries in the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and
1998-99 in which notes have been made
with regard to his work and conduct and
his integrity has not been certified. A
consideration of these adverse entries
shows that the petitioner has failed to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
420
fully
discharge
his
duties
and
responsibilities which has put a question
mark on the utility of the petitioner to the
department and thus the committee
recommended to retire him compulsory.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid
assessment of the Screening Committee,
the Labour Commissioner, U.P. by his
order
dated
24.4.2002
retired
the
petitioner compulsorily in public interest
under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of
Financial hand Book Vol. II part II to IV
making him entitled to three months
salary in lieu of notice.

10. Sri Anil Bhushan counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was
promoted as Labour Enforcement Officer
in the year 1995. The adverse entries of
the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99
which have been made the basis of
compulsory
retirement
were
communicated to the petitioner against
which he made representations within 45
days under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules of
1995.

These
representations
were
pending for a long period of time and
were decided on 19.3.2002, just on the
eve
of
meeting
of
the
screening
committee dated 23.3.2004, in which
recommendation was made to retire him
compulsorily. He submits that the entries
were not based on the relevant material
and that Sri Ram Singh was prejudiced
against the petitioner in giving these
adverse entries after he was transferred
from Bareilly. He has alleged malafide
against Sri Ram Singh and has submitted
that these entries were back dated to
punish the petitioner in the incident in
which the petitioner had served the
interim order of this Court on him on
5.2.1997 and for which Sri Ram Singh
had given him show cause notice on
17.2.1997.

11. Sri Anil Bhushan has also
challenged these entries on merits and
submits that these entries relate to the
assessment of the work and were not of
serious nature or consequences or for any
misconduct.

12. Sri Anil Bhushan states that the
entry for the year 1996-97 for the period
22.7.1996 to 31.3.1997, Sri Ram Singh,
Deputy Labour Commissioner observes
that on the basis of 5% randum, 43
establishment, related to the area allotted
to the petitioner out of which 12
establishment were reported to be closed
and inspections were made with regard to
13 establishment in which 6 prosecutions
and 2 cases for directions were registered.
Out of the allotted establishment 18
establishments were not inspected. With
regard to inspection of Agricultural
establishment
250
inspections
were
shown but not a single case for direction
was registered. The officer did not
produce the list of the establishments
inspected by him to the office. The diary
from November, 1996 to March, 1997 has
been produced on a single day on
3.6.1997. The report of inspection of
unorganized rural area has not been given.
The behavior of the officer towards the
officers was not proper and he makes
unnecessary complaints against him. The
integrity was with held and the category
of work was reported to be bad.

13. With regard to the entry of the
year 1996-97, the petitioner in his
representation dated 6.3.1999 to the
Labour Commissioner submitted that this
entry has been communicated to him after
two years in violation of the Rules of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
421
1995. Sri Ram Singh is prejudiced against
the petitioner, as he has given him a show
cause notice on petitioner's complaint in
the incident when the petitioner had
served a copy of the stay order of the
High Court staying his transfer on Sri
Ram Singh. On the assessment of work
the petitioner submitted, that on the
randum list only 25 establishments were
allotted to him which were inspected by
him. With regard to other establishments
no explanation was offered nor they are
related to the petitioner's are. All the
inspections were reported in the daily
diary. There was no requirement or order
to produce the list in the office. The
petitioner had made 19 inspections in
August, 1996, 37 in September, 32 in
October,
35
in
November,
60
in
December, 30 in February, 1997 and 37 in
March, 1997 and thus 250 inspections
were made and the diary was produced
before
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner Sri S.K. Nigam, who used
to summon the diary whenever he found it
necessary. The petitioner did not produce
the diary directly before the Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
as
no
such
instructions were given to him. Petitioner
had initiated 35 prosecutions and 63 cases
for directions out of the total number of
302 inspected units. The other allegations
were absolutely false as there was no
material for any misbehavior with senior
officers.

14. In respect of the adverse entry
for the year 1997-98, he submits that this
entry reported, that the petitioner made
264 inspections with regard to Minimum
Wages Act in the Agricultural sector, but
no case was registered. The officer did
not produce the prescribed diary for the
year 1997, nor made inspection notes
available to the office, and that the list of
the inspected units which was produced
only after the office required the list. For
the months of October, November,
December,
1997
and
January
and
February, 1998, the inspection notes
disclosed that some of the inspection
notes in respect of establishment in
between the list were given and no
satisfactory answer was given for the
same. In this assessment it was observed
that the petitioner was grossly negligent
towards his duties and in compliance with
the orders of the officers and that he has
been making complaints against the
officers.
The
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner Sri Ram Singh did not
certify the integrity for the year and
reported that his work and conduct was
bad. The report was accepted by the
Additional Labour Commissioner. The
petitioner's representation against this
entry dated 28.11.1998 states that he was
transferred from Kotdwar (Garhwal) to
Bareilly and joined on 22.7.1996, but he
was again transferred to Mall Road,
Gorakhpur and that since he had suffered
three previous transfers within one year
he filed writ petition in which interim
order was passed by this Court. He
reiterated the incident with regard to
service of stay order on Sri Ram Singh.
With regard to the assessment of work,
the petitioner submitted, that in all 264
inspections
he
found
that
the
establishments were paying more than
minimum wages and that no case was
filed. The petitioner had produced the
diary for the period after May 1997 to Sri
S.K.
Nigam,
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner and that Sri Nigam has
made signatures on these diaries. The
entries certifies that the entire list was
produced. He had made inspection in
respect of the entire period and the office
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
422
did not make any comment in pointing
out any deficiency in the inspection note.

15. It is contended that for the year
1998-99 the period under assessment was
three months beginning from 1.4.1998 to
9.7.1998, and that the basis of this entry
was the assessment work of previous two
years. It was reported by Sri Ram Singh
on 7.7.1999, after about one year, that the
petitioner deliberately did not submit his
work for assessment. His work and
conduct in previous two years was not
proper and that he had no knowledge of
the Labour Rules and was irresponsible
towards his work and that the non
production
of work
for
assessment
amounts to disobedience. In this year
integrity was found doubtful and work
and conduct reported to be bad which was
accepted by the Additional Labour
Commissioner.

16. With regard to this entry, the
petitioner in his representation dated
18.9.1999 denied that he had not
produced his work for assessment. The
petitioner stated that the entry was for
only three months and that he had
submitted entire work for assessment
before
the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner within time. He denied
that his conduct and behavior was bad and
that he did not know Labour Rules. In all
the meetings, his work and behavior as
well
as
knowledge
of
rules
was
appreciated
by
senior
officers
and
specially
by
Sri
Shaym
Krishna,
Additional Labour Commissioner. There
was no incident of any misbehavior and
that his work for the year 1998-99 was
assessed subsequently by the Additional
Labour Commissioner. The petitioner
submitted that there was no justification
to withholding the integrity and that on
account of the prejudice and malafides the
adverse entry was given to him.

17. A report was submitted by Sri
D.K.
Kanchan,
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
to
the
Labour
Commissioner on 18.3.2002. This report
was prepared for assisting the Labour
Commissioner for disposing of all the
three
representations
made
by
the
petitioner.
The
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner in his report annexed to the
counter affidavit of Sri Ram Singh dated
24.1.2004 filed on 29.1.2004 reports in
respect of the entry for the year 1996-97
that the list of allotment of work shows
that the petitioner did not discharge his
duties. The fact that petitioner stated in
his
representation
that
it
was
not
necessary
to
produce
the
list
of
inspection, and the cases registered of
direction, unless it was demanded, by
itself shows that he was disobeying the
orders and was careless in performing
government duties. He observed that the
report
of
the
Additional
Labour
Commissioner Sri S.K. Nigam shows that
the diary was not produced before him.
With regard to the adverse entry for the
year 1997-98, the officer reported that the
work of the officer in totality was not
found to be good inasmuch as he did not
try to improve his work for which he was
given suggestion in the previous year, and
thus indirectly it is found that he did not
care to comply with the orders. It was
reported that since in the previous year,
no justification was found to expunge the
entry, the same is being treated valid also
in the year 1997-98.

18. In respect of the year 1998-99
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
observed in his note that the details of
work produced by him did not bear the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
423
date or signature. It cannot be ascertained
whether it was produced in time or were
prepared subsequently. He has not
produced any document or material with
regard to appreciation of his work by Sri
Shyam
Krishna,
Additional
Labour
Commissioner, and since there was no
ground to interfere in respect of last two
entries, with regard to the allegations
against Deputy Labour Commissioner. It
was observed that the nature of allegation
establish insubordination and thus there is
no justification for expunging the entry of
the year 1998-99.

19. The Labour Commissioner has
put his initials just below the signature
name and designation of Deputy Labour
Commissioner dated 19.3.2002. There is
nothing to show that he had applied his
mind or had even read the report as there
is no comment made by him on this
report. He has not even cared to write
that he had perused the report or is in
agreement with the report. The making of
initials below the report does not support
the assertion made in the counter affidavit
that the Labour Commissioner, who was
competent
authority
to
decide
the
representation had applied his mind or
had rejected the representation. It is
contended that the order of the Labour
Commissioner
indicating
that
the
petitioner's representations were rejected
was not based on any application of mind
by the Labour Commissioner.

20. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that the representations were
decided before the screening committee
considered the effect of the adverse
entries. The initials made by the Labour
Commissioner dated 19.3.2002 just below
the
report
of
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner
dated
18.3.2002
established that the Labour Commissioner
had considered and had approved the
report. It is submitted that the procedure
provided in the Rules of 1995 are
directory in nature and that delay in
deciding the representation does not
vitiate the exercise of power and that the
sting of the entries is not reduced for the
purpose of taking decision for compulsory
retirement. The time frame given in the
rules of 1995 is directory in nature.
Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon
the Judgment of Supreme Court in
Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992)2
SCC
299
in
submitting
that
uncommunicated entries can also be
relied upon for compulsory retirement,
which is not a punishment and that the
law of compulsory retirement is well
settled.

21. I have considered the entries, the
representation, the note prepared by the
Deputy Labour Commissioner to assist
the Labour Commissioner in disposing of
the representations, and the report of the
screening committee, as well as the
allegations of malafide made against Sri
Ram Singh and the reply of Sri Ram
Singh filed in these proceedings. Before
proceeding to discuss the same, it will be
relevant to refer to the developments in
law relating to the compulsory retirement.
The order of compulsory retirement is not
an order of punishment. In Union of
India Vs. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40,
R.L. Butail Vs. Union of India, (1970) 2
SCC 876, Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief
District Medical Officer, Baripada AIR
1992 SC 1020, Union of India Vs. Dulal
Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179, it was held that it
is prerogative of the Government based
on the subjective satisfaction of the
government to retire a government
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
424
servant in public interest. The principle
of which the order can be subjected to
judicial review have been laid down in
Bainkunth Nath Das Case. These are
quoted as below:
"
(i)
An
order
of
compulsory
retirement is not a punishment. It implies
no
stigma
or
any
suggestion
of
misbehavior.

(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.

(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. The circumstances by
itself cannot be a basis for interference."

In State of Gujrat Vs. Umedbhai
M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, the
Supreme Court held that where there was
no material and there were no adverse
entries in confidential record and that the
respondent
had
successfully
crossed
efficiency bar at the age of 50 years as
well as 55 years and was placed under
suspension pending disciplinary enquiry,
the State Government had sufficient time
to complete the enquiry. The Review
Committee did not recommend the
compulsory retirement and that the
respondents having less than two years of
retirement, the order of compulsory
retirement was passed on extraneous
reasons. The authorities should have
waited for the conclusion of enquiry and
could not have decided to dispense the
services of respondent merely on the basis
of allegation which were not proved on
record.

22. In the present case the record
shows that the petitioner was transferred
three times in the year 1996. He
challenged his order of transfer from
Bareilly to Gorakhpur, in this Court and
that this Court in writ petition No. 171 of
1997 stayed the order on the allegation of
malafides. The petitioner made a
complaint to Sri Ram Singh who was
serving as Deputy Labour Commissioner
Bareilly with regard to incident in which
he had gone to serve a copy of the order
upon him. On the basis of this complaint
Sri Ram Singh had given a show cause
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Salig Ram V. The Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and others
425
notice to the petitioner on 17.2.1997. In
his counter affidavit Sri Ram Singh has
denied the allegations against him with
regard to the incident. In para 10 he
further admits that he had given a show
cause notice to the petitioner to which he
had received a reply but the proceedings
were not concluded. There is nothing on
record to indicate as to what happened in
the proceedings of show cause notice
dated 21.2.1997 given by Sri Ram Singh
to the petitioner. The same officer gave
three adverse entries against the petitioner
dated 30.6.1997, 26.6.1998 and 7.7.1999
out of which last two entries were given
while sitting at Kanpur in respect of the
years 1996-97 (part), 1997-98 and 199899(part). All these entries relate only to
the assessment of work. The substance of
these entries is that the petitioner is not
carrying out the number of inspections
required from him; did not initiate
sufficient number of prosecutions and did
not produce the list of inspection before
him. On the basis of these assessment he
concluded that the officer is negligent in
performance
of
his
duties
and
responsibilities.

23. The entries do not show that
there were any allegation of misconduct,
misbehavior, or any complaint was
received against the petitioner. Apart
from the assessment of work which
includes the assessment inspections, and
the production of diary and the list of
establishment, there was no material to
conclude that the petitioner's work and
conduct was not satisfactory. There was
no reported incident to suggest that the
petitioner had misbehaved with officers. I
find that there was absolutely no reason
given, nor there was any material
whatsoever to withhold the integrity of
the petitioner. There was no other
adverse entry on the service record of the
petitioner except the three subject entries
which were all given by Sri Ram Singh
against whom there was a previous
background and in which Sri Ram Singh
had admitted that he had given show
cause notice to the petitioner. The
petitioner was promoted in the year 1995.
The screening committee did not even
care to consider or to even refer to the
previous entries of the petitioner and the
service record. The representation against
the adverse entries were pending for two
years. All these representations were
decided in a hurry just on the eve of the
meeting of the screening committee. The
Deputy Labour Commissioner in his note
for assisting the Labour Commissioner for
disposing of the entries, did not meet the
grounds taken by the petitioner in
challenging the adverse entries. He relied
upon a report of Sri Nigam which was not
given to the petitioner. With regard to the
allegations of malafides, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner observed that these
allegations amount to insubordination.
He did not find it proper either to
establish it or to call for reply from Sri
Ram Singh before submitting his note to
the Labour Commissioner.

24. The initials made by the Labour
Commissioner on 19.3.2002 on the report
of the Deputy Labour Commissioner
dated 18.3.2002 do not show application
of mind at all. These initials do not
establish that he has either read the report,
or had gone through the record. The
manner and method in which the
representations were decided after about
two years in violation of the Rules of
1995 and just a few days before the
meeting of screening committee shows a
mechanical approach which does not
serve the principles of natural justice and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
426
fair play. Learned Standing Counsel is
correct in his submission that even
uncommunicated
entries
can
be
considered and where the representations
have not been decided, the entries along
with representation can also be considered
by the Screening Committee, but where
the representations have been decided
without application of mind, and there are
allegations of malafide which have not
been considered and replied by persons
against whom these allegations have been
made, and that the proceedings in show
cause notice given to the petitioner were
not concluded, establish the allegations of
malafide.

25. There was no complaint or
material before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner to with hold the integrity
of the petitioner in the subject three
assessment. The word 'integrity' has been
defined in Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary as firm adherence to a code of
esp moral arstistic value in corruptibility
and is a synonym of honesty. In order to
withhold integrity or not to certify
integrity of an officer, there must be
positive
material
to
arrive
at
the
conclusion. The Government Orders
dated 28.12.1959, 7.10.1966, 3.7.1979,
15.12.1980, 16.5.1981 give the guidelines
for with holding integrity certificates. A
perusal of these Government Orders show
that the award and withholding of
integrity certificate is an integral part of
annual confidential report of the work and
conduct of Government Servant. The
object of granting integrity certificate is to
root out and eradicate corruption. This
function is to be discharged with great
care. There should be no disposition to
deal with it in a casual or mechanical
fashion. If the reputation of Government
Servant regarding his integrity is bad, the
prescribed integrity certificate must be
prepared and filled in. The consequence
of with holding integrity or not certifying
the integrity are very serious. By
Government Order dated 7.10.1966, it
was provided that all those cases where
integrity has been withheld twice, must be
referred to Administrative Tribunal and in
addition the increment must be stopped.

There must be positive material on
record
to
support
and
justify
the
withholding or for not certifying the
integrity of a government servant and
such report should not be given casually.
A proper enquiry should be made with
regard to the circumstances which may
lead to give such an entry and where the
officer is at fault prompt departmental
action should be taken. The integrity
should not be withhold or the certification
refused on the ground of suspicion or
negligence and slackness in work. It
means some thing more than assessment
of work and has a closed relation with the
honesty of the person. Whereever the
integrity is withheld or not certified, the
report must be based upon the material,
and sufficient indication of such material
must be given in recording such an entry.

26. The report of the screening
committee shows that they considered
only these three last entries. They did not
care to find out, the previous entries of the
officer or the entries subsequent to the
years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The
assessment records that Salig Ram,
Labour Enforcement Officer completely
failed to discharge his duties and
responsibilities of the post held by him,
which puts a question mark on his utility
to the department. I am not in complete
agreement with the submission of Sri Anil
Bhushan that such an assessment which
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Km. Supriya Chaturvedi V. State of U.P. and others
427
does not affirmatively considers or
recognizes about the work and conduct
and only raises a doubt cannot be relied
upon to retire a person in public interest.
The object of the compulsory retirement
is chop off dead wood and to give
honorable farewell to the employee before
his retirement without causing stigma
upon him. Such a farewell cannot be
given on only raising a doubt on his
ability to work.

27. A consideration of entries given
to the petitioner shows that the officer
recording the entries was not satisfied
with the petitioner's work. That by itself
is not a ground to hold that the petitioner
had become a dead wood, and had lost his
utility to the department. The failure to
initiate required number of prosecution,
directive and for timely production of
diary before senior officer could not be a
ground to retire him in public interest.

28. For the aforesaid reasons, I find
that the petitioner's representations against
adverse entries were not decided in
accordance with law. The competent
authority did not applied his mind and
that the manner and method in which the
representations
were
decided
was
arbitrary and unfair. The Screening
Committee did not consider the previous
and subsequent entries in the annual
confidential roll of the officer and only
raised a question on the assessment of his
work and utility to the department. It did
not positively report about his utility after
assessing his entire work and conduct and
thus the opinion of the appointing
authority to retire him inn public interest
was not justified and is vitiated. I further
find that Sri Ram Singh was prejudiced
against petitioner and allegations of
malafides are proved against him.

29. Both the writ petitions are
consequently allowed. The adverse
entries to the petitioner for the years
1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the
order
dated
19.3.2002
as
well
as
communication
of
the
order
dated
6.4.2002
rejecting
petitioner's
representations against adverse entries
and the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by
the
Labour
Commissioner,
U.P.
compulsorily retiring petitioner in public
interest and the consequential letter dated
27.4.2002 are set aside. The petitioner
shall be given continuity of service and
with all consequential benefits. The
petitioner
is
also
held
entitled
to
Rs.5,000/- as costs of these two writ
petitions.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.5.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 607 of 2004

Km. Supriya Chaturvedi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Practice
and
Procedure-Maxium-'Dura
Lex Sed Lex'- Explained-law and equity-
Equity to supplement laws not the law to
supplant it the equity-In case of conflict
between law and equity- law will prevail.