BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS AND ANR. versus CHIEF DISTT. MEDICAL OFFICER, BARIPADA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 19-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS AND ANR. 
v. 
CHIEF DISTT._MEDICAL OFFICER, BARIPADA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1992 
B 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.) 
Civil Services-C. C.R.-Adverse remarks-Communication and non-
communication--Effect of-Action under Rule 56(!) of the Fundamental 
C Rules (Rule 71 of Orissa Service Code) whether to be delayed till the disposal 
of representation on adverse remarks. 
D 
Civil Services--Oris:ia Service Code, Rule 71 (Co"esponding to rule 56· 
(!) of the Fundamental Rules)-Compulsory retirement-Whether to be 
delayed till the disposal of representation on adverse remarks. 
Civil Services--Orissa Service Code-i?.ule 71-Compulsory retire-
ment-Principles of natural justice whether applicable-Whether pennissible 
on uncommunicated adverse remarks-courts' inteiference-Scope of 
. 
' 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 226-court's jurisdiction to inter-
E . Jere with order of compulsory retirement-Scope of-Principles of natural 
justice-Applicability of-Compulsory retirement whether pennissible on un-
communicated adverse remarks. 
F 
C.A.No. 869 of 1987 
On 15.3.1951, the appellant was appointed as a Pharmacist, which 
was then designated as compounder. On 13.2.1976 he was retired compul-
sorily by the Government under the first proviso to Snb-rule of Rnle 71 of 
the Orissa Service Code. 
G 
The appellant challenged the order by way of a writ petition in the 
High Court contending that the grder was the result of ill-will and malice 
the Chief District Medical Officer bore towards him; that his entire service 
was spot-less and that at llo time were any adverse entries in his confiden-
tial character rolls communicated to him. 
H 
The respondent- Government submitted that the decision to retire 
836 
BAIKUNIBA NATH v. MEDICAL OFFlCER 
837 
the petitioner compulsorily was taken by the Review Committee and not A 
by the Chief Medical Officer; that besides the remarks made in the 
confidential character rolls, other material was also taken into considera· 
lion by the Review Committee and that it arrived at its decision bonafide 
and in public interest which decision was accepted and approved by the 
Government. The allegation of malafides was denied. 
The High Court looked into the proceedings of the Review Commit· 
tee and the confidential character rolls of the appellant and dismissed the 
writ petition on the reasoning, that an. order of compulsory· retirement 
after putting in the prescribed qualifying period of service did not amount 
B 
to punishment; that the order was passed by the. state Government and C 
not by the Chief Medical Officer and that the petitioner has failed to 
.establish that remarks in the confidential character rolls were not duly 
and properly recorded. It held that the adverse remarks though not 
communicated, can yet be relied upon. Accordingly it held that the 
decision to retire was taken by the Review Committee on proper material 
and there were no grounds to interfere "ith its decision. 
D 
The present appeal by special lea>< was filed by the government 
servant against the decision of the High Court on the. questio·n, whether 
acting upon undisclosed material was a ground for quashing the order of 
compulsory retirement C.A.No. 870 of 1987 was also filed on similar facts. E 
It was contended ·by the appellant that since an order of compulsory 
retirement bad adverse effects upon the career and prospects of the 
government servant, the ortler should be passed in accordance with prin· 
ciples of natural justice; that before passing the order, a notice to show 
cause against the order proposed should be given to the government F 
servant; that the order of compulsory retirement was based upon uncom· 
municated adverse remarks and that the appellant was also not afforded 
an opportunity to make a representation against the same; and that as 
per the new concept of Article 14 adumbrated in Maneka Gandhi case, AIR 
1978 SC 579, any and every arbitrary action was open to judicial scrutiny. G 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : 1.01. What is normally required to be communicated is 
adverlie remarks-not every remark, comment or observation made in the 
confidential rolls. There may be any number of remarks, observations and H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(19921 I S.C.R. 
A 
comments, which do not constitute adverse remarks, but are yet relevant 
for the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a Rule corresponding to it. [8558-C] 
1.02. The adverse rema

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.