LexBALDEV RAJ CHADHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
430 I BALDEV RAJ CHADHA UNION OF INDIA & ORS. August 18, 1980. [ V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ. ]. F. R. Rule 56(j)(i)-·Compu[sory retirement-·Officer with continuous service of 14 years and crossing efficiency bar whether can be compulsorily retired-Appropriate authority-Retiring authority-Meaning of. The appellant, an accounts officer, was promoted and appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He was compulsorily retired . on 27 August, 1975 in the public interest under F. R. Ruic 56[i] [i] by the Accountant General. The appellant chellenged his premature retirement in the High Court by a Writ Petition which was dismissed in limine. In his appeal by Special Leave, the appellant challenged the order of retirement and argued that (i) the. Accountant General is not "appropriate· authority" within the meaning of the rule and (ii) the retirement was not in the public interest. The respondent contended that (i) the power of the appropriate authority in respect of accounts officers like the appellant . was vested in the Auditor General by Notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 19-1-1972 and (ii) the impugned order of compulsory retirement was made by the Accountant General on the basis of the recommendations dated 23-8-1975 of the Reviewing Committee. Allowing the appeal , HELD : An officer with continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar ani re1ching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five ·years immediately before the compulsory retirement cannot be cashiered on the score that Jong )ears ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. The order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the ~decision, had been :ignored and obsolete material, Jess relevent to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any .order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring wilfully or otherwise vital facts bearing on the decision is bad i.n Jaw. Likewise, any action irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon cannot be sustained. The Fundamental Rules govern the Central Civil Services and ensure the career security which is the sine qua non of contended service. But potential compulsory retire- ment under F. R. 56(j)(i) haunting the afternoon of official life injects an awesome uncer- tainty which makes even the honesi afraid, .the efficient tremble and almost everyone genuflect, and is not a happy prospeet for a Civil Servant too young to sit idle and too old to get a new job. A jetsam has no option but to become driftwood or join the other pro- fe'5i:>n where every:me, de>irable an:l undesirable, has a· chance. This deleterious latency BALDEV RAJ v. UNION 431 of F.R. 56GJ(i) is stressed to underscore the unwitting harm· to public interest it does in the name of public interest. Judicial monitoring becomes an un- pleasant necessity where power may be humour and a career may be a victim. [432 E-GT The order to retire must be passed only by the appropriate authority. That authority must form the· requisite opinion-not subjective satisfaction but -0bjective and bona fide and based on releva,nt material. The requisite opinion is that the retirement of the victim is in public interest not personal political -or other interest but solely governed by the int~rest, of public service. The Tight to retire is not absolutely, though so worded. [433 C-D] Since the A. G. has been clothed, from 29-11-1972 with power to appoint ·substantively Accounts Officers, he has become the appropriate authority for compulsory retirement even though the appellant had been appointed by the C & AG prior to 29-11-1972. In the light of the note which is part of the rule, read ·with the notification delegating the power to the A.G., there is no Haw in the order impugned. [434 A-BJ Ordinarily the appointing authority is also the dismissing authority but the position may be different where retirement alone is ordered. The specific provi- sion in the Note to FR 56 must bold good and Art. 311 is not violated either. Nor is there any discrimination, because retirement is a category different A B c from the punishment covered by Art. 311. [434 CJ D Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service. The Admini- stration, to be competent, must have s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.