BRIJ BIHARI LAL AGARWAL versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 26-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
. ,. 
-
297 
BRIJ BIHARI LAL AGARWAL 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
November 26, 1980 
[R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Compuh.ory retirenient-Fundamental Rule 56(3) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Shashikya Sewak (Adhiwarshikya Ayu) Sanshodhnn Adhinlyam-Cotnpulsory 
retirement n1ade on the confidential reports froni the early years of service and 
also those not co1nmunicated at all to the employee, order of compulsory re-
A 
B 
tiren1ent is invalid-Value of confidential report, further explaint!d. 
C 
Allowing. the ~.ppeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : (1) The recommendation by the High Court regarding its satis-
faction that the appellant should be compulsorily retired, and the consequent 
order of the State Government, acting on that recommendation is invalid. The-
ccpy of an order-sheet dated 24th January, 1978 in Criminal Appeal No. 1021 
of 1972 containing serious criticism of the manner in which the· apJ>ellant had 
disposed of the sessions case was not communicated to him at all, although 
placed on the personal confidential file of the appellant. 
Further the two 
confidential reports made by two successive Chief Justices in respect of the 
appellant for OYerlapping periods ex facie do not agree with each other. One 
report dated 24th February, 1978 pertains to the year ending February, 1978 
and contains general observations favourable to the appellant or other dated 
12th July, 1978 pertains to the period 4th November, 1977 to March, 1978-
a good part of which period is covered by the first report-and the detailed 
evaluation shows that the appellant was an undesirable officer. [300E-H, 301A-D] 
( 2) The power to compulsory retire a Government 
servant is a po\.ver 
which may be exercised in various contingencies. 
[299B-CJ 
[Jnion of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791 and State of VIiar 
Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam [1978] 1 S.C.R. 521, referred to. 
( 3) Vv'hcn consid_ering the question of compulsory retirement, while it 
is 
no doubt de~ir<tblc to make an overall assessment of the: Government servant's 
record, more than ordinary value should be attached to the confidential reports 
pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. It is possible 
that a Government servant rr1ay possess a somewhat erratic record in the early 
years of ser\'ice, but with the passage of time he may have so greatly improved 
that it v,rould be of advantage to continue him in service up to the statutory 
age of superannuation. Whatever value the confidential reports of earlier years 
may possess, those pertaining to the later years are not only of direct relevance 
but also of utmost importance. [300C-E] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
R. L. Butail v. Union of India, (1971] 2 S.C.R. 55; Gurdial Singli Fiji v. 
H 
State of Punjab, [1979] 3 S.C.R. p. 518 and Union of India v. M. R. Reddy, 
[19801 J S.C.R. p. 736, followed. 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICT!ON : Civil 
Appeal 
No. 
3272 of 
1979. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
12-10-1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 
Misc. 
Petition 
No. 227 /79. 
B 
R.K. Garg, Miss Manisha Gupta -and M.S. Gupta for the Appe-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
llant. 
K.K. Venugopal, Mrs. A.K. Verma and K.J. John for Respondent 
No. 1. 
S.K. Gambhir for Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by 
PATHAK, J..-This appeal by special leave 1s directed agamst 
the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upholding an 
order compulsorily retiring the appellant from the post of District 
and Sessions Judge. 
The appellant, a member of the judicial service of Madhya Pmdesh, 
was promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge in April, 
1969. 
On 6th October, 1977 an order was made appointing him to 
a Selection Grnde post. 
He was thereafter appointed temporarily as 
Presiding Judge, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pra-
desh, Gwalior. 
On 28th September, 1979 
the State Government 
made an order under Fundameni'al Rule 56(3) of the M.P. Shashkiya 
Scwak (Adhiwarshika Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1976 purpor-
ting to retire the appellant in the public interest. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh -against the retirement order, but the writ petition was dis-
missed by the High Court on 12th October, 1979. 
Before the High 
Court the appellant did not dispute that there was power to compul-
sorily retire him under Fundamental Rule 56(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.