C.D. AILAWADI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 01-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

C.D. AILAWADI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MARCH 1, 1990 
[RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
.• 
Civil Services-Fundamental Rules: Fundame1t,lai'Rules 56(j)(i) 
-Compulsory retirement-Object of rule-Assai/Mii'Qf of order-
··~ 
Grounds for-Order retiring appellant in public interest-Validity of. 
In a Writ Petition rded before this Court, the petitioner assailed 
the order of his compulsory retirement from service made under rule 
56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner contended that he was 
efficient, had clear and unblemished record of service and his character 
roll entries were excellent, and since no review has been made six 
months before he attained the age of 50 or completed thirty years of 
service nor he had been retired on the basis of review, he was entitled to 
continue upto the normal retirement age of 58. 
c 
D 
Ou behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the order of 
retirement was made in public interest after review and that the 
Committee bad concluded after reviewing complete record of service 
E 
and considering the quality of work on the whole, that the petitioner 
was not fit to be retained in public interest. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court, 
HELD: I. I Compulsory retirement under rule 56(j)(i) is not a 
F 
punishment as it does not take away any of the-past benefits. Chopping 
off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking 
rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. [786G I 
1.2 An aggrieved civil servant can cbollenge an order of 
compulsory retirement on the ground (i) that the requisite opinion has 
G 
not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; 
or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision. If the civil servaiit is able to 
establish that the order suffered from any of these infirmities, the Court 
has jurisdiction to quash the same. [786F-G I 
Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr., [1971] 1 SCR 791, 
H 
referred to. 
783 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant case, on the basis of the service record, the Commit-
tee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be 
useful and, therefore, should be retired prematurely. The petitioner has 
not placed any satisfactory material to prove that the decision was 
based on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of 
materials on record, the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The 
B 
service record of more than five years shows that the higher officers 
under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets 
of reviewing officers had also made the entries. Therefore, the replirts 
must be taken to have reflected an appropriate and objective assess-
ment of the performance of the petitioner. [786H; 787A-BJ 
c 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 58 of 1983. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Petitioner.. 
D 
V. C. Mahajan and L.K. Gupta for the Respondents. 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. In this application under Art. 32 of 
the Constitution, petitioner assails the order dated 5th September, 
'·
1975, of his compulsory retirement from service with effect from 5th of 
E 
December, 1975, made under rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. 
F 
G 
The impugned order ran thus: 
"WHEREAS the Director of Audit, Defence Services, New 
Delhi (appropriate authority) is of the opinion that it is in 
the public interest to do so, 
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred 
by clause (j)(i) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the 
Director of Defence Services (appropriate authority) 
hereby gives notice to Shri C.D. Ailawadi, Audit Officer, 
Defence Services that he, having already attained the age 
of 50 years on the 22nd November, 1969, shall retire from 
service with effect from the forenoon of the 4th of 
December, 1975, or from the date of expiry of three 
months computed from the date of the service of this notice 
on him, whichever is later." 
H 
The petitioner has pleaded that he was efficient and had risen 
C.D. AILAWADI v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 
785 
\'r 
from the rank of a Clerk to the post of Audit Officer in which he was 
A 
confirmed with effect from 3.12.1968. According to him, he had clear 
and unblemished record of service. He had held independent charge of 
the senior post of Deputy Director of Audit and had been paid an 
additional amount of Rs.100 per month for the period. He also alleged 
that his charac

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