D. RAMASWAMI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 28-01-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

75 
D. RAMASWAMI 
v. 
STATB OF TAMIL NADU 
• 
January 28, 1982 
(0. Cl!INNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.) 
Service matter-Fundamental Rule 56 (d}-Government Servant earned 
quick,promotiona solely on merit-One adverse entry in confidential file-Exonera-
ted after full enquiry-Promoted to selection post-No adverse entry since then-. 
Compulsorily retired under F. R. 56 ( d) within a few months thereafter-Validity 
of. 
Starting as a Lower Division Clerk in · 1953, by quick successive promo-
tions the appeUant rose to the prCstigious position of a n1ember of the Sales Tax 
.Appellate Tribunal in 1ess than 25 years of service. His service book showed 
A 
B 
c 
that he had an excelJent record of service, earned several encomiums, commenda-
D 
tions and appreciations. But a solitary entry made .in 1969 in his confidential file 
stated that his reputation was "not at all good'' in that he was in lhe habit of 
threatening- dealers and taking money from tl}ern. An enquiry was conducted by 
the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. After framing charges and 
obtaining his explanation the full Board of Revenue reported that the charges 
"could not be pursued and proved" and suggested that "the charges be dropped". 
Jn November 1974 the Government dropped the charges. A few months later in 
E 
May 1975 he was promoted to the selection post of Deputy Commissioner of 
Commercial Taxes and posted as Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 
Immediately thereafter in September 1975, invoking F. R. 56 (d), he was compul-
sorily retired from service: 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : In "the face of the appellant's promotion a few months before his 
compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (d) and nothing even mildly suggestive of 
ineptitude or inefficiency after his promotion, it is impossible to sustain the order 
of the Government retiring him from service. (79 G] 
When the Government exonerated hii:n_ of the chafges levelled against him, 
the basis of the adverse entry in his confidential file was knocked out. By reason 
of the proffiotion of the selection post of Deputy Commissioner and posting as a 
Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the effect of the entry was further 
blotted out. Since then, there was no adverse entry in his service record to 
discredit him or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a 
Government servant. Had there been another adverse entry after his promotion 
it would have been possible to read them all in conjunction and say that it was 
time for him to quit Government service. But that was not so. It was therefor€; 
odd that he was retired a few months after his promotion. [79 A-CJ 
F 
G 
H 
- A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1982] 3 s.c.R. 
A11 this is not to say that previous history of a Government servant 
should be completely ignored once he is promoted. Sometimes past events might 
help to assess the present conduct, but when there was nothing in the present 
conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of· the promotion there was llo justi· 
fication for needless digging into the past. [80 A-Bl 
Swami Saran Saksena v, State of U.P., [1980] I SCR 923; Baldev Raj 
Chadha v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] I SCR 430; State of Punjab v. Dewan 
Chuni Lal, [1970] 3 SCR 694; and Union of India etc. v. M. E. Re#y & Anr., 
[1980] 1 SCR 736; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDicnON : Civil Appeal No. 3436 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 19th April, 1978 
of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 224/78. 
M.K. Ramamurthi, and c.,s. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A. V. Rangam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. 
An order of pre-mature retirement 
following close upon the heels of promotion and appointment to a 
coveted Selection post is bound to perplex any right thinking man. 
and make him wonder whether the right hand knows what the left 
band bas done. If in the month of May a Government ·servant is 
found to possess 'such high merit and ability, which naturally in-
cludes integrity, as to entitle him not merely to be promoted to a 
selection post but to be appointed to a very responsible and much 
desired post in that cadre, what could have happened between May 
and September to merit his being weeded out altogether from ser-
vice in September under the rule which enables the Government to 
retire a Government servant in the public interest after he has 
att

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