I.K. MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 11-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
I.K. MISHRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 11, 1997 
B 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
• 
Seivice Law: C.C.S. pension Rules-1972--Rule 48 (b)-Compulsory 
retirement order made after conside1ing the se1vice record is valid-Adverse 
remarks in character roll continue when no promotion is given-Allegation of 
C malafides cannot be considered in the absence of full facts in the plaint. 
The challenge in this case was against an order of Compulsory 
retirement and the High Court reversed the decision of two lower Courts 
which had decreed in favour of the appellant. The contention of the 
Appellant was that the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary; that 
D on his having passed the S.A.S. Part II Civil Examination, the adverse 
entries in the Character roll lost their impact and could not be made a 
ground for compulsory retirement; and that the order of the AG was 
malafide. 
E 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The adverse remarks in th~ annual confidential report 
and the minor punishment inflicted upon the appellant clearly demolishes 
the contention that the appellant's service record was unblemished. It is 
not .disputed that the entire service record including (good and bad) 
F entries of the appellant were placed before the Review Committee and the 
Review Committee after considering the aforesaid reports mainly con-
fidential report/character roll, both favourable and adverse, recommended 
to the appointing authority for compulsory retirement of the appellant 
from service. The adverse materials placed before the Review Committee 
G and the appointing authority show that the order compulsorily retiring the 
appellant was based on material on record and by no stretch of imagina-
tion it can be branded as arbitrary. [264-G-H; 265-A] 
2. No doubt the appellant was sent by the respondents to appear in 
S.A.S. examination in the year 1972-73 after having been found that the 
H appellant complied with the conditions for appearing in the said examina-
260 
• 
(
-
I.K. MISHRA v. U.O.I. [V.N. KHARE, J.] 
261 
tion and further the appellant passed the S.A.S. Part II examination, but A 
merely the fact that the appellant was sent to appear in the examination 
aud was declared successful in the said examination are not the end of the 
matter. In fact passing of the S.A.S. examination entitles an auditor to be 
considered for promotion to the higher post by the Departmental Promo-
tion Committee. In the present case after the appellant was declared B 
successful in the S.A.S. examination, the Departmental Promotion Com-
mittee after considering the service record of the appellant did not recom-
mend his case for further promotion. Appiying the principle in the case of 
Baikuntha Nath Das the appellant having not been promoted to the higher 
post the adverse remarks in his character roll remined intact. Since the 
appellant was not promoted to the higher post by the Departmental C 
Promotion Committee it is not correct to contend that the adverse 
materials in the annual confidential report of the appellant lost their sting . 
and those materials could not form the basis of order of compulsorily 
retiring the appellant from service. (265-C-F] 
D 
Bailamtha Das and another v. Chief Dist1ict Medical Officer, Baripada 
and another, (1992] 2 sec 299, relied on. 
3. It cannot be said that the order compulsorily retiring the appellant 
was a mala fide order as.the same was passed at the instance of the 
Accountant General, M.P., who bore grudge against the appellant. It may E 
be noticed that the record before the Court does not show that the 
Accountant General, M.P., was party to the suit. In fact he was not 
impleaded by name in the suit. Further, the allegations against him were 
totally vague. No inference of ma/a fide could be drawn from such allega-
tions. In the 'absence of full facts and particulars in the plaint in respect 
of allegation of mala fides the order comP,ulSorily retiring the appellant F 
cannot be held to be mala fide order. (265-G-H; 266.:A] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3137 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.85 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court at Gwaliar in C.S.A. No. 127 of 1981. 
Ravindra Bana. for the Appellant. 
G 
M.L. Jain, Rao Ranjit for C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Ju!fgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.N. KHARE, J. The appellant before us, started his servic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.