J. D. SHRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF M. P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 24-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
466 
. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
• 
G 
• 
J. D. SHRIVASTAVA 
V • 
. . STATE OF M. P. & OTHERS 
January 24, 1984 
[O. CmNNAPPA REDDY, E. S. VBNKATARAMIAHAND R. B. MISRA, JJ.] 
• ·. Fundan1ental,, Rules, Rule 56(3)(a) _Compulsory Ret(rement.::,..;-Adverse entries_. 
in c?nfidentia/ rePorts relating to a re1n<?te pe_t'.io.d-Reliance. on-Whethf:r v(llid. 
. . 
. 
The appellant" was a State Judicial Service Officer·in the grade of Additional 
District& s~'>sions J11dgc. Qonsequent up0n the .. decision of the Stat.e Government 
to reorg\}nise the Higher Judicial S~rvice it was decided that a number of pOs_ts of 
the cadre of Additional District & Sessiolls Judges be abolished and the incumbents 
. of those posts be absorbed as District & Sessions Judge"s. The High Coµrt' at one 
of the Full. Court ·meetings held, to screen the Officers in the cadre of Additional 
District & Sessions Judges, deCidcd to retire the appellant compulsorily on his at· 
taining the age .of 55 years under Rule 56(3)(a) . of the Fundamental Rules. It was 
also decided not tO recommend him for promotion .. to the cadre Of District and 
Sessions Judges. ·the appellant was served With an order of ~ompu_lsory retirement · 
dated August. 28, 1981. 
The Division' Bench ·or the High Court di~missed the .appellant:s. wdt petition 
iinpug~ing-,_hi~· compulsofy retirement. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended that the High 
Court had n1ad~ 
- the recOmmendatloii to retire the appellant compulsorily withoUt applying its mind 
and thit the decison was based on collateral ·considerations and ·was arbitrary. On 
behalf ·of-the High Co~rt it Was contended that" the personal ·confidential reCords 
of the appellant wer~ co'ns!derOO by the Full Court MOOting and the d&:isicin to 
retire the app~llarit under Fundamental Rule 56(3)(a) - was taken after due conside· 
ration of the entire record . 
Al_lowing .the appeal: 
HEt.D~-: 1. it ;~~ld-~ ari act borderiOg on pe~ersity,to dig out old files ~o find 
out some matirial to make.all ordci- against an officer. _Dependen"ce on entries abOut 
20 year~ before the date on which the_decisi.on Of ·,;ompulsory retirement Was takeQ. 
cannot b~~ Placed ro·r retiring a person compulsorily, par'ticularly whe~ such persOn 
.concerned has bOOn prof!lotecl subs.equent to·such_ entries. [474I:J; 47~A} 
D.Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, {1981] 2 S.C.R. 75 referred to.· 
' . 
ff 
2. The"PoWer to retire a.G.Oveffi.ment servant compulsorily in pllblic. inte· 
reSt in tcfms ·qf a servi~ r.ule is, absolute provided the authority concerned forms 
) . 
~ 
.. 
• 
r 
I 
.\ 
f 
J. D. SHRIYASTAVA v. M. P. STATE (Venkatai'amiah, J.) 
. 467 
ah opinion bona fide that it was necessary to pass· such ·an Order·in public ·interest. 
But if such decision was based on collaterel grounds or if the d~cision ,;as· ~.rbltr<lry, 
it.is liable to be interfered with by Courts. [469 B-C] 
' 
~ . 
. 
-. 
• 
·, 
, 
'. 
• 
I 
'. 
··_ 
• 
Union of India v. Col. J.N'. Sinha & Anr., i-1971] 1 S.C.R. 791; Union of India 
v. M.E. Reddy & Anr., [1980] I S.C.R. 736; Swami Saran Saksentfv. State of U.P., 
(1980] 1 S.C.R. f2~ Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India & ·Ors. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 
· 430; and Brij Bihari Lal ,Agarw~f v. High Court Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [1981] 
2 S. C.R. 297; referred to. 
. 
· 
' 
' 
. 
In the instant ·case the High Court relied on some adVerse reffiarks relating 
to 1959-60 or: .tlieK:abbuts. I twas true that in the early part of the appellant's" career 
the .entries did not appear to be quite .sati~factory. Some were "good, some were 
'I, · . ......._, _nOt good and some wCre· of a mixed kind. But being· rePortS relating to a remote 
period, they are not quite relevant for the purpose of. determining whether he should ' 
be retired complllsofily or not in 1981. The scrutiny should have. bCen Confined to· · 
the reports for about ten years 'prior to ihe dafe on which action wits Proposed to 
be taken. All the reports except for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were· good a·nd. quite satis-
fact~ry. Even i_n the c~ports. of the said years there .was nothing to doubt his inte~ 
grity. He was punctual. in attending· to his ~oi-k. The reports'for the years 1976-77 
.'to 1980-81 speak in, favour Of the appellant a_nd not against him. A perusal of'the 
said reports showed _that there was nqthing ._against him .. In these circumstances it 
waS impo~sib!e to ta~e the view that the appellant was liable to be compulsorily 
retired. [470 I;-H] 
· 
.. 
_3. 
Thq. resol

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