JAYANTI KUMAR SINHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 16-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JAYANTI KUMAR SINHA 
v. 
A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1988 
[RANGANATII MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.J 
B 
' 
Civil Services: Civil Services · Regulation: Article 456(h)-
Compulsory retirement-Scientist working in Defence Research 
Laboratory-Post in which appellant was working-Responsible one--
Poor performance cannot be tolerated-Retirement order held valid. 
The appellant who was a scientist in the Defence Electronics 
Research Laboratory was compulsorily retired from services by an 
order dated November 28, 1988 under Article 459(h) of the Civil 
Services Regulations. He challenged the retirement order before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended on his behalf that he 
had a brilliant academic career and a clean record of service and that he 
had actually been interviewed for the post of Director during May-
June, 1986, and that on account of the representation made by him in 
February, 1986 to the authorities for redressal of personal grievances 
wherein he had suggested improvements in the laboratory and pointed 
out the defective functioning of the Institution, the authorities 
developed bias against him. On behalf of the Department, these allega-
tions were countered and the service records of the appellant were 
produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the allegations of 
bias, mala fide and the appellants' claim that the order of rettrement 
'was based upon extraneous consideration, and dismissed the appeal. 
c 
D 
E 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
F 
·appellant, that the appellant had a clean service record and there was, 
therefore, no justification to prematurely retire him, and that· It has to 
be assumed that the appellants's record or service was clean as he was · 
not communicated any adverse entry In his character roll. The Depart· 
ment made avallable for Inspection at the hearing or the appeal, the 
service records from 1973 till retirement, In support or Its stand that the 
G 
guldellnes prescribed for review for deciding whether an officer should 
be prematurely retired had been strictly followed, and that the decision 
to retire the appellant was taken In a bona fide and legitimate manner 
and without any bias or prejudice and that there were several entries by · 
} 
the authorities in ihe character roll to Indicate deficiencies and ifraw· -
backs In the aepellant's runctlon~g. 
: H 
s 
A 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The post in which the appellant was working was a res-
ponsible one and poor performance could not be tolerated. ( llD f 
2. The appellant had served under four controlling authorities 
B 
and three of them were Scientists of international repute. These Scien-
tists appear to have made a fair assessment of the appellant's work and 
what is material is that there is unanimity in their conclusion. Years 
back one of the entries had indicated that the appellant had become 
'dead wood', and he wa_s also communicated the general disapproval of 
his me.thod of working. [llA-B, HD I 
-
c 
3. lt cannot be contended In the instant case, that there was no 
communication of adverse entries because the entries were mostly based 
upon general assessment of the performance. Ordinarily when the 
entries relate to specific instance leading to adverse entries, the com, 
munication thereof is sent to the officer concerned with a view to pro-
D vi ding an opportunity for improvement of performance. [llC-D I 
• 
4. The review proceedings were in consonance with the guidelines 
framed by the Government. From the proceedings of the Review 
Committee it is found that the Committee took up the review of 19 
officers and found the appellant alone liable for retirement. Even at 
E 
Government level aller the recommendation of the review committee, 
the report was duly scrutinised. [HD, UFJ 
- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 658 
of 1988 
· 
· 
I 
F 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1987 of the Central 
· Administrativ_e Tribunal Hyderabad in OA No. 522 of ,1986. 
P.P. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
D.N. Dwivedi, Ashok K. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao for the 
G _Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave and is 
directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, ._, 
"' 
9 Hyderabad bench, dismissing the claim of the appellarif and rejecting 
\. 
J.K. SINHA v. U.0.1. [M

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