JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

_., 
JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA 
A 
V. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. 
'-
MARCH 4, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Compulsory retirement-Order based on recommendation of Screening 
Committee-Held, High Court was right in upholding the order-Passing an C 
order of compulsory retirement depends on subjective satisfaction of the 
competent authority, of course, on objective consideration-Unless it is shown 
that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without 
application of mind or that ''llCh formation of opinion to retire compulsorily 
was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was D 
totally perverse, the Court cannot interfere. 
Baikunth Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr., 
[1992) 2 sec 299, relied on 
State a/Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunni Lal Shah, [1999) 1 SCC E 
529; MS. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., (1998[ 7 SCC 310 and S. 
Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 424, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.2001 of the Assam High Court 
at Gauhati in W.A. No. 521 of 1996. 
S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Sanjay Sharawat and Ms. Hetu 
Arora for the Appellant. 
Ms. Krishna Sarma, for Mis. Corporate Law Group for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the order dated 
615 
F 
G 
H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 11.4.1994. He assailed the said order of his compulsory retirement by filing 
a writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejecting the contentions urged on 
behalf of the appellant upheld the same. The appellant pursued the matter 
further by filing a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the same High 
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court after considering the rival 
B contentions urged on behalf of the parties and keeping in view the principles 
stated in the case of Baikunth Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical 
Officer. Baripada and Anr. [1992] 2 SCC 299, dismissed the writ appeal 
affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appellant 
is before us in this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the 
impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
c 
Learned counsel for the appelllant submitted that although the two 
contentions, namely the order of compulsory retirement was punitive and 
stigmatic and that the said order was arbitrary and unreasonable, were urged 
before the Division Bench of the High Court, he does not press the first 
contention but he emphatically argued that the order of compulsory retirement 
D is unsustainable, because the said order was based only on the one man 
Commitee report of K.S. Rao, of which the appellant was not at all made 
aware; ifthe authorities had considered the entire material touching the service 
record of the appellant, reasonable view would have been different. In support 
of his submissions he cited few decisions. 
E 
In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions 
supporting the impugned judgment. In particular, the learned counsel drew 
our attention to para 9 of the impugned judgment to contend that the entire 
service record of the appellant was perused by the competent authority as 
well as by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, no fault can be 
F found with the imougned judgment. 
The order of compulsory retirmement was passed on the basis of the 
recommendation of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee· 
consisted of the Chief Secretary of the State Secretary, (Judicial Department) 
and Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The said 
G Committee in its report has stated thus: 
"The Committee perused the records made available by the department 
in respect of Dr. Jugal Chandra Saikia and has reasons to viewed that 
Dr. Jugal Chandra Saikia has indulged in serious malpractices in 
undertaking fraudulent transactions constituting the LoC scandal of 
H 
the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department and was indicated 
•• 
JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA v. ST A TE OF ASSAM 
617 
in the report of the K.S. Rao Committee constituted to enquire into A 
the said LoC scandal. The Committee is also convinced that Dr. Jugal 
Chandra Saikia has substantially contributed in bringing disrepute to 
the Government with his fraudulent activities

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