K. KANDASWAMY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 01-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. KANDASWAMY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
S e1vice Law : 
Fundamental Rules/All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement 
C Benefits) Rules. 1958: 
F.R. 56(j) r.16(3)-Compulsmy retirement-Basis of-Indian Police 
Se1vice Officer--Confidential Rep01ts reflecting doubtful integrity-Special 
Rep01t by State Govemment of Officer acquiring large assets-Pennission 
sought by officer to purchase a large coffee estate-Held, decision taken by 
D Govemment cannot be said to be arbitra1y unjustified, or based on no 
evidence--:-When approp1iate authority fonns bona fide opinion that'compul-
s01y retirement of employee is in public interest c01Tectness of order on merits 
cannot be challenged in Cowts. 
E 
Constitution of India : 
Articles 309, 311-Compulsory retirement-Does not amount to dis-
missal or removal from service-/t is neither punishment nor does it cast 
stigma. 
F 
The appellant was an Indian Police Service direct recruit cadre 
officer in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. The Government of India, while 
considering his case for promotion, called for a special report. The State 
Government reported that since appellant's posting· as Deputy Inspector 
General of Police, there were persistent reports of his acquiring large 
assets and getting money from his Subordinates. Though no specific 
G evidence of receiving money was found, the appellant had sought permis-
sion to purchase a coffee estate.worth lakhs of rupees in his wife's name. 
Confidential preliminary inquiries made by the Directorate of Vigilance 
and Anti-Corr~ption revealed that Confidential Reports of the appellant 
showed that his work as Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing 
H Corporation, Madras was not satisfactory and his integrity as such could 
258 
K. KANDASWAMYv. U.O.I. 
259 
not be certified. The report ultimately led to passing the order to compul-
A 
sorily retire the appellant. The appellant challenged the order before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, which declined to interfere. Aggrieved, 
the appellant filed the appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the order was arbitrary and 
untenable inasmuch as there was neither any evidence nor any report of 
the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption that/the appellant had 
assets disproportionate to his legitimate sources of income. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
Held : 1.1. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government 
employee is public interest. While exercising the power under Rule 56(j) of 
the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to weigh several 
circumstances in arriving at the conclusion that the employee requires to 
be compulsorily retired in public interest. The Government is given power 
B 
c 
to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and D 
people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service. 
The opinion must be based on the material on record; otherwise it would 
amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power. When the appropriate 
authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the 
Government employee is in the public interest, the correctness of the order 
on merits cannot be challenged before Courts, though it may be open to the 
aggrieved employee to impugn it on the ground that requisite opinion is 
based on no evidence or has been formed or the decision is based on 
collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. 
[262-Fj H; 263-A-B; 262-F-G] 
S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of 01issa, [1994] 3 SCC 424, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the decision taken by the Government of 
India cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjustified or based on no evidence. 
E 
F 
In the light of documents, the specific permission sought by the appellant 
himself and on the basis of the special report submitted by the State G 
Government, the Government of India through its appropriate Committee 
reached the conclusion that in view of the doubtful integrity it would not 
be desirable in the public interest to retain the appellant in service and, 
accordingly, the appellant was compulsorily retired. [264-B-C; 262-D-E} 
2. Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal H 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is 
neither punishment nor visits with loss of retiral benefits; nor does it cast 
stigma. The otlice

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