LexM.S. BINDRA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.S. BINDRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 B (S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, J.1.] Se1vice Law : Compulsmy Retirement-Grounds for---Govemment Officer held in C high esteem suddenly dubbed as a person of doubtfttl inte1:,~ity and compul- solily retired from se1vic~Validity of-Held, conclusions anived at by Screening Committee not .rnppmted by available records-Doubting one's integ1ily should not be based on swmises and hwzches-But should be based Oil preponderallce of probability from the poillt of view of a reasonable man-Overall estimatioll of the delinquellt officer should llot be overlooked D while judging his i11teg1ity-In the circumstances of the case, the delinquent officer's tenacity towards his duties does not wa1rnllt him lo be castigated as one with "doubtful illteg1ity''-Fundamental Rules, FR 56(j). Compul.1·01y Retirement-Judicial Review of-Grounds f 01--Held, E judicial review is pemzissible if the order is arbitrmy or ma/a fide or based on no evidence. Compulsmy Retirement-Natural justic~Inapplicability of-Ex- plained'-Venion of delinquent office1~W!zen lo be considered'-Stated. F Administrative Law : Administrative action-Judicial ftmction-W!itten Judg1nent-Pro11!pl delive1y of-Revenue Officer passed an order of adjudication numing into 100 pages on the day fallowing the last day of hemin5Supelior authmity dubbed rhe Officer as one with "doubtful inte1:,~ity" because it was suspected that the G order must have already been wlitlen before he01ing was complete-Held, the Officer instead of, being doubted should have been appreciated for his prolllplitud~There was nothing wrong if the Officer had prepared the pref at my pmtimz and swn11101y of evidence, leaving out cmcial discussion to be decided after conclusion of he01ing-Hence, doubting the Officer's integ1ity H is unjustified. 232 • -- M.S. BTNDRA v. U.0.1. 233 Judicial Review-Ovemtling of decision of lower cowt or administrative A auth01it;-~Implicatio11 of-Held, does not amount to doubting the calibre, or casting stigma 011 such judicial officer or authmity : Words and Phrases : "Jnteglity"-Meaning of B Maxim : "Nemo fintt repente twpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden)-Meaning of-Held, the maxim is not unexceptional but still is a salutwy t,~tideline to judge human conduct, pwticularly in the field of Ad- C ministrative Law. The appellant was an Indian Revenue Service Ollicer and had a steep rise in his career and was held in great esteem. But suddenly at the age of 52 years the appellant's integrity was doubted and he was compulsorily retired. D The Screening Committee arrived at the conclusion that the appellant's integrity was doubtful on the basis of the following three cases handled by the appellant - (a) In the first case, the appellant imposed a penalty and fine of Rs. E 10 crores on a Mill. According to the Committee the appellant committed the following lapses while proceeding against the Mill : (i) The order of adjudication ran into nearly 100 pages and it was passed on the day following the last day of the hearing. It indicated that the order must have already been got ready even before the hearing was com- plete. (ii) A penalty of Rs. 50 Iakhs was imposed on the proprietor of the Mill without issuing show cause notice to him. (iii) Hnge sums of duty have been demanded in respect of unac- counted production in the factory without fully going through the claims of the party that those accounts were wastage claimed by him. (b} In the second case, the appellant's subordinate gave instructions F G for keeping an investigation in abeyance. The Committee came to the H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. l S.C.R. A conclusion that such instruction must have been given at the appellants behest. (c) In the third case, it was alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs from a party and when the amount was not paid, he took steps for cancellation of bail granted to the party and also invigorated B the steps against that party. The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. C Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reput
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.