POSTS AND TELEGRAPH BOARD AND ORS. versus C. S. N. MURTHY

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 26-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
POSTS AND TELEGRAPH BOARD AND ORS. 
v. 
C. S. N. MURTHY 
MARCH 26, 1992 
[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR 
DAYAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rules : 
F.R. 56(j}-Compulsory retirement~osts and Telegraphs Depart-
ment-Assistant Engineer-Service record-Review of-Standard of work 
declined and not satisfactory for last two years-No adverse remarks for 
previous years-Order of compulsory retirement passed on recommendation 
D of high power committe&-Validity of: whether courts should interfere with. 
The case of the respondent, an Assistant Engineer in Posts and 
Telegraphs Department, was considered for compulsory retirement under 
Fundamental Rule 56(j). There were adverse remarks for the financial 
E 
years 1970-71and1971-72 showing that respondent's standard of work had 
declined and was not satisfactory. There was no material adverse to the 
respondent up to the year 1969-70. On the recommendation of a high power 
c.ommittee, he was compulsorily retired from service in February, 1973. 
Respondent's writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement 
F 
was dismissed by the High Court; but the Division Bench of the High Court 
allowed his appeal holding that the order of retirement was not found on 
any relevant material and was arbitrary and capricious. The Union of 
India filed the appeal by special leave to this Court. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. Notwithstanding the earlier record of the respondent 
being good, if the record showed that the standard of work of the respon-
dent had declined and was not satisfactory, that was certainly material 
enabling the department to come to a conclusion under Fundamental Rule 
H 56(j). [p.343 CD] 
338 
P. & T. BOARD v. C.S.N. MUKIHY [RANGANATHAN, J.] 
339 
2. There were adverse entires against the respondent for the finan· A 
cilll years 1970·71and1971-72. The purport of the confidential reports of 
these years was placed before this Court and had aiso been referred to by 
the High Court. 'Iney were objective appraisals of respondent's work. The 
adverse remarks for the year 1971-72 standing by themselves, can con-
stitute sufficient material for the Department to come to the conclusion. B 
The1-e was material to show that the efficiency of the respondent was 
slackening iri the last two years of the period under review and it is, 
therefore, not possible to fault the conclusion of the department as being 
mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. [pp.341GH; 342A; 343A-C] 
3. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the C 
order of compulsory retirement on the basis that there was no material on 
recored justifying the action against the respondent. [p.3430] 
4. An order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 
56(j) is not an order of punishment. The nature of the delinquency and 
whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of D 
the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The Courts 
will not interfere with the exercise of this power if arrived at bona fide and 
on the basis of material available on the record. [p.342FG] 
Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 
- 2 J.T. 1 (S.C.), relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1299 of 
1976. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.1976 of the Andhra F 
Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 855 of 1974. 
V.C. Mahajan and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. 
R. Venkataramani, S.M. Garg, T. Lajapathi Roy and Ms. Rani 
Chhabra for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. The respondent, C.S.N. Murthy, was an Assis-
tant Engineer in the Telecommunication Training Centre at Hyderabad. 
He was normally due to retire from service in 1980. However, the ·H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 2 S.C.R. 
~ " 
A 
provisions of rule 56G) of the Fundamental Rules were invoked in his case. 
~~ 
A high powered committee consisting of the Secretary to the Ministry of 
Finance and the Joint Secretary to the Cabinet Secretariat reviewed the 
service records of 96 persons belonging to the Department. The committee 
recommended, on an overall assessment of the confidential records, that 
B 
there was no justification for continuing the petitioner and two others (with 
whom we are not here concerned) in ser\tice. Accepting the recommenda·· 
->-
tions of the committee, the Posts and Telegraphs Board issued a notice on 
the respondent on 19.10.73 giving him
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.