RAM EKBAL SHARMA versus STAIB OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 24-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
) 
RAM EKBAL SHARMA 
A 
v. 
STAIB OF BIHAR & ANR. 
Al'RiL 24, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Bihar Service <;ode, 1979: Section 74(b)(ii)-Order of com-
pulsory retirement-Couched in innocuous language-Validity of-
Court-Whether could lift the veil, in appropriate cases to ascertain 
basis of order. 
r· 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 311(2)-0rder of c 
compulsory retirement-Couched in innocuous language, but made by 
way of punishment-Whether violative of. 
The appellant, an officer of Bihar State, filed a writ petition 
before the High Court, challenging the order of compulsory retirement 
D 
passed by the respondent State, under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Bihar Service 
Code, 1979, contending that throughout his service of 30 years he had 
an exemplary service career and his integrity remained unquestionable 
and that neither any adverse remarks were communicated to him nor 
any·departmenta1 proceedings were initiated against him, nor any.expla-
nation called for frolll him. The High Court dismissed the wrlf petition 
E 
by a laconic order. 
In the appeal, by special leave, the appellant contended that 
though the order was conched in innocuous terms and made in comp-
liance with the provisions of Rule 7 4(b )(ii) of Bihar Service Code on 
appellant's reaching the age of more than 50 years, and prima facie not 
F 
appearing to cast any stigma, it was not made in public interest, but 
made by way of punishment for oblique purposes, in consideration of 
extranel!US matter and purporting to removal from service on certain 
serious allegations of misconduct, casting a stigma, and hence the order 
was illegal, bad and in violation of audi alterem partem rule and Article 
311(2) of the Constitution and was liable to be quashed. 
G 
On behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that the order 
had been made in public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) and there was 
nothing to show from the order itself that it had been made by way of 
punishment, casting a stigma; the language of the .order was innocuous, 
and the appellant could not delve into the secretariat files, lo ftiid out 
the basis of the order. 
679 
H 
A 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Even though the order of compulsory retirement is 
couched in innocuous language without making imputations against the 
government servant, who is directed to be compulsorily retired from 
service, the Court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to 
B 
find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the govern-
ment servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not 
with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order iu 
such cases cannot deter the Court from delving into the basis of the 
order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned govern-
ment servant. [693F-G] 
c 
Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 SCR 894 and 
Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Anr., AIR 1984 SC 636, 
relied on. 
~ 
- -----
-
-,---
Shyam Lal v. The State of U.P. & Anr., [1955] 1SCR26; Baldev 
< 
D Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 321 and Union of 
India v. Col. J.N. SinhaandAnr., [1971] 1SCR791, referred to. 
l.N. Saxsena v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1967] 2 SCR 496, 
distinguished. 
E 
1.2 The object of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code is to get 
i'id of the government servant who has become dead wood. This order is 
made only to do away with service of only those employees who have lost 
their utility, become useless and whose further continuance in service is 
considered not to be in public interest. [655D] 
F 
1.3 In the instant case, the appellant had an unblemished career, 
and undoubtedly by dint of merit and flawless service career, had been 
promoted to the post of Joint Director and ultimately to the post of 
General Manager. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 
respondent-State has categorically stated that while passing the order of 
compulsory retirement the officers concerned were guided by the report 
G dated September 19, 1987 which stated that the appellant was responsi-
ble for grave aud serious financial irregularities resulting in financial 
loss to the State Government, without giving any opportunity of hearing 
and witboutintimating allegations to the appellant before forming the 
opinion. The memorandum iu question has clearly stated that the order 
of compulsory retireme

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