STATE OF GUJARAT versus UMEDBHAI M. PATEL

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 27-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
v. 
UMEDBHAI M. PATEL 
FEBRUARY27, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Bombay Civil Se1vices Rules, 1959-Rule J6(l)(l){i)(aa)-Employee 
compulsorily retired while disciplinary proceedings were pending against him-
High Cou11 set aside the orderjinding it punitive in nature-On appeal Held, 
compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a puniti1•e measure-Ordinarily 
an order of co1npulso1y rezi re111ent is not treated as a punishment-floH1ever, it 
should not be passed as a sho11 cut to avoid a depa11nzental enquiry-High 
Cou11 rightly set aside the impugned orda as the authorities did not wait for 
D 
the conclusion of the enquiry and dispensed 1vith his se111ices for extraneous 
reasons, and there 1vere no adverse entries in his service record to suppo11 the 
E 
F 
G 
same. 
Respondent was placed under suspension pending disciplinary pro-
ceedings. An order for compulsory retirement was passed by the appel-
lant invoking Rule 16l(l)(l)(i)(aa) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 
195'1 against him. This order was set aside by the Division Bench holding 
it to be punitive in nature, passed "ithout due investigation and "1thout 
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Hence this 
appeal. 
Appellant contended that the impugned order is n"t punitive; that 
the services of the respondent were dispensed in public interest; and that 
the State Govt. has suffered pecuniary losses due to him. 
Respondents contended that the impugned order was passed on 
specific allegations and the same was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal the Court 
HELD : t. Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer 
useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily re-
H 
tired for the sake of public interest. Ordinarily, the order of compulsory 
170 
STATE v. U.M. PATEL 
171 
retirement is not to he treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 
of the Constitution; for better administration, it is necessary to chop off 
dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after 
having due regard to the entire service record of the officer; any adverse 
entries made in the confidential record shall he taken note of and be given 
due weightage in passing such order, even uncommunicated entries in the 
confidential record can also be taken into consideration; the order of 
compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid depart· 
mental enquiry when such course is more desirable, if the officer was 
given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, 
that is a fact in favour of the officer; compulsory retirement shall not be 
imposed as a punitive measure. [176-C-G] 
State ofOrissa & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, [1996] 5 SCC 331; State of 
Gujarat & Anr. v. Suryakant Chuni/a/ Sha/, [1999) 1 SCC 529; Baikuntha 
Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (19~9) 2 
SCC 299; Allahabad Bank Officer's Association & Anr. v. Allahabad Bank & 
Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 504; Union of India & Ors. v. Dula/ Dutt, (1993) 2 SCC 
179 and J.D. Srivastava v. State of MP. & Ors., (1984] 2 SCC 8, relied on. 
2. There were absolutely no adverse entries in respondent's confi· 
dential record. He had successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 
50 as well 55. He was placed under suspension pending disciplinary 
proceedings. The State Govt. had sufficlent time to complete the enquiry 
against him hut the enquiry was not completed within a reasonable time. 
Even the Review Committee did not recommend his compulsory retire-
ment. The respondent bad only less than two years to retire from service. If 
the impugned order is viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that 
the order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons. As 
the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and decided 
to dispense with his services merely on the basis of the allegations which 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his 
service record to support the order of compulsory retirement, the Division 
Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside the order of compulsory 
G 
retirement. 177-A-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1561 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2000 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 6626 of 1987. 
H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
R.P. Bhatt, Ms. Hemanti

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