STATE OF M.P. versus GANEKAR MOTGHARE

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 21-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
GANEKAR MOTGHARE 
NOVEMBER 21, 1989 
[K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Fundamental. Rules: F.R. 56(j)-Civil servant-Compulsory 
retirement of-Head of Department awarding adverse remarks in 
character roll-Screening Committee consisting of Head of Department 
and others recommending compulsory retirement-Order of retire-
ment-Whether hit by doctrine of bias. 
The respondent was sought to be retired compulsorily from 
service by an order dated August 21, 1984 on attaining the age of 55 
years under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, pursuant to the Screen-
ing Committee's recommendation. He challenged the said order in a 
D 
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
The High Court quashed the said order on the finding that the 
participation of the Head of the Department in the deliberation of the 
Screening Committee had vitiated its recommendation, and order of the 
State Government on the doctrine of bias, since he had on an earlier 
E occasion awarded adverse remarks against the respondent. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD: I. The presence of Head of Department in the Screening 
Committee did not vitiate its recommendation. Consequently the State 
F 
Government's order could not he quashed. [251E] 
2.1 The object and purpose of Fundamental Rules 56 conferring 
power on the Government to prematurely terminate the service of a 
Government servant is to ensure efficiency in the administration by 
weeding out dead-wood who may have outlived their utility. In the 
G 
instant case, while exercising this power the State Government bad 
constituted a high powered Screening Committee consisting of senior 
officials of the Staie Govermnent and the Head of the Department. [250D-F] 
2 .2 The Head of Department bad performed bis duty in recording ~ 
opinion in the respondent's character roll as no other person was 
H 
entitled under the mies to adjudge respondent's work and conduct. As 
248 
STATE OF M.P. v. GANEKAR MOTGHARE [SINGH, J.] 
249 
a member of the Screening Committee he was performing duty assigned 
to him under the rules and Government order for screening records of 
the officers. He was the best person to assess the efficiency and utility of 
employees working in his department. He had no personal interest in 
the matter and there was no conflict between his personal interest and 
his duties as member of the Screening Committee. Therefore, there 
could not be any question of bias or malice in law. [250H, 251C, 250F] 
J.N. Sinha v. Union of India, [1971] l SCR 791, referred to. 
A.K. Kraipak & Ors. etc. v. Union of India, [1970] l SCR 457, 
distinguished. 
3. Since the respondent had been reinstated in service after the 
High Court order and he has now retired from service on attaining the 
age of snperannuation, the State Government should not take any steps 
for reducing his pension by treating him to have retired with effect from 
August 21, 1984. [251F-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4756 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6. 9 .1985 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 465 of 1984. 
S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.N. SINGH, J. Special leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, 'Gwalior Bench dated 6.9.1985 quashing 
the State Government's order dated 21.8.1984 pre-maturely retiring the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
respondent from service. 
G 
The respondent was holding the post of Deputy Director of 
Geology and Mining in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State 
Government constituted a committee for screening the service roll of 
its employees for considering the question of compulsory retirement 
on attaining the age of 35 years. The Screening Committee which 
H 
H 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
included Shri S.S. Dave, Director of Geology and Mining Department 
of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, on examining the service 
records of the respondent made recommendation to the Government 
for his pre-mature retirement. Pursuant to the Screenin_g Committee's 
recommendation ,the State Government by its order dated 21.8.1984 
retired the respondent compulsorily from service under Rule 56 of the 
Fundamental Rules. The respondent challenged the validity of the 
State Government's order by means of a writ petition 

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