STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus RAM CHANDRA DAS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 08-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAM CHANDRA DAS 
MAY 8, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Orissa Service Code : 
c 
Rule 71(a)-Compulsory retirement-Assistant Conservator of Forests 
in Govemment of Oriss<r-Compu/sorily retired from service-Officer allowed 
to cross efficiency bar and was promoted p1ior to the order of compulsory 
retirement-Held, Govemment servant was allowed to cross efficiency bar to 
enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the D 
efficiency bai-Adverse remarks are made after promotion-It is not for the 
Court/Tribunal to see whether the decision of Govemment to compulsorily 
retire the Govem1J1ent sen;ant is justified or not-<Jovemnient is required to 
consider entire record of service and take a proper decision-Merely because 
a promotion has been gi,ven after adverse entries were niade, cannot be a 
ground that compulsory retirement could not be ordere~Self same material 
after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny the Govem-
ment servant further promotio1~ but that material undoubtedly would be 
available to the Govemment to .consider the overall expediency or necessity 
to continue the Govemment servant in service after he attained the required 
length of service or qualified period of service for pension. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9023 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and order dated 18.7.92 of the Orissa Ad-
E 
F 
ministrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 340 of 1987. 
G 
R.M. Bagai, C.S. Ashri and Raj Kr. Mehta for the Appellants. 
Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent. 
The following Order. of the Court was delivered : 
559 
H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
Thi.< appeal by special arises from the judgment and order passed by 
the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992. 
B The respondent while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was 
compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated August 1, 1983 
which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings. 
The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds: (1) the respondent 
was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after 
C the adverse remarks were made, the records were wiped out; and (iii) the 
entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, there-
fore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under Section 
71 (a) was not valid in law. The question is: whether the view taken by the 
Tribunal is correct in, law? It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal 
position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to 
D compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to 
improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of 
doubtful integrity or corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to 
take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a 
sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such 
E decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, have 
to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest 
reports. 
F 
G 
H 
Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code empowers the Government to 
do the needful and reads as under: 
"Rule-7l(a} - Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of 
this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government 
Servant, except a ministerial servant who \Vas in Government 
service on the 31st March, 1939 and Class IV Government servant, 
is the date on which he or she attains the age of 50 years subject 
to the condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of the 
Government servant in the 55th year. of age in order to remain in 
service up to the date of the completion of the age of 50 years or 
retired on completing the age of 55 years in public interest." 
A reading thereof would indicate that the Government has been 
STATE v. R.C. DAS 
561 
empo\vercd, in the public interesl, to con1pulsorily retire a Government 
servant on his attaining the age of 50 years or on completion of 55 years 
by review of the service record. 
It is seen that though the respondent has contended that neither the 
entire record of service was placed before the Review Committee, nor the 
Committee had gone into, nor had the advantage of it; and it considered 
only 

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