STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus BIHARI LAL

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 05-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
BIHARI LAL 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Service Law-Civil Services: 
Fundamental Rules : Rule 56(j ). 
Order of compulsory retirement-Validity of-Government should con-
sider entire service record before passing the order--Scope of coult's power to 
inteif ere with order of compulsory retirement. 
The respondent was compulsorily retired from service on the ground 
D that in spite of awarding adverse remarks for several years, he had not 
improved and that, therefore, he was found to be an officer of bad category. 
The respondent challenged the order before the High Court which quashed 
it. Consequently the respondent was reinstated in service and subsequent 
to bis reinstatement State preferred an appeal in this Court. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The entire service record should be considered before 
taking a decision to compulsorily retire a government servant exercising 
the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary 
F 
that adverse remarks should be communica.ted or every remark, which 
may sometimes be categorised as adverse, be communicated. It is on an 
overall assessment of the record, and the authority would reach a decision 
whether the government servant should be compulsorily retired in public 
interest. [110-B-C] 
G 
2. The court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the 
authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including 
some of t!ie adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be 
expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the 
bona fide. decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the 
H public service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power or 
108 
I_
STATEv. BIHARI LAL 
109 
arbitrary exercise of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a A 
ground for interference by the Court/Tribunal in exercise of its judicial 
review. However, in view of the fact that hardly nine months remain for 
the respondent to reach superannuation, no useful purpose would be 
served in allowing the appeal. [110-E-FJ 
3. In cases of serious nature, the government should expeditiously 
pursue the remedy and seek appropriate directions from the Court. In the 
instant case appeal was filed leisurely after reinstatement of the respon-
dent. [110-G] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6307 of C 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 93 (SIS) of 1992. 
B.S. Chauhan and R.B. Mishra for the Appellants. 
Raju Ramchandran and Ms. Sudhana Ramachandran for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The respondent was working as Assistant Commissioner (Assess-
ments) in the Sales Tax Department of the Government of U.P. By 
proceedings dated October 28, 1991, he was compulsorily retired from 
service on the ground that in spite of awarding adverse remarks for several 
years, the respondent had not improved and that, therefore, he was found 
D 
E 
F 
to be an officer of bad ·category. On having been challenged by the 
respondent in writ petition No. 93 of 1992, the High Court in its judgment G 
and order dated May 5, 1992 allowed the writ petition evaluating the 
evidence and finding that the order of compulsory retirement was by way 
of punishment without any opportunity which amounts to his removal from 
service violating Article 311 of the Constitution. The representation filed 
by the respondent against adverse remarks of 1989-90, was pending con- H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) S:UPP. 3 s.c:R.. 
A 
sideration and without its disposal, it cannot be taken into consideration. 
B 
When disciplinary proceedings were pending, initiating proceedings for 
compuISory retirement also amounted to arbitrary and illegal exercise or 
power. 
We have issued notice to the respondent who appeared through 
counsel and filed counter affidavit. It is now settled law that the entire 
1 
service record should be considered before taking a decision to compul-
sorily retire a government servant exercising the power under Rule 56G) 
of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary that adverse remarks should 
be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorised 
C as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, 
the authority would reach a deci

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