STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus VIJAY KUMAR JAIN

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 14-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
VIJA Y KUMAR JAIN 
MARCH 14, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
U.P. Fundamental Rules-FR 56 (c) read with sub-rule 2-Compulsory 
retirement of Government servant-Whether entries beyond period of ten years C 
of service record from date of compulsory retirement to be taken into account-
On facts, respondent compulsorily retired due to adverse entry in character 
roll including entry withholding his integrity which is within ten years of his 
order of compulsory retirement-Respondent challenged compulsory 
retirement-During pendency, Tribunal in a petition filed by respondent shifted D 
entry withholding integrity going beyond period of ten years of passing of 
order of compulsory retirement-High Court set aside the order-On appeal, 
held entry withholding integrity even though beyond the period of ten years 
can be taken into account since vigour or sting of such adverse entry is not 
lost-Thus, entire service record or confidential report with emphasis, on 
later entry in character roll to be taken into account by Government. 
E 
Screening Committee while considering respondent's service record, 
found four adverse entries in the character roll which included order whereby 
his integrity had been withheld, and recommended that the respondent should 
F 
-'-. 
be compulsorily retired from service. Government accepted the 
recommendation and passed an order of compulsory retirement of respondent. 
Respondent then filed a writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement. 
Respondent also filed claim petition before the Services Tribunal challenging 
order whereby State Government declined to certify his integrity. Services 
Tribunal modified the stated entry which was within ten years of "assing of 
order of compulsory retirement to a period beyond ten years of passing of G 
order of compulsory retirement during pendency of the petition. High Court 
holding that entries preceding the date of passing of an order of compulsory 
retirement is to be looked at excluded the stated entry from zone of 
consideration for forming opinion to compulsorily retire the respondent. It 
also excluded all the other adverse entries and set aside the order of 
compulsory retirement. 
439 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The question that arises in these appeals is whether entries beyond ten 
years of the service record from the date of compulsory retirement could have 
been taken into account by the Go.vernment while retiring a Government 
servant under FR 56 (c) of the Rules. 
In appeals before this Court appella,nts contended that under law 
B relating to compulsory retirement, the State Government is entitled to take 
into account the entire service record, preference being given to the later 
entries while considering whether an officer is required to be retained in the 
service after he attains the age of 50 years or has put in qualifying service 
and the view taken by the High Court that entries only for the period of ten 
C years immediately prior to the date of order of compulsory retirement could 
only be looked into is patently erroneous. 
Respondent contended that the entries falling only within ten years of 
the order of compulsory retirement can only be looked into while exercising 
power of compulsory retirement and any consideration of adverse material 
D beyond ten years from the date of order of compulsory retirement would 
vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. FR 56 (c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules read with sub-
E rule (2), empowers the State Government with an absolute right to retire an 
employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead 
woods need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a 
Government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct 
of a Government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or 
obstruct the efficiency in public services, the Government has an absolute right 
F to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest The Government's 
right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in 
public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under 
Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character 
roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in character roll 
G of an employee. In fact, entire servic

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