SUKHDEO versus THE.COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SUKHDEO 
v. 
THE.COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION, 
AMRAVATI AND ANR. 
MAY 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: 
Rule 65( I)(b)--Compuls01y retirement-;-Class Ill employee--Order of 
Govemment exercising power to compulsorily retire the employee who had 
not completed 55 years of age based on advm·e remarks-Held, the remarks 
A 
B 
c 
are mutually inconsistent and lack bona fid&-Controlling Officer has not 
used due diligence in making remarks-Controlling Officer before writing D 
adverse re111arks ~vould gi.ve p1ior sufficient oppo1tunity in w1iting by infonning 
the employee of the deficiency he noticed for improvement-Power exercised 
by Controlling Officer is per se illegal-Employee is entitled to reinstatement 
with all consequential benefits. 
State Bank of India Etc. v. Kasilinath Kher & Ors. Etc., JT (1996) 2 E 
SC 569, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8805 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.93 of the Madhya Pradesh F 
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in T.A. No. 198/92 in W.P. No. 787 of 
1990. 
V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudaliar and U:·U. Lalit for the Appellants. 
S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal by special H 
287 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
leave arises from an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 
March 23, 1990 made in exercise of Rule 65(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil 
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The appellant had completed 30 years of 
service is Class llI service but he had not completed 55 years of age. The 
Government relying upon the adverse remarks in the reports for the years 
B 
1987-88 and 1988-89 exercised the above power to compulsorily retire the 
appellant from service. When he impugned the order in a writ petition 
which was subsequently transferred to the Maharashtra Administrative 
Tribunal at Nagpur Bench in TA No. 198/92 by order dated April 20, 1993, 
the Tribunal dismissed the application. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
C 
The c;overnment preserved power under Rule 10(4)(b) to retire 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Government Servant which reads thus : 
"any Government Servant who holds a post in Class Ill service of 
the Stale, either pensionable or non-pensionable, after he has 
attained the age of fifty five years." 
The object of the compulsory retirement is to see that the inefficient and 
corrupt persons are removed but no sufficient evidence was available to 
dismiss or remove him from service after enquiry, they are \Veeded out 
from ser\~ce with a view to secure efficiency in public service and to 
maintain honesty and integrity among the service personnel. The question 
is: whether the respondents have exercised the said power to serve the 
above public purpose" Rule 65(1)(b) reads as under : 
"'65. Retirement on completion of 30 years qualifying service. 
(!) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty 
years' qualifying service, he may retire from service, or he may be 
required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest. 
Provided that ............................ . 
(a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the 
appointing authority at least three months before the date on which 
he \vishes to retire; or 
(b) the appointing authority shall give a notice in wntmg to a 
Government servant at least three months before the date on which 
he is required to retire in the public interest, or three months pay 
SUKHDEO v. COMMR.AMRAVATIDVN. 
289 
and allowances in lieu of such notice. 
It is seen that when the compulsory retirement was sought to be 
made under Rule 65(1)(b) as indicated earlier, tbe Government exercise 
the power only for public purpose, namely to augment efficiency in public 
service. We have called for the record and the same has been placed 
before us. The entries for the years 1987-88 and same remarks verbatim 
repeated for 1988-89 by the same officer would indicate that the appellant 
is an 
11industrious
11 man, 
11his capacity to get work done by subordinates is 
good"; his "relationship with the colleagues and the public is good"; general 
intelligence is "satisfactory" However, in the column on technical ability 
(where relevant), he is reported as "not satisfactory", "special attitude is 
good", "administrative ability including judgment,

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