THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 03-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH 
DECEMBER 3, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959-Rule 161-Compulsory 
retirement-Assistant Food Controller (Class-11)-Two F.l.Rs. filed against C 
the officer for issuing bogus cement permits and fabricating Government 
Stamp-No adverse entries in C.R.-Few years back officer was promoted--
Character Roll entries after his promotion not available on record-No 
evidence of doubtful integrity in service record-Review Committee concluding 
that integrity of officer was doubtful-Held, whether integrity of an employee D 
is doubtful or not and whether he is efficient and honest is function of 
appointing authority or authority immediately superior to that employee to 
consider and assess and not of Review Committee-Order of compulsory 
retirement not passed in public interest-Hence set aside-Character Roll 
entries-Purpose of 
Respondent was an Assistant Food Controller (Class II) in the service E 
of the appellant-State. Certain complaints were received against him alleging 
that he issued bogus cement permits. On 31.5.1983 he was placed under 
suspension. An inquiry by the State CID was ordered into the matter. On 
receipt of the CID inquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of 
issuing bogus cement permits, a First Information Report under various F 
sections of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act was filed against the respondent on 31.12.1988. On the 
same day, another FIR was lodged against him in respect of offences alleged 
to have been committed by him for fabricating the rubber stamp of the 
Government and fabricating bogus cement permits. 
A Review Committee was constituted to examine and report whether it 
would be in public interest to compulsorily retire the respondent from 
service or not. The Review Committee found that the respondent was promoted 
to the higher post on 16.5.1981 but the character roll entries for the years 
1981-82 and 1982-83 were not available. There were two first information H 
293 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A reports lodged against the respondent under various sections of the Indian 
Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Though the Committee 
found that there were no adverse entries or remarks recorded in the C.R. 
file of the respondent, it opined that the integrity of the respondent was 
doubtful and, therefore, he was not fit to be retained in Government service. 
B The Committee, however, recommended that he should be continued in service 
so that he would be available for severe departmental punishment and could 
be removed from service and dealt with severely for the alleged misconduct. 
The said recommendations were placed before the Chief Secretary with a 
note of the Secretary raising a question whether the Government could wait 
till the CID inquiry was over. Thereafter, the matter was further discussed 
C and it was decided to retire the respondent prematurely. Accordingly, by an 
order dated 21.7.88, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service 
in public interest. The order was challenged by the respondent in a writ 
petition which was dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court. But the 
Division Bench allowed his writ appeal and directed his reinstatement. 
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal. 
D 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The Division Bench of the High Court was justified in . 
setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement 
of the respondent. There being no material before the Review Committee 
inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, 
the integrity was not doubted at any time and the character roll entries 
subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Asstt. Food Controller 
(Class-II) not being available, it could not come to the conclusion that the 
respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could anyone else come to 
F the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily 
from service. The order compulsorily retiring the respondent, in the 
circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral 
purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest. 
[309-H; 310-A-B) 
G 
S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1979] 2 sec 491; Baldeo Raj 
Chaddha v. Union of India, [19

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