UNION OF INDIA versus AJOY KUMAR PATNAIK

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 449 · Decided: 08-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
AJOY KUMAR PATNAIK 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rules : 
F.R. 56(j)-Compulsory retirement-Government servant-Perfomiing C 
quasi judicial functions as Collector of Customs (Appeals)-Conduct reflect-
ing upon his integdty-Held amenable to disciplinary proceedings-Conduct 
of an officer in discharge of his quasi judicial act or omission relates to 
activity in the course of discharge of his duties as a servant of Govemment 
and bears reasonable relation or nexus with nature and conduct and when it D 
amounts to misconduct, the competent authodty is entitled to take a decision 
whether the officer has impeccable integrity and absolute devotion to duty for 
funher continuation in service-Mere retirement of government servant by 
efflux of time pending proceedings would not provide a ground to dispose of 
matter without giving any finding on action taken by competent authodty. 
E 
The respondent was the Collector of Customs (Appeals). After com-
pletion of 50 years of age, his case was reviewed by the screening commit-
tee, which recommended his compulsory retirement under Fundamental 
Rule 56(j) on "doubtful integrity". Specific instances were cited wherein the 
respondent was said to have wrongly classified certain tariff item contrary F 
to the Departmental Tariff Advice, and, while working as the Collector of 
Customs (Appeals), he disposed of 32 appeals contrary to the Import 
Policy, which resulted in huge benefits to the dealers. The competent 
authority, on considering the recommendations of the screening committee 
and the view of the reviewing authority, passed the order under F.R. 56(j) G 
compulsorily retiring the respondent in public interest. The respondent 
challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set 
aside the order holding that in the absence of entry in Character Rolls of 
"doubtful integrity", the instances cited should not be taken into considera-
tion in compulsorily retiring the respondent from service. Aggrieved, the 
State filed the appeal by special leave. 
H 
449 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the order was bad 
B 
in law in as much as while working as collector of Customs (Appeals) the 
respondent was entitled to dispose of the matters on merits and accord-
ingly he took judicial decision on the basis of the material placed before 
him as an appellate authority and he was not responsible for the clearance 
of the goods. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1 An officer though performs official quasi Judicial func-
tions, his conduct in the discharge of the quasi judicial act or omission 
C 
relates to the activity in the course of the discharge of his duties as a 
servant of the Government and bears reasonable relation or nexus with 
the nature and conduct of the service and when it cast reflection upon his 
reputation, integrity or devotion to duty as a public servant, that would 
be squarely referable to the conduct of the public servant amenable to 
disciplinary proce~ding. When it is a misconduct, the competent authority 
D is equally entitled to take a decision whether an officer has impeccable 
integrity and absolute devotion to duty for further continuation in service. 
The competent authority would be free to consider the material, particular-
ly the latest one, and form a bona fide decision in the public interest to 
compulsorily retire an officer from service. [ 455-A-C] 
E 
S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India &Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1274, V.R. 
Katarki v. State of Kamataka, C.A. No. 4392/86 dated March 22, 1990 and 
Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1990) SC 2192, 
relied on. 
F 
1.2. When the authorities had material before them and considered 
that material to be sufficient to doubt the integrity of the officer, it is 
settled law that the authority competent to take the decision to compul-
sorily retire the officer can form an opinion whether continuance of such 
,officer is in the public interest. It has gone into the conduct of the officer 
G and that his Conduct in the manner of disposing of the appeals as quasi 
judicial authority does encompass into misconduct for taking disciplinary 
action. Since the competent authorities at different levels had considered 
the material and ultimately had decided to compulsorily retire the respon-
dent from service, it cannot b

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