Holding

The order of premature retirement was vitiated and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Summary

Baidyanath Mahapatra, a senior electrical engineer of the Orissa Government, was prematurely retired in 1983 under Rule 71(1)(a) of the Orissa Service Code based on a Review Committee's recommendation that relied on adverse entries in his service record, many of which were old, some communicated belatedly, and some still pending representation. He challenged the retirement in civil court, which was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal; the Tribunal upheld the retirement, finding the Committee's recommendation bona fide. The Supreme Court held that adverse entries lose significance after a promotion on merit, that belated communication defeats the purpose of such entries, and that representations against adverse remarks must be disposed of before they can be used for retirement. The Court also found that a member of the Tribunal, who had participated in the administrative decision, violated natural justice by hearing the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the premature retirement order, annulled the Tribunal's decision, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement with full benefits.

Issues considered

The relevance of old adverse entries in a service record after a promotion on merit for the purpose of premature retirement.
Whether belated communication of adverse entries defeats their legal effect and precludes reliance on them.
Whether pending representations against adverse entries can be considered in forming a retirement decision under Rule 71(1)(a).
The applicability of natural justice principles when a member of an administrative tribunal had previously taken part in the administrative decision being reviewed.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Acts. 29
Orissa Service Codes. 71(1)(a)

Subjects

premature retirementadverse entriesservice recordnatural justiceadministrative tribunalrepresentationRule 71(1)(a)promotionbelated communication

Judgment

BAIDYANATH MAHAPATRA A
v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

AUGUST 10, 1989

[K.N. SINGH & M.H. KANIA, JJ.J B

Orissa Service Code: Rule 7 J(a)-Compulsory retirement-
Adverse entries in service record-Of no significance when government
servant is promoted: belated communication of adverse entries defeat
( their object: it is not permissible io consider adverse entries representa-
'lign against which is pending. c
Natural Justice-Members of a Tribunal not to sit in judgment on
their own decisions taken administratively.

The appellant had joined service in the Orissa Government as an
Assistant Engineer in 1955, and in 1983 he was working on the post of D
Superintending Engineer. Since he had completed SO years of age, a
Review Committee considered his service record for determining his
suitability for retention in service in accordance with the first proviso to
I
Rule 7 l(a) of the Orissa Service Code. On the recommendation of the
. -\ Review· Committee the State Government by its order dated 10.11.1983
pre-maturely retired the appellant from service. The appellant filed a E
civil suit challenging the validity of his pre-mature retirement. The suit
was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that
the recommendation of the Review Committee was bona fide and did
not suffer from any legal infirmity.

Before this Court, it was contended that the recommendation of F
. the Review Committee was vitiated as it was founded on irrelevant and
, inadmissible material. It was urged that the Review Committee had
considered a number of adverse remarks contained in the appellant's
service tecord for the remote past years, and had also considered
adverse entries relating to recent years although those adverse entries
had not become final. G

Allowing the appeal ·and setting aside the order of premature
retirement of the appellant, this Court,

HELD: (I) The purpose of the Rule conferring power on the
Government to retire Government servants prematurely is to energise H

803
804 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [ 1989] 3 S.C.R.

A its machinery by 'choppipg of the dead-wood'. [807C]" .-~
Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, [1971] I SCR 791.

(2) When a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on
the basis of merit and selection prior adverse entries if any contained in
B his service record lose their significance and those remain on record as
part of past history. It would, therefore, be unjust to curtail the
service career of Government servant on the basis of those entries in
the absence of any significant fall in his performance after his promo-
tjon. [807F] i
__/
(3) If the adverse remarks awarded to a Government servant are
c communicated to him after several years, the object of communicating .J
entries is defeated. It is, therefore, imperative that the adverse entries
awarded to a Government servant must be communicated to him within
a reasonable period to afford him opportunity to improve his work and
conduct and also to make representation in the event of the entry being
D unjustified. In the instant case, belated communication of the entries
resulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to
improve his performance. [808A-B I ·
(4) The appellant's representation against the adverse entries !""
relating to a number of years was rejected on the ground that the
f representation was barred by time. Since the communication of the
adverse entries was itself highly belated, the represer.iation against
those adverse remarks should have been considered on merits and the
same could not be rejected on the alleged ground of delay as the
Government itself was guilty of inordinate delay in communicating the
F adverse remarks to the appellant. [8080 j · ..

(5) The appellant had a right to make representation against the - ,
adverse entries within six months period. Therefore, the adverse entries
awarded to the appellant in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 could not be
taken into account either by the Review Committee or by the State
Government in forming the requisite opinion contemplated by Rule
G 71( l)(a) of the Orissa Service Code, before the expiry of the period of
six. montGhs. It is settled view thaht ibt is_ notf pedrmissible ~o prematurely ·""
retire a overnment servant on t e as1s o a verse entries, representa-
tions against which are not considered and disposed of. [809C-D, 808H-809A]

Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab, [1987] 2 SCR 583.
H
(6) The Members of the Tribunal must follow rules of natural
BAIDYANAnJ v. STATE;Qf ORISSA [SINGH, J.] 805

·'justice in administering justice like judges. They should nof sit in judg: ·A·
' ment on their own decisions. In the instant case Shri Gian Chand, who
had 'administratively taken a decision as Chief secretaryagainslithe
·Appellant, considered· the matter judicially as'the .Chairman of'the
AdmioistrativeTribunal, thereby h~ acted as a Judge of his own cause.
While' it is true that there'is no alligation of personal bias against Shri. ,,,
Gian Chand, he may ha~e acted bona.fide, nevertheless;theprinciples' • B
of natural justice, fair play, and judicial discipline required thafhe
should have abstained from heariDg the appellant's case. !SIOB; 809F-H]

,{ . . CIVIL APPELLAT~JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3050
.,, ~..-.;Of 1989. :· . -, .._ -· -,!. . ·· .

· .· . •.· From•theJiiogment and Order dated 21.12.87 of the.Orissa Ad- C
•'ffiin!strative Tribunal i~ T.A. No. i'6 J bf 1987.

··, P:P._Rao arid C.S.S. Rao for the Appellant.

P:N. Misra and A.K. Panda for the Respondents. D

. The•Judgment of the Court was delivered by
··-i SINGH, J. Leave granted ..

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Orissa E
· Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated 21.12. 1987 dismissing
the appellant's suit challenging his pre-mature retirement from
service.

The appellant, a qualified El.ectrical Engineer with training in
West Germany, joined service of Orissa Government as an Assistant F
Engineer (Electrical) in 1955. In 1961 he was promoted to the rank of
Executive Engineer (Elecirical) and deputed to'the Orissa State -.;.
Electricity .Board. In March, )976 . .he•was promoted .to the post of
Superintending 'Engineer (Electrical) on the. basis of merit. In 1979
while working on the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) he
was allowed to cross the E{ficiency Bar with effect from LI. 1979 .. He G
also officiated on the post of Chief Engineer (Electrical) in Orissa
State Elt:ctricity Board. Since he had completed 50 years of age a
Review Committee constituted by the Government of Orissa consi-
dered his service record in October, 1983 for determining his suitabi-
'lity for retention in service in accordance with the first proviso to Rule
· 7 l(a) of the Orissa Service Code. On the recommendation-of the H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 3 S.C.R.

A Review · Committee · the State Government by its .. order dated '
10.11.1983 pre-maturely retired the appellant from service. He filed a
civil suit before the Subordinate Judge, Bhubanes~ar challenging the
· validity of his pre-mature retirement on a number of grounds. On the
Constitution of the.Orissa Administrative Tribunal the suit was trans-
ferred to the Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, under Section 29
B of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Tribunal by its order dated
21. 12. 1987 dismissed. the suit and upheld the validity of appellant's
pre-mature retirement. Hence this appeal. ~
'
The Tribunal held that the Review Committee on an assessment
of the overall performance of the appellant's conduct had bona fide
C made recommendations to the State Government that the appellant's
retention in servic~was not in public interest, and in pursuance thereof
the State Government retired. the appellant pre-maturely. The
Tribunal further held that the order of pre-mature retirement does not
suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned counsel for the appellant
. uri:;ed that the Tribunal committed serious error in upholding the order
D of pre-mature retirement as the recommendation of the Review Com-
mittee was vitiated as it was founded on irrelevant and inadmissible
material. In this connection, he urged that the Review Committee had
considered a number of adverse remarks contained in the appellant's
service record for the remote past years which had no relevance and it
had further considered adverse entries relating to the recent years
E although those adverse entries had not become final as the representa-
tions. against. those adverse entries had not been considered of by the
State Government. He urged that while considering overall perform-
ance of the appellant the Review Committee was influenced by the
entries of remote past, which had lost their significance as inspite of
those entries the appellant had been promoted to higher post on merit
'· F and he had also been permitted. to. cross Efficiency Bar. Before we
~consider these submissions it would be pertinent to refer of the recom-
. mendatiims of the Review Committee which are as under:.

"From the year 1969-70. to 1982-83, Shri Baidyanath
/ Mahapatra has got adverse remarks for the years 1969-70,
G. 1970-71, 1972-73, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1982-83.
Although he was an .intelligent officer, he did not apply his
mind and did not bestow adequate zeal in his work. He did 'I-
neither assume resixmsibility nor did he work hard for
which the Chief Engineer had to deal with his Executive
· Engineers and Assistar : Engineers directly. He was found
H to be too cursory in deallng with the problems and adept in
BAIDYANATH v. STATE OF ORISSA [SINGH, J.] 807

putting the responsibilities for deficiencies on others. His A
performrnce during most of the years was found to be of
average standard. The Committee, considering his overall
performance, was of the view that his continuance in
ii§rvice is not desirable in public interest and that he be
retired prematurely. This officer would have retired on
superannuation on 30.9.1989." B

No exception can be taken to the Government's opinion in retir-
l ing the appellant pre-maturely on the basis of the aforesaid recommen-
~ dation of the Review Committee as it clearly indicated that the appel-
-lant's retention in service was not in public interest. The purpose of the
\ Rule conferring power on the Government to retire Government C
/- servants pre-maturely is to energise its machinery by "chopping of the
dead-wood" as held by this Court in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha,
[1971) 1 SCR 791. The question which falls for consideration is
whether the Review Committee was justified in making its recommen-
dations on the basis of adverse entries awarded to the appellant in
remote past especially when the appellant had been promoted to the D
post of Superintending Engineer in 1976 and he had further been
permitted to cross Efficiency Bar in 1979. The adverse entries relating
-{ to the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1975-76, had Jost all signi-
. ficance, because inspite of those entries the appellant was considered
to ·be an intelligent and efficient officer and in that view he was pro-
moted to the post of Superintending Engineer. If those entries did not E
refkct deficiency in appellant's work and conduct for the purpose of
pro1notion, it is difficult to comprehend as to how those adverse
entries could be pressed into service for retiring him pre-maturely.
_l When a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis
'\ of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service
record lose their significance and those remain on record as part of f
past history. It would be unjust to curtail the service career of Govern-
ment servant on the basis of those entries in the absence of any signi-
ficant fall in his performance after his promotion.

The adverse entries for the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-7;> and
I 1975-76 were communicated in a lot to the appellant in 1978, although G
/. under the instructions issued. by the State Government the adverse
entries must be communicated by December of each year. The
purpose of communicating adverse entries to the Government servant
is to inform him regarding his deficiency in work and conduct and to
afford him an opportunity to make, amend, and improvement in his
work and further if the entries are not justified the communication H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 3 S.C.R.
"
A ·affords him an opportunity to make representation. If the adverse
remarks ·awarded to a Government servant are communicated to him
after several years, the object of communicating entries is defeat.ed. It
is therefore imperative that the adverse entries awarded to a Govern-
ment servant must be communicated to him within a· reasonable period ·
to afford him opporiunity to improve his work and conduct and also to
B make representatio.n in the event of the entry being unjustified. In the
instant case, advers1: entries relating to a .number of years were com-
municated to the appellant in one lot under a letter dated 27.2.1978
contrary to the ins fr. uctions issued by the State Government as con- ..)
tained in Circular No. 29 dated 19.2.1953. Belated communication of
the entries resulted into denial of reasonable opPQitunity to the appel- -
!ant to improve his performance. Further. since adverse remarks for
C several years were communicated with inordinate delay it was impossi-
ble for the appellant to make an effective representation against the
same. The appellant's representation against the aforesaid entries was
rejected on 12.3.1981 on the ground that the representation was bar-
red by time. Since the communication of the adverse entries was itself
o highly belated the representation against those adverse remarks
should have been considered on merits and the same could not .be
rejected on the alleged ground.of delay as the Government itself was·
guilty of inordinate delay in communicating the adverse remarks to the
appellant.

E Adverse remarks relating to the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were
taken into account by the Review Committee in formulating its
opinion against the appellant's retention in service. The appellant's
representation against those entries had not been considered, yet the
Review Committee placed reliance on those entries. In fact, the
adverse remarks for the year 1981-82 were communicated to the appel- .}
F !ant under the letter dated 21.6.1983 which was received by him on
5. 7 .1983, and as regards the adverse remarks for the year 1982-83
these were communicated to the appellant under the letter dated
29.7.1983 which was received by him on 9.8.1983. He made represen-
tation to the Government against the aforesaid adverse remarks on
1.11.1983 but before the representation could be considered by the
G Government the impugned order of pre-mature retirement was made
on 10.11.1983. These facts make it amply clear that the appellant's
representation against the aforesaid adverse remarks for the years
1981-82 and 1982-83 was pending and the same had not been con-
sidered or disposed of on the date the impugned order was issued. It is
settled view that it is not permissible to pre-mat11rely retire a Govem-
H ment servant on the basis of adverse entries, representations against
BAIDYANATII v. STATE OF ORISSA (SINGH, J.) 809
~: which are not considered and disposed of. See· Brij Mohan Chopra v. A
State of Punjab, (1987] 2 SCR 583. When this aspect was pressed ·
before the Tribunal, it took a peculiar view in holding that since the
representation had not been made before the date on which the Re-
view Committee had considered the appellant's case, the Committee
-{_ need not have waited for the disposal of the appellant's representation
and it was free to take into account the adverse remarks awarded to B
the appellant in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The appellant placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in Brij Mohan Chopra's case but
, the Tribunal by some involved logic avoided giving effect to the law
\laid down by this Court. It is not disputed that in the State of Orissa a
Government servant lias right to make representation within six
months from the date of communication of the adverse remarks. The C
t appellant had right to make representation against the adverse entries
within six months period, therefore, the adverse entries awarded to
him in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 could not be taken into account
either by'the Review Committee or by the State Government in form-
ing the requisite opinion as contemplated by Rule 7l(l}(a) of the ·
Orissa Service Code, before the expiry of the period of six months. · D
Since the period prescribed for making representation against the
adverse remarks for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 had not expired,
~ the proper course for the Review Committee should have been not to
· consider those entries or in the alternative, the Review Committee
·should have waited for the decision of the Government on the appel-
lant's representation. The view taken by the Tribunal is not sustain- E
able in law.

. There is a disturbing feature of this case which vitiates Tribunal's
l order. Shri Gian Chand, Chairman of the Tribunal, ex-Chief Secretary
' of the State of Orissa, was member of the Review Committee which
made recommendation against the appellant for his pre-mature retire- F
ment, and in pursuance thereof the State Government had issued the
impugned order. It appears that Sh. Gian Chand, had later been
appointed as Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. Shri Gian
Chand, participated in the proceedings of the Tribunal, and he is party
to the decision of the Tribunal. These facts show that Mr. Gian Chand,
who had administratively taken a decision against the appellant, con- G
;. sidered the matter judicially as a Chairman of the Tribunal, thereby he
acted as a Judge of his own cause. While it is true that there is no
allegation of personal bias against Sh. Gian Chand, he may have acted
bona fide, nonetheless, the principles of natural justice, fair play, and
judicial discipline required that he should have abstained from hearing
the appellant's case. While considering the appellant's case the Tri- H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989)•3 S.C.R.

A bunal exercised judicial powers and it was required to act judicially, as
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and High Court have been excluded
and vested in the Administrative Tribunal. The Members of the Tri-
bunal must follow rules of natural justice in administering justice like
Judges, they should not sit in judgment on their own decisions.
B Sh. Gian Chand was disqualified to hear the appellant's case. The
order of the Tribunal is vitiated on this ground but as the appellant had
not raised any objection before the Tribunal against the participation
of Sh. Gian Chand, we do not consider it necessary to grant relief to
the appellant on this ground.

For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the order of pre-mature
)
C retirement is vitiated and the Tribunal committed error in upholding
the same. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the
Tribunal dated 21. 12. 1987 and also the order of the State Government
dated 10.11.1983. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with all
consequential benefits of service in addition to the costs. •

R.S.S. Appeal allowed.