Supreme Court of India
JAYANTI KUMAR SINHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 282
- Decided
- 16 September 1988
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
The compulsory retirement order under Article 459(h) was valid as the appellant’s performance was unsatisfactory and the review process complied with the applicable regulations.
Summary
Dr. J.K. Sinha, a Scientist (E) at the Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, was compulsorily retired under Article 459(h) of the Civil Services Regulations. He challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, alleging a clean service record, bias arising from a grievance he raised, and that the retirement was based on extraneous considerations. The Tribunal rejected his claims, finding adverse entries in his service record indicating poor performance. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the service records, the unanimity of assessments by three senior scientists, and the compliance of the review committee with government guidelines. The Court held that the post was a responsible one, poor performance could not be tolerated, and the procedural requirements for compulsory retirement had been met. Consequently, the retirement order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the compulsory retirement order under Article 459(h) of the Civil Services Regulations can be set aside on the ground of bias, mala fide or extraneous considerations.
- Whether the appellant's service record, despite the absence of specific communicated adverse entries, demonstrated sufficient poor performance to justify retirement.
- Whether the review committee and the government complied with the procedural guidelines prescribed for premature retirement of civil servants.
Legislation cited
- Civil Services Regulationss. Article 456(h), s. Article 459(h)
Subjects
compulsory retirementCivil Services Regulationsperformance appraisalbiasadministrative lawDefence Electronics Research Laboratoryreview committeeCentral Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
JAYANTI KUMAR SINHA
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1988
[RANGANATII MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.J B
'
Civil Services: Civil Services · Regulation: Article 456(h)-
Compulsory retirement-Scientist working in Defence Research
Laboratory-Post in which appellant was working-Responsible one--
Poor performance cannot be tolerated-Retirement order held valid.
The appellant who was a scientist in the Defence Electronics c
Research Laboratory was compulsorily retired from services by an
order dated November 28, 1988 under Article 459(h) of the Civil
Services Regulations. He challenged the retirement order before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended on his behalf that he
had a brilliant academic career and a clean record of service and that he D
had actually been interviewed for the post of Director during May-
June, 1986, and that on account of the representation made by him in
February, 1986 to the authorities for redressal of personal grievances
wherein he had suggested improvements in the laboratory and pointed
out the defective functioning of the Institution, the authorities
developed bias against him. On behalf of the Department, these allega- E
tions were countered and the service records of the appellant were
produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the allegations of
bias, mala fide and the appellants' claim that the order of rettrement
'was based upon extraneous consideration, and dismissed the appeal.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the F
·appellant, that the appellant had a clean service record and there was,
therefore, no justification to prematurely retire him, and that· It has to
be assumed that the appellants's record or service was clean as he was ·
not communicated any adverse entry In his character roll. The Depart·
ment made avallable for Inspection at the hearing or the appeal, the
service records from 1973 till retirement, In support or Its stand that the G
guldellnes prescribed for review for deciding whether an officer should
be prematurely retired had been strictly followed, and that the decision
to retire the appellant was taken In a bona fide and legitimate manner
and without any bias or prejudice and that there were several entries by ·
} the authorities in ihe character roll to Indicate deficiencies and ifraw· -
backs In the aepellant's runctlon~g. :H
s
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 Supp. 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal,
A
HELD: 1. The post in which the appellant was working was a res-
ponsible one and poor performance could not be tolerated. (llD f
2. The appellant had served under four controlling authorities
B and three of them were Scientists of international repute. These Scien-
tists appear to have made a fair assessment of the appellant's work and
what is material is that there is unanimity in their conclusion. Years
back one of the entries had indicated that the appellant had become
'dead wood', and he wa_s also communicated the general disapproval of
his me.thod of working. [llA-B, HD I -
c 3. lt cannot be contended In the instant case, that there was no
communication of adverse entries because the entries were mostly based
upon general assessment of the performance. Ordinarily when the
entries relate to specific instance leading to adverse entries, the com,
munication thereof is sent to the officer concerned with a view to pro-
D vi ding an opportunity for improvement of performance. [llC-D I
•
4. The review proceedings were in consonance with the guidelines
framed by the Government. From the proceedings of the Review
Committee it is found that the Committee took up the review of 19
officers and found the appellant alone liable for retirement. Even at
E Government level aller the recommendation of the review committee,
the report was duly scrutinised. [HD, UFJ
- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 658
of 1988 · ·
I
F . From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1987 of the Central
· Administrativ_e Tribunal Hyderabad in OA No. 522 of ,1986.
P.P. Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.
D.N. Dwivedi, Ashok K. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao for the
G _Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave and is
directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, ._, "'
9 Hyderabad bench, dismissing the claim of the appellarif and rejecting
J.K. SINHA v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 7
his challenge tq the order dated 28th of November, 1986, retiring the
A
appellant from service under Article 459(h) of the Civil Services
Regulations.
The order of the retirement impugned in the proceedings was to
the following effect:
B
"WHEREAS the President is of the opinion that it is
in the public interest to do so.
Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (h) of Article 459, of Civil Services
Regulations, the President hereby retires Dr. J.K. Sinha,
Scientist 'E', DLRL, Hyderabad with immediate effect, he c
having already attained the age of 50 years on 27th March,
1981. The President also directs that Dr. J.K. Sinha shall
be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus
allowances for a period of 3 months calculated at the same
rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his D
retirement".
The appellant was born on 27th March, 1931, and took the
Master's Degree in Science in Physics in 1953 and obtained Ph.D. in
microwave Physics from the University of London in 1959. He also
became a senior member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics E
Engineers, USA and a member of the Institute of Electrical
Engineers, London. He acquired professional training in the Institute
of Semi Conductor, Leningrad USSR, Leveder Institute of Physics,
Moscow, and Rice University, Texas, USA. In August 1960, he was
appointed as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I in the'Defence Sci~nce
\. Laboratory, Delhi and in 1969 was promoted as Principal Scientific F
Officer. In August, 1973, he was further promoted as Deputy Chief
Scientific Officer and posted in Defence Electronics Research Labo-
ratory, Hyderabad. While serving in the said post he was prematurely
retired by the impugned order.
Before the Tribunal the appellant contende(I that he had a bril- G
liant academic career and had a clean record of service; his research
projects had been highly praised and appreciated and he deserved
promotion to the post of Director (Scientist 'G'/'F'). The appellant
was actually interviewed for the said post during May and June 1986.
In February, 1986, he had made a representation to the authorities for
redressal of personal grievances and while suggesting for improvement H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
in the laboratory he had pointed out regarding the defective function-
A ing of the Institution. The authorities developed bias against the appel-
lant. This led to his not getting selected for the post of Director and
ultimately to the making of the impugned order. These allegations
were countered by the Department. Before the Tribunal the service
records of the appellant were produced. The Tribunal rejected the
B allegations of bias and mala fide and the appellant's claim that the
order of retirement was based upon extraneous consideration and dis-
missed the appeal.
The very contentions have been reiterated before us by Mr. Rao
appearing for the appellant. The Department made available for
inspection at the hearing the service records from 1973 till his retire-
e ment in support of its stand that the guidelines prescribed for review
for deciding whether an officer should be prematurely retired had
been strictly followed and the decision to retire the appellant was
taken in a bona fide and legitimate manner and without any bias or
prejudice.
D
Mr. Rao mainly emphasised that the appellant had a clean
service record and, therefore, there was no justification to prema-
turely retire him. This submission is based upon the assumption that
the appellant's record of service is clean as he has not been commu-
nicated any adverse entry in his character roll. Mr. Dwivedi for the
E respondent refuted the assumption by stating that there were several
entries by the authorities to indicate deficiencies and draw-backs in the
appellant's functioning and to support this submission he relied upon
the service records. According to Mr. Dwivedi the entries are such
that there was no obligation to communicate the same under the
prescribed guidelines. We may refer to some of the entries now:
F
Year Remarks
1975 "I have not been too impressed with this officer who
does not seem to fit into DLRL and its work. I agree
G with Director DLRL and CCR&D(E) in their
grading/remarks".
1976 "I have not been impressed with this_ Officer. I
doubt if he fits in well with the work at DLRL. We will
have to see how to redeploy him. This is not easy in a
B post oriented budget system.".
} J.K. SINHA v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 9
1977 "I am in full agreement with Shri ................ in
A
his comments/asessment concerning this officer also
with the grading of Reviewing Officer. He would be
best suited for a preliminary Physics based and largely
teaching oriented job. His promotion to DCSO and
posting to DLRL was a direct result of the irrelevant
system of Subject Pyramids, Vacancy based B
promotion defined by pure consideration of ACRs.
Thus one gets square pegs in round holes. It is this
... system which has been changed recently after great
effort. The position as earlier operated was unfair in
the Jong term for the officers also, as in this case. In
principle Dr. Sinha would be a good man in the right
place." c
1979 "An officer who thinks very much of himself but one
who cannot claim to have done something substantial..
I have suggested that he shifts to IAT but he has
refused". D
1980 "From what I know of him, he merely talks but does
nothing very much. He refused to teach at IAT though
qualified on papers. He is one of those whom we have
to keep on as dead wood".
E
1981 "I agree. I have no high opinion of his work or as a
man. The DRDO derives no benefit from him but our
rules are such that we have to live with such people".
1982 "He is an average officer".
> F
1983 "Performance is average and fair".
1984 "I am totally disappointed: with the officer. My
predecessors have also had the same feeling. I tried to
see whether he could be fit into MTRC Bangalore.
Even for this he has to appear for an interview. His G
performance as far as I.can see is mediocre and I
accept ... 's observation.
He had stated "he is in my opinion at the lowest limit
I of technical performance and managerial performance
in DCRL Scientist 'E'. '' H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A By the time the review was undertaken the report for the year 1985
was not ready mainly on account of the appellant not furnishing his
self-assessment hut the report which came latter indicated that he was
graded as poor for that year.
From the records we find that on June 9, 1980, the head of the
a establishment had written to the appellant to the following effect:
"Reference your letter of 27th May, 1980. You will
recall some time ago you sent me several communications
and also saw me in person about your future interests I
thought I had been able to give you a chance to expand on
your interest, but you have turned it down. It is, therefore,
('
not clear what exactly you want. If you watJt to take a
dominant role in the microwave development and research
and its related activities, this cannot be done purely on a
personal basis; it should be a part of the overall programme
of the Organisation. I am, therefore, requesting Shri
Narayana Rao to use you in whatever way he deems fit
until a suitable post is found for you."
On 17th April, 1986, the Director of Defence Electronics
Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, had written a letter to the Director
of Personnel, R & D Organisation, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi,
E about the appellant, a copy of which is on record. The letter makes
grievance that the appellant is non-cooperative in the matter of sub-
mission of his self-assessment for the year 1985. It further stated:
"I do not recommend him .for promotion, due to the
above mentioned remedial defects about which he has been
told many time by me.
For many years he has not been putting in even the
minimum amount of effort which is expected of a person of
his level. With Government now extending the services of
Scientists/Engineers upto 60 years, I feel that in the best
interests of the Government, a careful study has to be made
whether people of his calibre and capabilities are allowed
to be continued in Government service.
I regard his overall per(ormance is poor and he comes
against the lowest 5% of the Sc.E in the laboratory".
l .K. SINHA v. U.0.1. [MISRA, l.) 11
•
The appellant has served under four controlling authorities and
A
three of them are Scientists of international repute. These Scientists
appear to have made a fair assessment of the appellant's work and
what is material is that there is unanimity in their ~onclusion. Year>
back one of the entries had indicated that the appellant had become
"dead wood".
B
The Tribunal rightly rejected the plea of mala fides. Quite
appropriately, Mr. Rao did not reiterate that contention. There could
be no reason why everyone in the Institution should turn hostile to the
appellant.
Mr. Rao had contended that there was no communication of
adverse entries. Ordinarily when the entries relate to specific instances c
leading to adverse entries, the communication thereof is sent to the
·officer concerned with a view to providing an opportunity for improve-
ment of performance. The entries which we have extracted above are
mostly based upon general assessment of the performance. As we have
already pointed out, he was communicated years back the general D
a. disapproval of his method of working. We are satisfied that the review
proceedings were in consonance with the guidelines framed by the
Government. The post in which the appellant was working was a
responsible one and poor performance could not be tolerated. In
Shyam Lal v,, State of U.P. & Union of India, [1955] 1 SCR 26, a
Constitution Bench had indicated. that compulsory retirement did not E
involve any stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity. Ever
since then by a caiena of decisions, ihe power of compulsory retire-
ment and the procedure prescribed for taking9f such action have been
approved by this Court. It is unnecessary to refer to those cases.
·,_
From the proceedings of the Review Committee, we find that the F
Committee took up the review of 19 officers and found the appellant
alone liable for retirement. The record of the proceedings shows that
even at Government level after the recommendation of review com-
mittee, the report was duly scrutinised.
In our opinion, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that G
the order of compulsory retirement was not open to challenge. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There would be no order for costs.
i
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed. H
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compulsory retirement"Sign in to search