STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusRAM CHANDRA DAS

                       STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.                               A
                                     v.
                          RAM CHANDRA DAS

                                MAY 8, 1996
                                                                               B
 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

        Service Law:

        Orissa Service Code :
                                                                               c
        Rule 71(a)-Compulsory retirement-Assistant Conservator of Forests
in Govemment of Oriss<r-Compu/sorily retired from service-Officer allowed
to cross efficiency bar and was promoted p1ior to the order of compulsory
retirement-Held, Govemment servant was allowed to cross efficiency bar to
enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the D
efficiency bai-Adverse remarks are made after promotion-It is not for the
Court/Tribunal to see whether the decision of Govemment to compulsorily
retire the Govem1J1ent sen;ant is justified or not-<Jovemnient is required to
consider entire record of service and take a proper decision-Merely because
a promotion has been gi,ven after adverse entries were niade, cannot be a
ground that compulsory retirement could not be ordere~Self same material       E
after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny the Govem-
ment servant further promotio1~ but that material undoubtedly would be
available to the Govemment to .consider the overall expediency or necessity
to continue the Govemment servant in service after he attained the required
length of service or qualified period of service for pension.
                                                                               F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9023 of
1996.

      From the Judgment and order dated 18.7.92 of the Orissa Ad-
ministrative Tribunal in 0.A. No. 340 of 1987.                                 G

        R.M. Bagai, C.S. Ashri and Raj Kr. Mehta for the Appellants.

        Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent.

        The following Order. of the Court was delivered :                      H
                                     559
    560                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         Leave granted.

          We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

           Thi.< appeal by special arises from the judgment and order passed by
    the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992.
B   The respondent while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was
    compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated August 1, 1983
    which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings.
    The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds: (1) the respondent
    was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after
C   the adverse remarks were made, the records were wiped out; and (iii) the
    entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, there-
    fore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under Section
    71 (a) was not valid in law. The question is: whether the view taken by the
    Tribunal is correct in, law? It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal
    position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to
D   compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to
    improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of
    doubtful integrity or corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to
    take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a
    sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such
E   decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, have
    to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest
    reports.

          Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code empowers the Government to
    do the needful and reads as under:
F
             "Rule-7l(a} - Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of
             this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government
             Servant, except a ministerial servant who \Vas in Government
             service on the 31st March, 1939 and Class IV Government servant,
             is the date on which he or she attains the age of 50 years subject
G            to the condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of the
             Government servant in the 55th year. of age in order to remain in
             service up to the date of the completion of the age of 50 years or
             retired on completing the age of 55 years in public interest."

H         A reading thereof would indicate that the Government has been
                            STATE v. R.C. DAS                               561

empo\vercd, in the public interesl, to con1pulsorily retire a Government           A
servant on his attaining the age of 50 years or on completion of 55 years
by review of the service record.

      It is seen that though the respondent has contended that neither the
entire record of service was placed before the Review Committee, nor the
Committee had gone into, nor had the advantage of it; and it considered
                                                                                   B
only the adverse remarks for the years 1980-81and1981-82 in the rejoinder
affidavit filed in this Court, it was specifically slated that the entire record
of service from 1.964-65 lo 1981-82 and also the pending proceedings in the
departmental enquiry against the respondent were placed before the
Review Committee and the same were duly considered by it. It is also seen          c
that when the case was argued before the Tribunal, the copy of proceedings
and report of the Review Committee and record was produced. The
Tribunal had also noted in para 5 of the order thus :

         "Learned Government Advocate produced before us a copy of the
                                                                                   D
         proceedings of the Review Committee meeting held on 8.6.83. On
         perusal of the same, we find that the Committee perused the
         C.C.Rs., entries of the applicant and took consideration the allega-
         tions against him in the departn1ental proceedings on charges of
         misuse of powers, suppression of facts, etc. which \Vere pending
         enquiry before the Administrative Tribunal on the basis of the            E
         aforesaid materials, the Committee felt that continuance of the
         applicant in Government service would not be in public interest
         and, therefore, they recommended that he should be prematurely
         retired.!!

                                                                                   F
      It is contended for the respondent that adverse entries for the two
years referred to earlier and pending departmental proceedings would not
be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant on the premise
that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was
imposed. It is true that the Government servant was allowed to cross the
efficiency bar to enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of         G
pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are after
promo,tjqn. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and
characief role. The record of enquiry on conduct also \vou1d be material.
Thbugh minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances
to act of misconduct, nevertheless remains part of the record for overall          H
    562                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object
    always is public interest. The material question is: whether the entire
    record of service \Vas considered or not? Jt is not for the court/trihunal to
    see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the
    Clovernxncnt servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider
    the san1e anJ take a prupt.:r Uecision in that behalf. As stated earlier) it is
B   settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record
    of service. Merely bccaus~ a promotion has been given even after adverse
    entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsorily retire-
    ment of the Government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does
    not bocome inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. Whal
C   would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a n:asonable
    prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that
    decision. We find that self-same material after promotion may not be taken
    into consideration only to deny hi1n further promotion, if any. But that
    material umlouhtedly would be available to the Government to consider
D   the overall expediency or necessity to continue the (fovernmcnt servant in
    service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period
    of service for pension. It is also n1adc clear that in this case adverse entries
    were n1a<le only after pron1otion and not earlier to pron1otion. Compulsory
    retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits.

E        Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the
    Tribunal was wholly unjustified in interfering with the decision to retire the
    respondent compulsorily from senice on the aforesaid grounds.

             The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without
    costs.
F
    R.P.                                                          Appeal allowed.