George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

on 4 October, 2005

Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore

George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006 (91) SLJ 225 CAT
Bench: G Shanthappa, K A K.N.K.
ORDER G. Shanthappa, Member (J)

1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking
the following relief's :

(i) To quash both the orders No. Vig. XXV (41)/KN/2002/3732 dated 24.11.2002 passed by the
respondent No. 3, Annexure-'A7' and

(ii) No. Vig. XXV/KN/2002/4064 dated 11.11.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3, Annexure-'A
10'.

(ii) Consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with full back salary
and continuity of service with consequential benefits, and

(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of the case are :-The applicant joined the respondent/Employees Provident Fund
Organisation as a Lower Division Clerk on 11.7.1967, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on
19.10.1973, further promoted as Head Clerk in February, 1983 and as Enforcement Officer/Assistant
Accounts Officer on 31.12.1990. While working as Enforcement Officer, he was issued a charge
memo. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against him under Rule 10 of the
Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 vide
memorandum dated 29.10.1999. After conducting inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry
report holding that the charge against the applicant proved. On the basis of findings of the Inquiry
Officer, the 3rd respondent imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the applicant vide order
dated 3.5.2001. The applicant preferred an appeal being aggrieved by the said order to the
Chairman, Central Bank of Trustees on 9.7.2001. The said appeal was partly allowed by modifying
the penalty into reduction of pay by 5 stages in the pay scale for a period of 2 years with further
directions that during the period of reduction he will draw his increments and such reduction will
not have the effect of postponing his future increments. The applicant submitted his representation
to the 2nd respondent on 2.7.2003 with a request to exonerate him of the charges and pay him full
salary during the intervening period of his compulsory retirement and reinstatement. The 4th
respondent informed the applicant to limit his prayer to payment of full salary during the said
period of absence from duty. The applicant submitted another representation to the 2nd respondent
on 7,8.2003 with a prayer to pay full salary and allowances during the said period. Without
considering the said representation, the 2nd respondent has rejected the request of the applicant
and issued the impugned order effecting compulsory retirement of the applicant under FR 56(j)(i).
The applicant submitted his representation to the Chairman of Board of Trustees on 15.12.2003 with
a request to reinstate him in service. The said representation was rejected. The applicant is
challenging the said impugned orders on the ground that the impugned orders are not sustainable in

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 1

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

the eye of law and as per provisions of FR 56(j) the respondents have failed to consider the entire
service record of the applicant to effect compulsory retirement of the applicant. The decision to
retire the applicant compulsorily has been arrived at based on his confidential reports/dossier for
the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. A CBI case was pending against the applicant which arose on
the same facts based on which disciplinary proceeding was held against him, which culminated in
imposition of penalty of reduction in pay by 5 stages in the pay scale for a period of two years.
Doubtful integrity was opined by the Representation Committee which is not the opinion of the
Appointing Authority or the immediate superior of the applicant. The conclusion that major penalty
imposed and the CBI case pending casts aspersions on the integrity of the applicant was the basis for
compulsory retirement which is illegal. The impugned order suffers from mala fide, arbitrariness
and contrary to law. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and relief as prayed for
shall be granted.

2. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed reply urging to reject the relief sought by the
applicant. The averments made are irrelevant. The applicant was retired prematurely under FR
56(j)(i) and not, compulsorily retired. Action has been taken after following FR 56(j). Premature
retirement order under the ibid provisions is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the
past benefits. Chopping off the deadwood is one of the important considerations for invoking the
provision of FR 56(j) which authorizes the Government to review the work of its employees at the
end of their period of service. The interest of public administration requires retirement of a
Government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard
of efficiency, competency and utility called for by the Government service. No stigma or implication
of misbehaviour is intended and punishment is not the objective. The respondents have denied that
the impugned orders at Annexures-A7 and A10 are not sustainable in the eye of law. The inference
drawn by the applicant that the respondents have failed to consider the entire record of service of
settlement before ordering premature retirement of the applicant from service is far from truth. The
respondents denied that the applicant has been prematurely retired from service based on
confidential report for the period from 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 wherein the performance of the
applicant was recorded as 'average'. A major penalty was imposed on the applicant and the CBI was
pending against him which cast aspersion on integrity. The decision was taken on the basis of the
service record of the applicant. Since the criminal case filed by the CBI is still pending against the
applicant, it cannot be said that the applicant did not commit any grave misconduct, prejudicial to
public interest. The applicant has no legal right to challenge the impugned orders as he was not
inflicted with any penalty. He is not aggrieved by the said orders and there was no reduction of his
pensionary benefits. The impugned orders are not mala fide, arbitrary or contrary to law. Since the
Competent Authority has power to exercise power under FR 56(j), the impugned orders are perfect,
there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents and hence the O.A. is liable to be
dismissed.

3. The applicant has filed rejoinder. There is no much clarification is made except in Para 3 of his
rejoinder. It is asserted that there is no basis to conclude that the applicant is a person of "doubtful
integrity". But, pendency of criminal proceedings filed by the CBI did not establish anything adverse
against the applicant so far. The conclusion of the respondents based on pending criminal case
initiated by the CBI is perverse.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 2

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

4. We heard the learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Holla for the applicant and Mr. H.K.S. Holla for the
respondents. We perused the pleadings and documents available on record. The applicant has cited
four judgments viz., (i) 1996(2) SLJ 3 Sukhedo v. The Commissioner Amravati Division, Amaravati
and Anr.,(ii)1996(3) SLJ 65 State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, (iii) , Brij Mohan Singh
Chopra v. State of Punjab and (iv) , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nagam and Ors. The
learned Counsel for the respondents cited two judgments viz., (1) , Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v.
Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. and , Union of India v. J.N, Sinha and Anr.

5. The admitted facts from either side are that the applicant while working as Enforcement Officer,
was served with a charge memo dated 29.10.1999. The said charge is as follows:

That Shri George Felix Mani while functioning as Enforcement Officer, Bangalore Division-III in the
Regional Office, Bangalore during the period from January 1991 to April 1996 had failed to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he had recommended for allotment of separate
code number of M/s. Premier Security Services Private Limited, Bangalore with effect from 1.3.1995
without ensuring compliance upto February 1995 in respect of their Southern Offices and in spite of
the fact that the said establishment had requested for allotment of code number w.e.f. 15.3.1994.

The applicant was given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence. The applicant
denied the charge. The inquiry was held and Inquiry Authority has held the charge as proved.
Inquiry report was supplied for which he had filed representation on 30.10.2000. After considering
the representation the 3rd respondent imposed penalty of compulsory retirement on the applicant
on 30.5.2001 against which an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal
was partly allowed by modifying the penalty into reduction of pay by 5 stages in the pay scale for a
period of 2 years with further directions that during the period of reduction the applicant would
draw his increments and such reduction would not have the effect of postponing his future
increments. Subsequently, another order dated 24.11.2003was passed by the 2nd respondent giving
effect to the compulsory retirement of the applicant by exercising powers under FR 56(j)(i) and
further directed he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a
period of three months. The applicant submitted his representation which finally was turned down.
While passing the impugned orders the respondents have considered confidential report dossiers for
the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and also the fact of pending case filed by the CBI against the
applicant. Hence, there was a stigma cast against the character of the applicant. When such being
the case, we have to find out whether the impugned order of compulsory retirement is perverse or in
accordance with FR 56(j). We have carefully examined the impugned orders at Annexure-A7 dated
24.11.2003 and Annexure-A10 dated 11.11.2004. The impugned order at Annexure-A7 is a short and
cryptic order. It is relevant to extract the observations made in the said order which reads as under :

Whereas the Central Provident Fund Commissioner is of the opinion that it is in the public interest
to do so;

Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j)(i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental
Rules, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner hereby retries Shri George Felix Mani, EO/AAO
with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of fifty years.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 3

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

Shri George Felix Mani, EO/AAO shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus
allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing the
same immediately before his retirement.

On the representation of the applicant dated 15.12.2003 the Competent Authority that is the Central
Provident Fund Commissioner has passed the order confirming the earlier order passed by
exercising the powers under FR 56(j). In the latest order, the observation made by the respondents
is that they have reviewed the case of the applicant under FR 56(j) on the basis of confidential report
dossier for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and graded him as 'average' under various
parameters. It is stated that the submissions of the applicant merit to consideration. It is further
stated "that the decision was taken in bona fide way duly supported by service records, vigilance
profile etc. The major penalty imposed and CBI case pending cast aspersion on his integrity. Also
the contention of the official that the order amounts to double jeopardy is without merit since the
termination of service by way of premature retirement is not a punishment and cannot be equated
with a penal order of removal or dismissal. The citations quoted by the official are irrelevant since
the order based on merit has been issued in public interest and does not contain any imputation.
Hence it is not open to challenge on the grounds of stigma. All other conditions that the same is not
actuated by arbitrariness or mala fide and has been issued by invoking the rules in a fair and
reasonable manner have been complied in this case." In the impugned order it is referred that the
representation committee has come to the conclusion that the representation submitted by the
applicant does not merit acceptance.

6. It is relevant to refer to the provision of FR 56(j):

(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government
servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and
allowances in lieu of such notice;

(i) If he is in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary
capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has
attained the age of 50 years;

(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years.

7. While arguing the case, the applicant has contended that he was not served with any adverse
remarks and even if there are adverse remarks they were not communicated to the applicant. Hence,
the interference drawn by the authority that there were adverse entries against the applicant is
totally illegal and against law. As per the said provision, the respondents have to look into the entire
service record of the applicant and if there are any adverse entries therein, if there is proved
doubtful integrity and there is any misconduct committed by the applicant the respondents are
justified in taking action under the impugned orders. Even if there is a criminal case against the
applicant that should not be treated as doubtful integrity. The impugned orders are arbitrary and
are passed without considering the factual aspects and on this ground they are liable to be quashed

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 4

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

following the judgment referred to by the applicant Sukhdeo v. The Commissioner Amaravati
Division, Amaravati and Anr., (supra) in particular Para 6 thereof which reads:

6. It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a Government servant,
the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service required to be closely
scrutinized and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State Bank of India etc. v. Kashinath
Kher and Ors., Etc. , this Court has held that the Controlling Officer while writing confidential and
character role report, he should be a superior officer higher above the cadres of the officer whose
confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair
assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the
officer's devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officer.
Lest the officers get demoralized which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public
service. In that case it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the officer
of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee
was held to be illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected of from that
high responsible officer who made the remarks. When an officer makes the remarks he must eschew
of making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer. He must bestow
careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when
he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service
were in jeopardy. In this case, the Controlling Officer has not used due diligence in making remarks.
It would be salutary that the Controlling Officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior
sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In
spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious
fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned
that he had given prior opportunity in writing for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it
would form part of the record. The power exercised by the Controlling Officer is per se illegal. The
Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter in dismissing the petition. The appellant is
entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appeal is accordingly allowed with
exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- recoverable by the State from the officer who made the
remarks.

According to the said judgment the applicant was not given an opportunity to rectify the mistakes,
no memos were issued for shortfall of his service and there were no materials to support the ad verse
remarks. Hence, the observation made in the impugned order is contrary to the said judgment.

8. In 1996(3) SLJ 65, State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to hold at Para 4 as follows ;

4. 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 premises 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 pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse
remarks made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 5

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

character role. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may
be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, nevertheless remains part of the
record for over all consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object always is
public interest. The material question is: whether the entire record of service was considered or not?
It is not for the Court/Tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire
the Government is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper
decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider
the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries
were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsorily retirement of the Government servant
could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the
Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man
would the Government or Competent Officer reach that decision. We find that self-same material
after promotion may not betaken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But,
that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency
or necessity to continue the Government servant in service after he attained the required length of
service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse
entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not
a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits.

9. In the present case there were no adverse remarks served on the applicant. It is well settled
position that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to 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.
Before taking such a decision to retire Government servant compulsorily from service, the
Government have to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest
reports. In the present case the respondents have considered the service record only for two years
i.e., from 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in which the applicant has been graded as 'average'.
Admittedly 'average' is not an adverse remark, as held in various judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court.

10. In Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab (supra), it is held in Paragraphs 9 and 11 as
follows:

9. The question which falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid two entries could be taken into
consideration in forming the requisite opinion to retire prematurely the appellant from service.
There is no doubt that whenever an adverse entry is awarded to a Government servant it must be
communicated to him. The object and purpose underlying the communication is to afford an
opportunity to the employee to improve his work and conduct and to make representation to the
authority concerned against those entries. If such a representation is made it is imperative that the
authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of
the ad verse entries the justified or not. Making of a representation is a valuable right to a
Government employee and if the representation is not considered, it is bound to affect him in his
service career, as in Government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 6

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

retirement all depend on the security of the service records. In Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab ,
the appellant therein was denied promotion on account of certain adverse entries against which he
had made representation to the Government but for some reason or the other those representations
could not be considered or disposed of. In view of those adverse entries he was not selected for
promotion. This Court while considering the effect of non-consideration of the representation
observed (at p. 1626 of AIR):

The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in
confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated
to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to
explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its
object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the
explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately,
for some reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the
adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his
explanation and decide whether the report was justified.

11. Though the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the
question of his premature retirement, but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service do
not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire
him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period.
In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, (supra) this Court held that if an officer had earned to
adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, he cannot be
cashiered on the score that long years ago his performance had been poor. It appears that the State
of Punjab realized that premature retirement of an employee on the basis of entire service record
which may include stale entry, would be unreasonable and it therefore issued Government order on
June 22,1981 directing that under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 it
would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire service record of an employee and premature
retirement should not be ordered if during the last five years the work and conduct of the employee
have been good. This direction was no doubt issued after the appellant was prematurely retired in
March 1980 but nonetheless it is apparent that the Government had changed its policy in
accordance with the decisions of this Court and it had taken a decision not to retire a Government
servant if his service record for the last five years did not contain any adverse remarks. The
appellant had not earned any adverse remarks during the last five years of service, on the other hand
he had earned 'good' and 'very good' entries during those years. In this view the Government's
decision to retire the appellant prematurely in exercise of the power under Rule 3 is not sustainable
in law.

The procedure followed by the respondents is totally against the principles laid down in the above
case. If the respondents wanted to compulsorily retire the applicant in the interest of public, they
should have followed the guidelines issued under the relevant rules. In the present case the
respondents have not followed the rules and guidelines for awarding adverse entries in the
confidential rolls. The said judgment has been referred to which is relied upon by the respondents.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 7

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

11. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held at Paragraphs 21 and 33 as follows:

21. As stated earlier, even in the case of compulsory retirement under Rule 16(3), an order may be
challenged in a Court if it is arbitrary or mala fide. If, however, the Government reaches a decision
to prematurely retire a Government servant, bona fide, the order, per se, cannot be characterized as
by way of punishment since it does not cast any stigma on the employee nor does the employee
forfeit any benefit which he has already earned by his service, nor does it result in any civil
consequences.

33. In order to pass the test of constitutionality, Rule 16(3) must needs safeguarded by reasonable
procedural guidelines in order that there may be no scope for arbitrariness or discrimination. That
is how Rule 16(3), being silent, instructions speak and do vitiative service in a vacuous field. The
material procedure under the instructions, as if interwoven in Rule 16(3), can on no account be held
invalid or impermissible.

On careful consideration of the impugned orders we find that the respondents have passed the
orders arbitrarily, without following the procedural guidelines. The impugned orders are silent
about instructions and the consideration of the entire service record. The said judgment was
rendered by the Bench consisting of 3 Judges. As per these judgments, the impugned orders are
arbitrary in nature and liable to be quashed.

12. The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikuntha Nath Dass
and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. (supra). As per the said judgment
compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it implies no stigma nor suggestion of
misbehaviour. Compulsory retirement--Subjective satisfaction--Formulation--Government ought to
consider entire service record--More importance however to be given to record of later years. The
relevant paras in this regard are Paras 14, 16, 22, 29 and 32 which read thus:

14. It is evidence that in this case, the question arising for our consideration viz., whether
uncommunicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration along with other material for
compulsorily retiring a Government servant did not arise for consideration. That question arose
directly in Union of India v. M.E. Reddy .

16. The learned Judges referred to the decisions in R.L. Butail 1971 Lab 1C (N) 2, J.N. Sinha and
several other decisions of this Court and held that the confidential reports, even though not
communicated to the officer concerned, can certainly be considered by the Appointing Authority
while passing the order of compulsory retirement. In this connection, they relied upon the principle
in J.N. Sinha that principles of natural justices are not attracted in the case of compulsory
retirement since it is neither a punishment nor does it involve any civil consequences.

22. We may mention that the order of compulsory retirement in the above case is dated 28th
September 1979. The High Court took into account the confidential reports relating to the period
prior to 1966 which were also not communicated to the concerned officer. However, the decision is

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 8

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

based not upon the non-communication of adverse remarks but on the ground that they were too far
in the past. It was observed that reliance on such record has the effect of denying an opportunity of
improvement to the officer concerned. The decision in Baldev Raj Chaddha v. Union of India is to
the same effect. In J.D. Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh , it was held by a Bench of three
learned Judges that adverse reports prior to the promotion of the officer cannot reasonably form a
basis for forming an opinion to retire him. The reports relied upon for retiring the appellant were
more than 20 years old and there was no other material upon which the said decision could be
based. It was held that reliance on such stale entries cannot be placed for retiring a person
compulsorily, particularly when the officer concerned was promoted subsequent to such entries.

29. On the above premises, it follows, in our respectful opinion that the view taken in J.N. Sinha,
AIR 1971 SC 40, is the correct one viz., principles of natural justice are not attracted in a case of
compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. In this context, we may point
out a practical difficulty arising from the simultaneous operation of two rules enunciated by Brji
Mohan Singh Chopra AIR 1987 SC 948. On one hand, it is stated that only the entries of last ten
years should be seen, and (2) on the other hand, it is stated that if there are any abverse remarks
therein, they must not only be communicated but the representations made against them should be
considered and disposed of before they can be taken into consideration. Where do we draw the line
in the matter of disposal of representation. Does it mean, disposal by the appropriate authority
alone or does it include appeal as well. Even if the appeal is dismissed, the Government servant may
file a revision or make a representation to a still higher authority. He may also approach a Court or
Tribunal for expunging those remarks. Should the Government wait until all these stages or over. All
that would naturally take a long time by which time, these reports would also have become stale. A
Government servant so minded can adopt one or the other proceeding to keep the matter alive. This
is an additional reason for holding that the principle of M.E. Reddy AIR 1980 SC 563 should be
preferred over Brij Mohan Singh Chopra AIR 1987 SC 948 and Baidyanath Mahapatm AIR 1989 SC
2218, on the question of taking into consideration uncommunicated adverse remarks.

32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion
of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public
interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective
satisfaction of the Government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement.
This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court
would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the
order is passed (a)mala fide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the
sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it
is found to be a perverse order.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 9

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the
entire record of service before taking a decision undue matter--of course attaching more importance
to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally
include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a
Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such
remarks lose their sting, more so; if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon
seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing
that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That
circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This object has been
discussed in Paras 29 to 31 above.

We have carefully examined the contentions raised by the respondents on the basis of the said
judgment. In the said judgment the earlier judgment has been relied upon. The respondents have
also admitted that the entire service records/CRs were not considered by the authorities, only two
years confidential reports were considered and the applicant was graded for those years as 'average'.
When the CRs were adverse to the applicant, then only the authorities can exercise power under FR
56(j) and order for compulsory retirement. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
v. J.N. Sinha (supra) principles of natural justice are not attracted in the case of compulsory
retirement since it is neither a punishment nor does it involve any civil consequences. There is no
arbitrary or mala fide action of the respondents. If there is mala fide on the part of the respondents
then only this Tribunal can interfere. Non-communication of adverse remarks does not suffer from
any infirmity in the impugned orders. The respondents have also argued that there is a basis for
coming to the conclusion that the applicant had to be compulsorily retired. When there is no
arbitrary action it is not open to this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned order on judicial
scrutiny.

13. In Union of India v. J.N. Sinha and Anr. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

8. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate
authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the
public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That
power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the
concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority
bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before Courts. It
is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the the
decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent
challenged the opinion formed by the Government on the ground of mala fide. But, that ground has
failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned
order was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the
1st respondent's service is that the Government can choose to retire him any time after he completes

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 10

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he
does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves
no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 560) is not intended for taking any penal action
against the Government servant/That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the 'pleasure'
doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weight with the
appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the
Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer
more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not
inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further
be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and
integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in
Government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the
same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government
servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government
servant, the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by
compulsorily retiring those who is its opinion should not be there in public interest.

As per the said judgment doctrine of pleasure is available to the authorities under FR 56(j). The
applicant has no legal right to challenge the doctrine of pleasure. As per the said judgment the
impugned orders passed by the respondents are perfect.

14. We have carefully examined the impugned orders by applying the principles laid down in various
judgments referred above by the Hon'ble Apex Court. On careful perusal of the impugned orders we
are of the view that the respondents have not followed Government of India instructions in respect
of writing confidential reports, we are of the view there is no doubtful integrity, though the criminal
case is pending against the applicant it cannot be termed as misconduct o the applicant as held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. The attack of the applicant is that FR 56 is not applicable
to the facts of the case since the service of the applicant is under Central Provident Fund
Organization. The learned Counsel for the respondents has produced ESI Act, 1952 in which EPF
(Service Conditions) Regulations have been pointed out under which FR and SR have been adopted
as per Regulation 9(3). The applicant has not averred in the O.A. or in the rejoinder that FR 56(j) is
not applicable to the service of the applicant. The respondents have objected for considering the
ground of non-applicability of FR 56(j). We have carefully considered the contentions raised
regarding maintainability of O.A. As referred to in Regulation 9(3) of EPF (Service Conditions)
Regulations we consider FR and SR are applicable to the employees of Provident Fund
Organisation. Hence, the contention of the applicant regarding maintainability is rejected.

15. Admittedly, there is no mala fide urged against any of the officers. As per the judgments referred
to above, the question that has to be considered is as to whether there is any arbitrary action while
passing the impugned orders. When admitted facts are that the entire CRs of the applicant were not
considered by the respondents and they have only considered CBI case pending against the
applicant which shows the integrity of the applicant. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
mere pendency of the criminal case against the applicant cannot be considered as misconduct and
the integrity of the applicant is doubtful. Hence, the reasons assigned in the impugned orders are

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 11

 George Felix Mani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2005

perverse and arbitrary. No doubt the Government has powers to exercise the powers under FR 56(j)
for compulsory retirement of the employees. If there is an illegality while exercising the powers, at
that stage the Tribunal can interfere by the judicial review. Admittedly, the respondents have not
followed the instructions and they have not communicated adverse entries recorded in the
confidential reports and they have not considered the entire service record. When there is a
procedural lapse on the part of the respondents, it is a case for interference by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, we quash the impugned orders by applying the judgments referred to above.

16. For the foregoing reason, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case
for grant of relief as sought for. We, therefore, quash the impugned orders. Since the applicant has
retired by now on superannuation, the respondents are directed to grant all monetary and service
benefits to which the applicants entitled to as if the impugned orders were never in existence and
regulate his pensionary benefits from the date of his superannuation accordingly. The applicant is
entitled for all consequential benefits.

17. O.A. is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1598003/ 12