Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Lochan Ram - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - government service - compulsory retirement - if an employee's integrity is doubtful, question of giving him an option to revert back to his parent post is wholly misconceived - screening committee considered the retention of the respondent would not be in the public interest he being on an ineffective employee with doubtful integrity - review committee agreed with the screening committee - tribunal erred in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement on the basis of circular which was never intended for such employees - rule 56(j) of fundamental rules. - multi state co-operative societies act (51 of 1984)sections 18 & 95: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma,jj] state co-operative society area of operation falling in two states on reorganisation of state held, it automatically becomes a multi-state society. procedure prescribed for conversion of state society to multi-state society under section 18 need not be followed. section 95: [s.b.sinha & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] u.p. state re-organization act (2000), sections 67,86 & 93 - state co-operative society - bifurcation of state on reorganization area of operation of co-operative society falling in both states held, section 95 of the multi-state act, 1984 has been incorporated to meet a particular situation. the said section provides that it would be operative as a consequence of reorganisation of states and particularly when any area or portion of area of the society is bifurcated or divided and then falls in the jurisdiction of two state administrations. the idea is to obviate the administrative stalemate arising out of creation of a new state and new administration. the very purpose of having this kind of provision is to stop the applicability of a state co-operative societies act over more than one state as a state act cannot have extra-territorial operation and the multi-state co-operative societies cannot be regulated by a state co-operative societies act. section 67 of re-organisation act cannot prevent such conversion when under section 95 of the multi-state act already exists in the form of central law which takes care of and makes provisions for such co-operative societies which as and from the day of the re-organisation of a particular state become multi-state co-operative societies. section 95: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] uttaranchal co-operative societies act (5 of 2003), section 129 - u.p. state co-operative society - bifurcation of state on re-orgainsation - object of society falling in area of both states held, once a state co-operative society becomes multi-state society on re-organisation of state a state legislation viz. uttaranchal act 2003 which has been enacted subsequently cannot have an overriding effect over a central law viz. the multi-state act and make the central act inapplicable. the bye-laws of the u.p. state society which is an apex society have not been amended so far. the area of operation of the state-society as laid down in its bye-laws it still the same as it was on the date of the reorganization of the state of u.p. therefore, it would be legally impermissible to say that now the area of operation of the state apex society is confined to the state of u.p. alone and that it has ceased to be a multi-state co-operative society. as far as withdrawal of member-co-operative societies of the u.p. state co-operative society operating in the state of uttaranchal is concerned, the deemed conversion of a co-operative society into a multi-state co-operative society by virtue of section 95 of the multi-state act, 1984 is an irreversible process and the membership of a multi-state co-operative society in a particular state at a given point of time is only a fortuitous circumstances on the basis of which a multi-state co-operative society cannot automatically revert to assume the character of a state co-operative society. further, there is no provision in the multi-state act which permits such automatic conversion of a multi-state co-operative society into a state co-operative society by operation of law. - 4. it is too well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it is essentially a power conferred upon the employer to chop off the dead wood in public interest. in the case in hand the screening committee who considered the entries in the confidential character roll of the employees as well as ail other materials, came to the conclusion that the retention of the respondent would not be in the public interest in view of the fact that he was an officer of doubtful integrity. the review committee which consisted of 5 members agreed with the conclusion of the screening committee and recommended the retirement of the employee and, ultimately the union government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement.order1. the union of india is in appeal against the judgement of central administrative tribunal, allahabad bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in oa no. 560/ 89. an order of compulsory retirement of the respondent in exercise of power conferred under rule 56 (j) of the fundamental rules was assailed before the tribunal by the respondent, who on the date of compulsory retirement on 31.10.1988 was continuing as a grade-1 income tax officer.2. be it stated that he had initially been appointed way back in 1959 as an inspector and was promoted to income tax officer grade-ll in 1973. he was granted officiating promotion as income tax officer grade-i in the year 1980 and got regular promotion as income tax officer grade-l in 1984 and was continuing as such till the date of his compulsory retirement. the tribunal by the impugned judgment quashed the order of compulsory retirement inter alia on the ground that the employer did not follow the instructions issued by the government of india on 5.6.1978 inasmuch as an option to the employee to revert back to his post of income tax officer grade-ll was required to be given. the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the tribunal directed that the procedure indicated in the government circular dated 5.6.1978, be followed.3. against the aforesaid order, special leave applications had been filed and leave was granted by this court on 17.10.1994, but the order of the tribunal has not been stayed. the learned counsel is not in a position to tell us as to whether pursuant to the order of the tribunal the respondent was allowed to continue in service till he attained his superannuation. the counsel for the respondent having been elevated as a judge of allahabad high court, there has been no further appearance on behalf of the respondent and therefore, we have discharged the duty of scrutinizing the materials more minutely to find out whether the impugned judgment of the tribunal can at all be sustained.4. it is too well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it is essentially a power conferred upon the employer to chop off the dead wood in public interest. rule 56(j) of the fundamental rules unequivocally indicates that if the appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, would have the absolute right to retire any government servant by giving a notice of not less than 3 months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. since government orders of compulsory retirement were often being assailed before the courts or tribunals and, on account of technical lacunae, the orders were being interfered with, the government has come forward with a set of administrative instructions in the form of a guideline which is dated 5.1.1978. it is this circular which is the basis of the conclusion of the tribunal in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement.5. paragraph 3 of the circular more particularly paragraph (a) thereof unequivocally indicates that a government servant whose integrity is doubtful will be retired. the tribunal however relies upon the subsequent paragraphs where the question of an option to be given to the employee concerned to revert back to his parent post has been indicated.to us it appears that if an employee's integrity is doubtful, question of giving him an option to revert back to his parent post is wholly misconceived. the subsequent paragraph contained in para 6 on which the tribunal relies upon, deals with the cases of other government employees who are found to be ineffective and then if the government decides to exercise power under rule 56 (j) to compulsorily retire them, an option is required to be given. in the case in hand the screening committee who considered the entries in the confidential character roll of the employees as well as ail other materials, came to the conclusion that the retention of the respondent would not be in the public interest in view of the fact that he was an officer of doubtful integrity. it is true, the screening committee was also of the opinion that the respondent was an ineffective employee but that was in addition to the conclusion that he being an officer of doubtful integrity. the review committee which consisted of 5 members agreed with the conclusion of the screening committee and recommended the retirement of the employee and, ultimately the union government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement. this being the position, in our opinion, the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and it must be held that the tribunal committed a gross error of law in relying upon a part of the circular which was never intended for the employees whose integrity has been found to be doubtful by the screening committee and approved by the review committee.6. in the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the tribunal: we however make it clear that if the employee-respondent, has been continuing in service pursuant to the order of the tribunal, the said order not having been stayed by this court, his entire period of service till the date of his superannuation has to be counted for deciding the retiral benefits of the respondent.7. the appeal accordingly stands allowed with the aforesaid observations.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Union of India is in appeal against the judgement of central administrative tribunal, Allahabad bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in OA No. 560/ 89. An order of compulsory retirement of the respondent in exercise of power conferred under Rule 56 (j) of the fundamental rules was assailed before the tribunal by the respondent, who on the date of compulsory retirement on 31.10.1988 was continuing as a grade-1 income tax officer.

2. Be it stated that he had initially been appointed way back in 1959 as an inspector and was promoted to income tax officer grade-ll in 1973. He was granted officiating promotion as income tax officer grade-I in the year 1980 and got regular promotion as income tax officer grade-l in 1984 and was continuing as such till the date of his compulsory retirement. The tribunal by the impugned judgment quashed the order of compulsory retirement inter alia on the ground that the employer did not follow the instructions issued by the government of India on 5.6.1978 inasmuch as an option to the employee to revert back to his post of income tax officer grade-ll was required to be given. The order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the tribunal directed that the procedure indicated in the government circular dated 5.6.1978, be followed.

3. Against the aforesaid order, special leave applications had been filed and leave was granted by this Court on 17.10.1994, but the order of the tribunal has not been stayed. The learned counsel is not in a position to tell us as to whether pursuant to the order of the tribunal the respondent was allowed to continue in service till he attained his superannuation. The counsel for the respondent having been elevated as a judge of Allahabad High Court, there has been no further appearance on behalf of the respondent and therefore, we have discharged the duty of scrutinizing the materials more minutely to find out whether the impugned judgment of the tribunal can at all be sustained.

4. It is too well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it is essentially a power conferred upon the employer to chop off the dead wood in public interest. Rule 56(j) of the fundamental rules unequivocally indicates that if the appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, would have the absolute right to retire any government servant by giving a notice of not less than 3 months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Since government orders of compulsory retirement were often being assailed before the courts or tribunals and, on account of technical lacunae, the orders were being interfered with, the government has come forward with a set of administrative instructions in the form of a guideline which is dated 5.1.1978. It is this circular which is the basis of the conclusion of the tribunal in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement.

5. Paragraph 3 of the circular more particularly paragraph (a) thereof unequivocally indicates that a government servant whose integrity is doubtful will be retired. The tribunal however relies upon the subsequent paragraphs where the question of an option to be given to the employee concerned to revert back to his parent post has been indicated.To us it appears that if an employee's integrity is doubtful, question of giving him an option to revert back to his parent post is wholly misconceived. The subsequent paragraph contained in para 6 on which the tribunal relies upon, deals with the cases of other government employees who are found to be ineffective and then if the government decides to exercise power under Rule 56 (j) to compulsorily retire them, an option is required to be given. In the case in hand the screening committee who considered the entries in the confidential character roll of the employees as well as ail other materials, came to the conclusion that the retention of the respondent would not be in the public interest in view of the fact that he was an officer of doubtful integrity. It is true, the screening committee was also of the opinion that the respondent was an ineffective employee but that was in addition to the conclusion that he being an officer of doubtful integrity. The review committee which consisted of 5 members agreed with the conclusion of the screening committee and recommended the retirement of the employee and, ultimately the union government passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement. This being the position, in our opinion, the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and it must be held that the tribunal committed a gross error of law in relying upon a part of the circular which was never intended for the employees whose integrity has been found to be doubtful by the screening committee and approved by the review committee.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the tribunal: We however make it clear that if the employee-respondent, has been continuing in service pursuant to the order of the tribunal, the said order not having been stayed by this Court, his entire period of service till the date of his superannuation has to be counted for deciding the retiral benefits of the respondent.

7. The appeal accordingly stands allowed with the aforesaid observations.