ivil Appeal No 658 of 1988 From the Judgment and Order dated 1821987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in OA No 522 of 1986
PP Rao and A Subba Rao for the Appellant
DN Dwivedi Ashok K Srivastava and CVS Rao for the 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 Hyderabad bench dismissing the claim of the appellant and rejecting his challenge to the order dated PG NO 7 28th of November 1986 retiring the appellant from service under Article 459h of the Civil Services Regulations
The order of the retirement impugned in the proceedings was to the following effect 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 JK Sinha Scientist E  DLRL Hyderabad with immediate effect he having already attained the age of 50 years on 27th March 1981
The President also directs that Dr JK 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 retirement
The appellant was born on 27th March 1931 and took the Master s Degree in Science in Physics in 1953 and obtained PhD in microwave Physics from the University of London in 1959
He also became a senior member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics 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 Science Laboratory Delhi and in 1969 was promoted as Principal Scientific Officer
In August 1973 he was further promoted as Deputy Chief Scientific Officer and posted in Defence Electronics Research Laboratory Hyderabad
While serving in the said post he was prematurely retired by the impugned order
Before the Tribunal the appellant contended that he had a brilliant 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 PG NO 8 suggesting for improvement in the laboratory he had pointed out regarding the defective functioning of the Institution
The authorities developed bias against the appellant
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 allegations of bias and mala fide and the appellant s claim that the order of retirement was based upon extraneous consideration and dismissed 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 retirement 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
Mr Rao mainly emphasised that the appellant had a clean service record and therefore there was no justification to prematurely retire him
This submission is based upon the assumption that the appellant s record of service is clean as he has not been communicated any adverse entry in his character roll
Mr Dwivedi for the 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 Year Remarks 1975 I have not been too impressed with this officer who does not seem to fit into DLRL and its work
l agree with Director DLRL and CCRDE in their gradingremarks 
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 post oriented budget system
 PG NO 9 1977 I am in full agreement with Shri    in his commentsassessment 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 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 long term for the officers also as in this case
In principle Dr Sinha would be a good man in the right place 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
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
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
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 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 of technical performance and managerial performance in DCRL Scientist E 
 PG NO 10 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 but 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 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 want 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 about the appellant a copy of which is on record
The letter makes grievance that the appellant is non cooperative in the matter of submission 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 ScientistsEngineers 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 performance is poor and he comes against the lowest 5 of the Sc
E in the laboratory
PG NO 11 The appellant has served under four controlling authorities and 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 conclusion
Years back one of the entries had indicated that the appellant had become dead wood
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 leading to adverse entries the communication thereof is sent to the officer concerned with a view to providing an opportunity for improvement 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 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 vs State of UP  Union of India   a Constitution Bench had indicated that compulsory retirement did not involve any stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity
Ever since then by a catena of decisions the power of compulsory retirement and the procedure prescribed for taking of 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 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 committee the report was duly scrutinised
In our opinion the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement was not open to challenge
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
There would be no order for costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant manufactured one of the three parts ie Indicating system required for the manufacture of weighbridges and after procuring the other two parts brought the three components together at site fitted and assembled them together and thus created a new weighbridge
The appellant challenged the excise duty levied on the manufacture of weighbridges under the 
The appellant s contention before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal was that it was preparing only a part of the weighbridge which was dutiable as a separate part and that as a part of machine was liable to duty then the whole end product should not be dutiable as separate excise goods
The Tribunal held that by whatever process it became a complete weighbridge as long as a weighbridge had been made and completed duty had to be paid
According to the Tribunal though the parts were themselves liable to excise duty the complete machine was also a new excisable Commodity
Dismissing the appeal it was HELD 1 Section 2f of the Act provides an inclusive definition and states that the word manufacture includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product
So any process by which an object becomes new commercial Commodity including any process identical or ancillary to to the completion would be manufacture3C 2 Manufacture means bringing into existence new goods
There must be transformation and a new and different article PG NO 1 PG NO 2 must emerge having a distinctive name character or use
3D E Union of India vs Delhi Cloth Mills l963l Suppl
1 SCR 586 Allenburry Engineers p Ltd vs Ramakrishna Dalmia  and Idandas vs Anant Ramchandra Phadke   referred to
3 If the end product is a separate product which comes into being as a result of the endeavour and activity of the appellant then the appellant must be held to have manufactured the said item
When parts and the end product are separately dutiable both are taxable
4A B