ivil Appeal No 4756 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 691985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Misc
Petition No 465 of 1984
SK Agnihotri for the Appellant
SK Gambhir for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KN SINGH J
Special leave granted
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur Gwalior Bench dated 691985 quashing the State Government s order dated 2181984 pre maturely retiring the respondent from service
The respondent was holding the post of Deputy Director of Geology and Mining in the State of Madhya Pradesh
The State Government constituted a committee for screening the service roll of its employees for considering the question of compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 35 years
The Screening Committee which 250 included Shri SS Dave Director of Geology and Mining Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on examining the service records of the respondent made recommendation to the Government for his pre mature retirement
Pursuant to the Screening Committee s recommendation the State Govern ment by its order dated 2181984 retired the respondent compulsorily from service under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules
The respondent challenged the validity of the State Government s order by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court Gwalior Bench
The High Court quashed the State Government s order on the finding that the participation of Shri SS Dave in the deliberation of the Screening Committee vitiated its recommendation and also consequently order of the State Government on the doctrine of bias
The High Court further held that since Shri SS Dave had on an earlier occasion awarded adverse remarks against the respondent he was biased in law and therefore he was disqualified to be a member of the Screening Committee and his participation in the Screen ing Committee rendered his recommendation invalid
The High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in AK Kraipak  Ors etc
vs Union of India After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed
The object and purpose of Fundamental Rule 56 conferring power on the Government to prematurely terminate the service of a Government servant is to ensure efficiency in the adminis tration by weeding out dead wood officials who may have outlived their utility as observed by this Court in JN Sinha vs Union of India 1971 1 SCR 791
While exercising this power the State Government constituted a high powered Committee consisting of senior officials of the State Gov ernment and SS Dave being the Head of Department of Geolo gy and Mining was a member of the Screening Committee
As Head of Department he was the best person to assess the efficiency and utility of employees working in the Depart ment of Geology and Mining
His presence in the Committee was necessary to have a fair and correct assessment of the work and conduct of the employees of that Department for the purposes of making recommendations to the Government
While it is true that as Head of Department he had awarded adverse remarks to the respondent on an earlier occasion but that does not mean that he had any malice against the respondent in fact no malice had been pleaded by the respondent against SS Dave
As Head of Department Dave had performed his duty in recording his opinion in the respondent s character roll as no other person was entitled under the rules to adjudge his work and 251 conduct
No doubt bias and malice both vitiate decision of an authority
But by no stretch of imagination Dave could be held to have been biased against the respondent merely because on an earlier occasion he had in the performance of his duties awarded an adverse remark to the respondent
The High Court committed serious error in holding that malice in law was writ large on the face of the proceedings of the Screening Committee although no malice in fact had been pleaded against him
In coming to that conclusion the High Court placed reliance of Kraipak s case
As a member of the Screening Committee Shri Dave was performing duty as signed to him under the rules and Government order for screening records of the officers
He had no personal inter est in the matter and there was no conflict between his personal interest and his duties as member of the Screening Committee therefore there could not be any question of bias or malice in law
In Kraipak s case an officer who was himself a candidate for selection was a member of the selec tion committee and selection was held to be vitiated on the ground that there was a conflict between that officer s personal interest and his duties as he was judge of his own cause
The principles laid down in Kraipak s case do not apply to the facts of the instant case
We are therefore of the opinion that Dave s presence in the Screening Committee did not vitiate the recommendation made by the Committee in any manner consequently the State Government s order could not be quashed
The High Court had no valid reason to hold that the Screening Committee was not properly constituted and that its recommendations were unconstitutional
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the respondent s writ petition but we make no order as to costs
Although we have upheld the State Government s order but we would like to observe that since the respondent had been reinstated in service after the High Court order and he has now retired from service on attaining the age of superannua tion the State Government should not take any steps for reducing his pension by treating him to have retired with effect from 2181984
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 101 of the empowered the appropriate Government to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process operation or other work in any establishment
The Government of West Bengal issued a notification on February 9 1980 under section 101 of the Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour in certain departments in the establishments of Ms Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd Paragraph 9 of the Schedule thereto listing the departments included cleaning and stacking and other allied jobs in the brick department except loading and unloading of bricks from wagons and trucks
In the writ petition the affected workmen assailed this action of the State Government in excluding them from the beneficial purview of the notification as arbitrary dis criminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
It was contended for them that the job of loading and un loading was not peculiar to the brick department alone that the work of stacking was directly dependent on the loading and unloading of bricks and that the two jobs being allied and incidental the workmen holding these jobs could not be treated differently
For the respondents it was contended that the job of loading and unloading of bricks in the brick department was not of perennial nature the supply of bricks being intermittent depending upon the requirement avail ability of bricks as also the availability of the wagons and trucks
Allowing the writ petition HELD 11 The is 183 an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of the labourers and has to be liberally construed
186D Standard Vacuum Refining Co of India Ltd vs Its Work men  and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway vs Union of India  Anr   referred to 12 In the instant case it was not denied that the bricks handled by the brick department were used in furnaces of the company as refractory
Therefore the work done by the brick department including loading and unloading of bricks was incidental to the industry carried on by the company
It was also not denied that the petitioners were  employed as contract labour by the company for the last 1520 years
There was therefore no justification to treat the petitioners differently and deny them the right of regular appointment
186E F 13 The purchase of bricks transportation to the facto ry unloading stacking and use in the furnace were the jobs in one continuing process
It could not thus be said that all these jobs were not incidental or allied to each other
That being so all the workmen performing these jobs were to be treated alike
On the same reasoning it could not be said that the loader s job was not and other jobs in the brick department were of perennial nature
There was therefore no justification for excluding the job of loading and un loading of bricks from wagons and trucks from the purview of the notification dated February 9 1980
187G 188A 2
The words except loading and unloading of bricks from wagons and trucks in paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the notification are struck down being discriminatory and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
188A B The petitioners and co workers to be treated at par with effect from the date of notification with those who were doing the job of cleaning and stacking in the brick department and such of them who have been retrenched during the pendency of the writ petition to be put back into serv ice with all back wages and consequential benefits 188B C