Civil Appeal No 3436 of 1979
From the Judgment and order dated the 19th April 1978 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No 224178
MK Ramamurthi and CS Vaidyanathan for the Appellant
Dr YS Chitale and AV Rangam for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
An order of pre mature retirement following close upon the heels of promotion and appointment to a coveted Selection post is bound to perplex any right thinking man and make him wonder whether the right hand knows what the left hand has done
If in the month of May a Government servant is found to possess such high merit and ability which naturally includes integrity as to entitle him not merely to be promoted to a selection post but to be appointed to a very responsible and much desired post in that cadre what could have happened between May and September to merit his being weeded out altogether from service in September under the rule which enables the Government to retire a Government servant in the public interest after he has attained the age of SO years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service
One would expect that some grave and grim situation had developed in the interregnum to warrant the pursuit of such a drastic course
But surprisingly we found nothing what
soever had happened in this case during that period
Let us look at the totality of the facts
77 The appellant appears to have had quite a noteworthy career
A Starting at the lowest rung as a Lower Division Clerk in 1953 he was promoted as an Assistant Commercial Tax officer in 1954 next as a Deputy Commercial Tax officer in 1957 then as a Joint Commercial Tax officer in 1962 thereafter as a Commercial Tax officer in 1966 later as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in 1972 and finally as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 7 S 1975
On promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes he was posted as Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the same cadre
On September 281975 he was retired under Fundamental Rule 56d
His Service Book shows that he had an excellent record of service
He had earned several encomiums commendations and appreciations
The several promotions gained by him react his good record of service
But there was one dark spot
In 1969 when he was working as Commercial Tax officer it was noted in his Confidential file by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as follows This Commercial Tax officer is a very intelligent and capable officer who kept the entire district under his control in perfect discipline
Unfortunately his reputation is not at all good
There were complaints that he used to threaten dealers and take money
The entire matter is under investigation by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department
There was an enquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Charges were framed against the appellant by the Board of Revenue
The explanation of the appellant was obtained
The Full Board of Revenue then reported that the charges should be dropped
The Government accepted the report of the Full Board and dropped the charges making the following order on 29 11 1974 As the preliminary enquiry disclosed a prima facie case of corruption a detailed enquiry was taken up by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Out of eleven allegations levelled against Thiru D Ramaswami seven allegations were not substantiated in the enquiry made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption
The Government examined the report of the Directorate 78 and considered that there was a prima facie case in respect of certain allegations and this was sufficient to proceed against Thiru D Ramaswami
The Board of Revenue CT was therefore requested to frame charges straightaway as for a major penalty against Thiru D Ramaswami on the basis of allegations levelled against him
The Board accordingly framed charges against him in respect of allegations substantiated obtained his explanation and sent its report thereon
The Full Board considered that all the charges framed against Thiru D Ramaswami in consequence of the detailed enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Department cannot be pursued and proved
The Full Board has therefore expressed the view that the said charges may be dropped
The Government accept the views of the Full Board and direct that all the charges framed against Thiru D Ramaswami be dropped
The effect of the order of November 29 1974 of the Government was to grant absolution to the appellant from the repercussions of the note of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made in 1969
If there was any ambiguity about the effect of the Government order it was cleared by the circumstance that within a few months on May 7 1975 he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and posted as Member Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal a prestigious post
It has to be mentioned here that the post of a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is a Selection post
Under Rule 36b i of the Tamil Nadu Genera Rules for the State and Subordinate Services Promotions in a service or class to a selection category or to a selection grade shall be made on grounds of merit and ability seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal
Under Rule 2b of the Tamil Nadu Special Rules for Commercial Taxes Service All promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal
So what do we have  There was an adverse entry in the confidential file of the appellant in 1969
The basis of the entry 79 was knocked out by the order dated November 29 1974 of the A Government and the effect of the entry was blotted out by the promotion of the appellant as Deputy Commissioner
After his promotion as Deputy Commissioner there was no entry in the service Book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a Govt
servant
If there was some entry not wholly favourable to the appellant after his promotion one might hark back to similar or like entries in the past read them all in conjunction and conclude that the time had arrived for the Government servant to quit Government service
But with nothing of the sort it is indeed odd to retire a Government servant a few months after promoting him to a Selection post
In the present case we made a vain search in Service record of the appellant to find something adverse to the appellant apart from the 1969 entry
All that we could find was some stray mildly deprecating entries such as the one in 1964 which said He is sincere and hardworking
He manages his office very well
He exercises adequate control over subordinates
He maintains a cordial relationship with public
Because of his stiff attitude some of the assessees complain about him stating that he is rude in his behaviour This perhaps is due to his unbending attitude
With a little more tact he will be an asset to the Department
one curious feature of the case is that while the 1969 entry noted that an enquiry was pending with the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department in regard to the allegations against
the appellant the ultimate result of the enquiry which was that the charges should be dropped was nowhere noted in the personal file of the appellant
One wonders whether the failure to note the result of the enquiry in the personal file led to the impugned order  In the face of the promotion of the appellant just a few months earlier and nothing even mildly suggestive of ineptitude or inefficiency thereafter it is impossible to sustain the order of the Government retiring the appellant from service
The learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu argued that the Government was entitled to take into consideration the entire history of the appellant including that part of it which was prior to his promotion 80 We do not say that the previous history of a Government servant should be completely ignored once he is promoted
Sometimes past events may help to assess present conduct
But when there is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of the promotion we see no justification for needless digging into the past
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions in Swami Saran Saksena vs State of UP 1 Baldev Raj Chadha vs Union of India  Ors 2 State of Punjab vs Dewan Chuni Lal 3 while the learned counsel for respondent relied on the decision in Union of India etc
vs ME Reddy  Anr
4 All the decisions have a been considered by us in reaching our conclusion
The appeal is allowed
G O Ms No 1112 dated September 19 1975 Commercial Taxes Religious Endowments Department Government of Tamil Nadu is quashed
The appellant will be reinstated in service and paid the arrears of salary due to him under the rules
He is entitled to his costs
PBR Appeal allowed


Summary:
HELD In the face of the appellant s promotion a few months before his compulsory retirement under F R 56 d and nothing even mildly suggestive of ineptitude or inefficiency after his promotion it is impossible to sustain the order of the Government retiring him from service
79 G When the Government exonerated him of the charges levelled against him the basis of the adverse entry in his confidential file was knocked out
By reason of the promotion of the selection post of Deputy Commissioner and posting as a Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal the effect of the entry was further blotted out
Since then there was no adverse entry in his service record to discredit him or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a Government servant
Had there been another adverse entry after his promotion it would have been possible to read them all in conjunction and say that it was time for him to quit Government service
But that was not so
It was therefore odd that he was retired a few months after his promotion
79 A C 76 All this is not to say that previous history of a Government servant should be completely ignored once he is promoted
Sometimes past events might help to assess the present conduct but when there was nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of the promotion there was no justification for needless digging into the past
80 A B Swami Saran Saksena vs State of UP 1980 I SCR 923 Baldev Raj Chadha vs Union of India  Ors 1981 I SCR 430 State of Punjab vs Dewan Chuni Lal   and Union of India etc
vs M E Reddy  Anr   referred to