Case: U. P. State Mineral Development Corporation and Another Vs. K. C. P. Sinha

by Rule 27 was substituted is not applicable to him and was wrongly applied. 14. Shri Tripathi has next submitted that even if clause (iv) of Rule 27 is held to be valid the application of the said rule in the case of the respondent suffers from the vice of arbitrariness inasmuch as the services of the respondent have been arbitrarily terminated. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Tripathi has invoked the principles laid down by this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991(1) SCT 675(SC) : 1990 Supp.(1) SCR 142; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, 1986(3) SCC 156; and West Bengal Electricity Board v. D.B. Gupta, 1985(3) SCC 166. In our opinion this submission is without substance. As pointed out by this Court in Shyam Lal (supra) compulsory retirement differs from dismissal or removal from service in the sense that while in the case of dismissal or removal involves loss of benefit already earned an officer who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and on compulsory retirement he would be entitled to the benefit that he has actually earned and that there is no diminution of the accrued benefit (p. 42). It is not the case of the respondent that he has been denied the benefit which accrued to him, on the basis of his service in the Corporation. The fact that the respondent joined service at a late stage when he was about 41 years old and on account of his being compulsorily retired his services stood terminated after putting in about 9 years of service only does not mean that the order of compulsory retirement ceases to be an order for compulsory retirement and should be treated as an order for removal from service. Merely because the respondent would not be able to earn pension since he had not put in the prescribed period of qualifying service would not invalidate the order of compulsory retirement if it is otherwise found to have been passed in accordance with the requirement of Rule 27(iv). 15. The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on the basis of the recommendations of a Screening Committee consisting of the Managing Director and two Directors of the Corporation. In the Confidential Report of the respondent for the year 1983-84 following remarks have been made by the Reviewing Officer: ``I regret that I cannot agree with the Reporting Officer. Shri K.C.P. Sinha evaded responsibility and his general reputation for integrity was bad. He got is own brother-in-law appointed as Sales Agent for Silica Sand and other products without disclosing this fact to the Management and continued to deal with him throughout without disclosing this relationship. His general reputation somehow has not been very good. I was not satisfied even with his administrative ability. I would assess his performance and leadership qualities inadequate. He might be able to work successfully under close supervision but is unsuitable for an independent assignment. His written work is well below average. I would rate his performance as poor. 16. Shri Tripathi has submitted that the said remarks were made by Shri A.P. Singh on May 19, 1985 after he had ceased to be the Managing Director of the Corporation and that he had taken the file with him when he left the Corporation and he returned the file only in 1987. It has also been urged by Shri Tripathi that the respondent had submitted a representation against the remarks and the same has not been considered. The fact of the respondent having submitted a representation against the said remarks was denied by the appellants before the High Court. The High Court felt that this being a disputed question of fact, could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. We are in agreement with the said view of the High Court. Insofar as the remarks are concerned, we are of the view that the same cannot be ignored only because the relevant file was taken away by Shri A.P. Singh, the Reviewing Officer, with him and the file was sent back after two years in 1987. No case of mala fides has been made out by the respondent against the Reviewing Officer. The said remarks contain a reflection on the integrity of the respondent in the matter of discharging his duties. Having regard to the said remarks it is not possible to hold that the compulsory retirement of the respondent by the appointing authority under order dated August 20, 1988 was not in public interest. We are therefore of the view that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent does not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said order. 17. By order dated 27.8.1990 this Court had stayed the reinstatement of the respondent on condition that the appellants will continue to pay 60% of the salary to the respondent and the respondent had agreed that the receipt of the said payment would be subject to further order of this Court. It appears that the respondent was paid 60% of the salary in accordance with the said order but subsequently the Corporation, instead of paying 60% of the salary without obtaining his services considered it essential in the interest of the Corporation to obtain his services and by order dated January 12, 1995 he has been appointed as Chief Marketing Manager and he is functioning on that post now. Since we are upholding the order of compulsory retirement it will be open to the Corporation to consider whether the respondent should continue on the post of Chief Marketing Manager. As regards the period for which the respondent had been paid 60% of the salary in pursuance of the order dated August 27, 1990 the said amount shall be refundable by the respondent to the Corporation. The said amount shall be refunded by the respondent within a period of three months.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion this submission is without substance. As pointed out by this Court in Shyam Lal (supra) compulsory retirement differs from dismissal or removal from service in the sense that while in the case of dismissal or removal involves loss of benefit already earned an officer who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and on compulsory retirement he would be entitled to the benefit that he has actually earned and that there is no diminution of the accrued benefit (p. 42). It is not the case of the respondent that he has been denied the benefit which accrued to him, on the basis of his service in the Corporation. The fact that the respondent joined service at a late stage when he was about 41 years old and on account of his being compulsorily retired his services stood terminated after putting in about 9 years of service only does not mean that the order of compulsory retirement ceases to be an order for compulsory retirement and should be treated as an order for removal from service. Merely because the respondent would not be able to earn pension since he had not put in the prescribed period of qualifying service would not invalidate the order of compulsory retirement if it is otherwise found to have been passed in accordance with the requirement of Rule 27(iv)We are in agreement with the said view of the High Court. Insofar as the remarks are concerned, we are of the view that the same cannot be ignored only because the relevant file was taken away by Shri A.P. Singh, the Reviewing Officer, with him and the file was sent back after two years in 1987. No case of mala fides has been made out by the respondent against the Reviewing Officer. The said remarks contain a reflection on the integrity of the respondent in the matter of discharging his duties. Having regard to the said remarks it is not possible to hold that the compulsory retirement of the respondent by the appointing authority under order dated August 20, 1988 was not in public interest. We are therefore of the view that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent does not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said order.