New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed post-retirement and pensionary benefits to a former Indian Trade Service (ITS) officer, who was compulsorily retired from service less than five years before his superannuation, and imposed a Rs 15 lakh cost on the Centre.
The top court remarked that branding the officer, who dedicated the best years of his life to the service of the nation, as “dead wood” and to weed him out from service by invoking the specious ground that it is necessary to do so in public interest smacks of a high degree of malice.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu also directed that former ITS officer S S Das be called back in office by the Director General of Foreign Trade and be bidden a farewell with full honour.
“To brand an officer like the appellant – who dedicated the best years of his life to the service of the nation – as dead wood and to weed him out from service by invoking the specious ground that it is necessary to do so in public interest smacks of a high degree of malice and colourable exercise of power.
“One would strain the eyes in vain to find out anything to show that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is, indeed, passed in public interest! It must be remembered by all and sundry that reputation is not built overnight.
“It is built by years of dedicated and selfless service. It comes at a great cost, often at the cost of family life and personal comfort. Such a reputation earned by sweat and toil over decades can, however, be marred by a single stroke of a pen,” the bench said.
Das had a distinguished career in the ITS which was marked by timely promotions and consistently high Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
Despite an unblemished service record, he was compulsorily retired before reaching the standard superannuation age, under Fundamental Rule 56(j), which allows for such action in the public interest.
It was contended by the authorities that the appellant’s handling of official files and his dealings with clients had been obstructive, that his reputation for integrity was not beyond reproach, and that he had, on one occasion, been proceeded against for insubordination.
Fundamental Rule 56(j) gives the Indian government the absolute right to prematurely retire a government servant in the public interest.
Das challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court and both dismissed it.
The top court, in its judgment, said the proposition that an order of compulsory retirement in public interest is non-punitive does not elevate itself into a mantra which, by its mere invocation, can validate such order and repel all challenges laid to it.
“Exercise of power, which is non-punitive, nevertheless remains bound by the precincts of a public power. The object of compulsory retirement is to enable the administration to dispense with the services of public servants who, when viewed in the prism of public interest, have been rendered dead wood and, thus, outlived their utility.
“Either the public servant who is ordered compulsory retirement has, by passage of time, become inefficient to perform the duties and functions entrusted to him or his integrity is doubtful — these are the prime criteria triggering the need for such an order,” the bench said.
The top court said the very same departmental machinery had, after consideration of his record, found him fit for a higher post of joint secretary; the subsequent conclusion that his continuance was no longer in public interest required more than a general invocation of the expression “questionable integrity”.
“The order retiring the appellant compulsorily taking the aid of FR 56(j) suffers from a manifest contradiction and is not sustainable, being thoroughly vitiated by malice in law,” the bench said.
The apex court said a promotion earned on merits, and not by dint of seniority alone, immediately prior to such order of compulsory retirement being made would render the order susceptible to invalidity.
“This is for the reason that the merit-based promotion, not long ago, would stand as proof of a recent and objective assessment of the entire service record and a finding that the servant is fit for shouldering higher responsibilities, which is irreconcilable with the finding and thus negates the very foundation of the order, namely, that the servant has become dead wood, or is of doubtful integrity, and has outlived his utility.
“Any order of compulsory retirement partaking the character of a backdoor disciplinary proceeding, clandestinely avoiding the safeguards embodied in Article 311 of the Constitution, would be indefensible,” the bench said.
“The appeal, thus, stands allowed, with costs assessed at Rs 6 lakh to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. For the loss of reputation suffered by the appellant, we order the respondent to compensate him in a further sum of Rs 9 lakh,” the bench said. PTI PKS PKS KSS KSS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.