Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement, finding it was based on the competent authority’s subjective satisfaction supported by material evidence and was not arbitrary or perverse.

Summary

Dr. Jugal Chandra Saikia was compulsorily retired on 11 April 1994 after a Screening Committee, comprising senior officials, recommended his retirement on grounds of alleged fraudulent transactions and doubtful integrity. He challenged the order through a writ petition, which was upheld by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Assam High Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the retirement order was arbitrary, punitive, and based solely on a one‑man committee report without full consideration of his service record. The respondents contended that the Committee had examined the entire record, including the Rao Committee report, and that the order was based on the government’s subjective satisfaction, a permissible basis for compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court reiterated that such orders are subject to judicial review only if they are arbitrary, perverse, or lack evidential basis, and found no such infirmity in the present case, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the order of compulsory retirement of Dr. Saikia was arbitrary, perverse, or passed without sufficient evidential basis.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the retirement order despite the appellant's claim that only a one‑man committee report was considered.

Subjects

compulsory retirementservice lawsubjective satisfactionarbitrary orderpublic interestscreening committeefraudulent transactionsadministrative lawnatural justice

Judgment

JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA A
V.

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
'-

MARCH 4, 2003

[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Compulsory retirement-Order based on recommendation of Screening
Committee-Held, High Court was right in upholding the order-Passing an C
order of compulsory retirement depends on subjective satisfaction of the
_., competent authority, of course, on objective consideration-Unless it is shown
that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without
application of mind or that ''llCh formation of opinion to retire compulsorily
was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was D
totally perverse, the Court cannot interfere.

Baikunth Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr.,
[1992) 2 sec 299, relied on

State a/Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunni Lal Shah, [1999) 1 SCC E
529; MS. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., (1998[ 7 SCC 310 and S.
Ramachandra Raju v. State ofOrissa, (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 424, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5111 of
2002.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.2001 of the Assam High Court
at Gauhati in W.A. No. 521 of 1996.

S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Sanjay Sharawat and Ms. Hetu
Arora for the Appellant.
G
Ms. Krishna Sarma, for Mis. Corporate Law Group for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellant was compulsorily retired from service by the order dated
H
615
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A 11.4.1994. He assailed the said order of his compulsory retirement by filing
a writ petition. The learned Single Judge rejecting the contentions urged on
behalf of the appellant upheld the same. The appellant pursued the matter
further by filing a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the same High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court after considering the rival
B contentions urged on behalf of the parties and keeping in view the principles
stated in the case of Baikunth Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical
Officer. Baripada and Anr. [1992] 2 SCC 299, dismissed the writ appeal
affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appellant
is before us in this appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the
impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
c Learned counsel for the appelllant submitted that although the two
contentions, namely the order of compulsory retirement was punitive and
stigmatic and that the said order was arbitrary and unreasonable, were urged
before the Division Bench of the High Court, he does not press the first
contention but he emphatically argued that the order of compulsory retirement
D is unsustainable, because the said order was based only on the one man
Commitee report of K.S. Rao, of which the appellant was not at all made
aware; ifthe authorities had considered the entire material touching the service
record of the appellant, reasonable view would have been different. In support
of his submissions he cited few decisions.
E In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions
supporting the impugned judgment. In particular, the learned counsel drew
our attention to para 9 of the impugned judgment to contend that the entire
service record of the appellant was perused by the competent authority as
well as by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, no fault can be
F found with the imougned judgment.

The order of compulsory retirmement was passed on the basis of the
recommendation of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee·
consisted of the Chief Secretary of the State Secretary, (Judicial Department)
and Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The said
G Committee in its report has stated thus:

"The Committee perused the records made available by the department
in respect of Dr. Jugal Chandra Saikia and has reasons to viewed that
Dr. Jugal Chandra Saikia has indulged in serious malpractices in
undertaking fraudulent transactions constituting the LoC scandal of
H the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department and was indicated
JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA v. ST ATE OF ASSAM 617

in the report of the K.S. Rao Committee constituted to enquire into A
the said LoC scandal. The Committee is also convinced that Dr. Jugal
Chandra Saikia has substantially contributed in bringing disrepute to
the Government with his fraudulent activities and doubtful intergity.

The Committee, therefore, is of the opinion that Dr. Jugal Chandra
Saikia has both outlived his utility and is of doubtful integrity and his B
continuance in Government service any further would be deterimental
to public interest."

It is evident from the report extracted above that the Committee on
perusal of the rec?rds made available to it by the Department in respect of
the appellant and on their subjective satisfaciton found that the appellant C
indulged in serious malpractices in undertaking fraudulent transactions
constituting the LoC scandal of the Animal Husbandry department as was
••
indicated in the report of K.S. Rao Committee constituted to enquire into the
said LoC scandal. It is further stated in the report that the Committee was
also convinced that the appellant had substantially contributed in bringing D
disrepute to the Government with his fraudulent activities and doubtful
integrity. The Committee concluded that the appellant had both outlived his
utility and was of doubtful intergrity and his continuance in Government
service any further would be detrimental to public interest. Looking to this
report it becomes difficult for us to agree with the learned counsel for the
appellant that the Screening Committee acted only on the basis of the report E
of Rao Committee. An opinion was formed looking to the entire records. The
High Court found that on the basis of the records an opinion was formed to
retire the appellant compulsorily from service. Paragraph 9 of the impugned
judgment reads thus:

"The second submission of Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant F
has to be understood in the context of the second principle laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das (supra) that the
power of compulsorily retire a Government servant is based on the
subjective satisfaction of the Government. While such satisfacion has
to be based on an overall consideration of the service record as held G
by the Apex Court, in our considered view, the service record of the
Government servant alone is not the only material for arriving at the
required satisfaction. The service record of the concerned Government
servant may provide reasonable material for arriving at the required
satisfaction. But in a given case, there may be other materials on
which such satisfaciton can be founded. In the instant case, such H
+-

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A satisfaciton appears to have founded on the basis of the report of the
Rao Committee which indicated the appellant and on the basis of the
indictment of the Screening Committee came to the conclusion that
the appellant his outlived has utility and is of doubtful intergaity and
his further retention in public service would not be in the public
interest. The said materials on which the satisfaction has been reached
B cannot be said to be irrelevant, extraneous or unreasonable. In that
view of the matter, we are unable to accept Mr. Misra's arguments
that the record of service is the only material on which the satisfaction
of the authority can be reached. The said conclusion does not follow
from the decisions of the Apex Court referred to by Mr. Misra as
C mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. The second contention
of Mr. Misra, therefore, fails."

It appears from the impugned judgment that several persons who were
said to have been involved in the LoC scandal were compulsorily retired
from service. A mention is made to a Division Bench judgment of the same
D High Court in the case of Dwipen Kanwar v. State of Assam, (1998) I G.L.T.
478 wherein the compulsory retirement of petitio!ler therein was upheld. It
cannot be disputed that the passing of an order of compulsory retirement
depends on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, of course on
objective consideration. Unless it is shown that the order of compulsory
E retirement was passed arbitrarily and without application of mind or that such
formation of opinion to retire compulsorily was based on no evidence or that
the order ofcompulsory retirement was totally perverse, the Court cannot
interefere. The Divison Bench of the High Court, in our opinion, was right
in upholding the order of compulsory retirement in view of the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das (supra), particularly the
F principles indicated in paragraph 34 of the said judgment which reads :
"34. Following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies
no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
G (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the
opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servent
compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the
government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an
H
JUG AL CHANDRA SAIKIA v. STATE OF ASSAM 619

order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial A
scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court
would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere
if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) ma/a fide or (b) that
it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that
no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given B
matertial; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.

(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be)
shall have to consider the entire record of service before decision in
the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and
performance during the later years. The record to be so considered C
would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character
rolls, both favourable and adverse, if a government is promoted to a
higher post notwithstatnding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose
their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection)
and not upon seniority.
D
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by
a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated
adverse remarks were also taken into consideraion. That circumstance
by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) E
above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above."

Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court
in the State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunni Lal Shah, [1999] I SCC
529. That was a case where there was no material before the Reviewing
Committee inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll F
entry ; the integrity was not doubtful at any time, the character roll entries
subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Food
Controller (Class II) was not available. In those circumstances, the Court
took the view that the order of compulsory retirement was bad. Further, in
that case the Reviewing Committee had not recommended for compulsory
retirement of the officer. G
The case of MS. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., [1998] 7 SCC 310
also does not help the apppellant again, if we look to what is stated in
paragaraphs 19 and 20 of the same judgment. Thai was a case where on facts
it was found that there was utter dearth of evidence for the Screening H
620 SU~REME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Committee to conclude that the appellant had doubtful integrity and that such
a conclusion did not stand judicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible
scope. Further, that was a case where the officer had established unblemished
reputation and earned encomiums from all concerned till then and his integrity
was proclaimed doubtful merely on the strength of statements of persons
B prosecuted by such officers.

The Last case relip<l on by the learned counsel for the appellant is S.
Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, [1994] Suppl. 3 SCC 424. That again
is a case where the officer was compulsorily retired relying on the adverse
entry for one year, i.e. for 1987-88, m~de by the Principal against whom l
C ma la fide was alleged but not denied; all other relevant records were ignored.
So the formation of opinon in those circumstances based on adverse entry for
one year 1987-1988, was held not proper.

In the present case no malafides are attributed. The Screening Committee
consisting of high offficials had perused the records including the report of
D the Rao Committee and recommen.ded for compulsory retirement. Thereafter, 'I
on that recommendation the order of compulsory retirement was passed. The ..''
learned Single Judge as well as the Divi5ion Bt:nch of the High Court did not
find any good ground to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement.
This being the position we do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently
it stands dismissed but with no order as to costs.
E
R.P. Appeal dismissed.