K. VENGOPALAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Commercial Taxes Department of the Tamil Nadu Government in the year 1944 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in 1953. He became Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in 1960 and after becoming a joint Commercial Tax Officer, was promoted as a Commercial Tax Officer in May, 1975. While he was officiating as a Commercial Tax Officer, by the impugned order dated 19th Sept., 1975 made in G.O. Ms. No 1113 (Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department), the petitioner was compulsorily retired under rule 56(d) of ti.e Fundamental Rules. That order reads :

(2.) Originally the matter was heard along with similar cases by a Bench consisting of Ramaprasada Rao, J., and Ratnavel Pandian, J. Several contentions of law were urged by the petitioner and ultimately the writ petitions were relegated back to a single Judge to consider each of the writ petitions on its merits and dispose of the same in the light of their judgment As per the judgment, the points that require to be considered are: (1) the totality of the circumstances relating to passing of the challenged order and whether there is any clinching hypothesis which would shake the conscience of the Court to find a case of non-exercise of the mind in the formation of the subjective opinion ; (2) whether the Government have fully and reasonably considered the relevant material and were subjectively satisfied that in public interest, the Government servant should retire and whether such burden has been discharged ; (3) whether the records disclose enough material to warrant a compulsory retirement of the petitioner; and (4) whether a stigma stems from the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner urges the following grounds : The first is that the recommending committee for compulsory retirement consisted of three officers, one of whom was Mr S. Viswanathan who was inimically disposed towards the petitioner since he was labouring under a misapprehension that the petitioner was instrumental in having an article published in a newspaper containing disparaging remarks against him. Therefore, where one of the members of the Committee was biased against the petitioner, it should be held that the ultimate order passed on its recommendation is also vitiated. The recommendation is not to be treated lightly in this case since clauses 7 and X of G O. Ms. No 761, Public (Services A) Department, dated 19th March 1973 would indicate that in all cases the recommendation is accepted as a routine. Therefore, the bias of one of the recommending authority will greatly prejudice the petitioner even though the actual order of compulsory retirement is that of the Government As to how bias would vitiate has been clearly brought out in Partap Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1964) 4 SCR 733 : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72 and again in A.K Kraipak Vs. Union of India (1970) 1 S.C.J. 381 : (1970) 1 SCR 457 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150.