B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) These appears raise the question-whether it is permissible to the government to order compulsory retirement of a government servant on the basis of material which includes uncommunicated adverse remarks. While the appellants (government servants compulsorily retired) rely upon the decisions of this court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra, (1987) 2 SCC 188 and Baidyanath Mahapatra (supra) in support of their contention that it is not permissible, the respondent-government relies upon the decision in M. E. Reddy, (1980) 1 SCR 736 to contend that it is permissible to the government to take into consideration uncommunicated adverse remarks also while taking a decision to retire a government servant compulsorily.
(2.) The appellants in both the appeals have been compulsorily retired by the government of Orissa in exercise of the power conferred upon it by the first proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. Since the relevant facts in both the appeals are similar, it would be sufficient if we set out the facts in Civil Appeal No. 869 of 1987.
(3.) The appellant, Sri Baikuntha Nath Das was appointed as a Pharmacist (then designated as Compounder) by the Civil Surgeon, Mayurbhanj on 15-3-1951. By an order dated 13-2-1976 the government of Orissa retired him compulsorily under the first proviso to sub-rule of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. The order reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of Orissa Service Code, the Government of Orissa is pleased to order the retirement of Sri Baikunthanath Das, Pharmacist now working under the Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this order on him. By order of the Governor." ;