E.S.VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) THE appellant is a judicial officer of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who would have ordinarily retired on 31/01/1984 on attaining 58 years of age. He was appointed as a Munsiff-Magistrate in the erstwhile State of Bhopal in 1953. On reorganisation of States on 1/11/1956, he became a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on January 1974 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 25/11/1974. consequent upon the decision of the State Government to reorganise the Higher Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the advice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 101 posts of the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges came to be abolished and the incumbents of those posts were to be absorbed as District and Sessions Judges as per Government Memorandum dated 24/02/1981. On the issue of the said Memorandum, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh decided to screen the officers in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges for the purpose of making recommendation to the State Government about the promotion of, selected officers to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. For this purpose, Full Court Meetings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were held on February 27 and 28, 1981 and 1/03/1981. THE case of the appellant was also considered in that connection. It is stated that at these meetings, the High Court first resolved to scrutinise the cases of all the judicial officers who were to attain the age of 55 years in the year, 1981. In the course of such scrutiny the High Court decided on 27/02/1981 to retire the appellant compulsorily on his attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 56 (3) of the Fundamental Rules. On 1/03/1981 it decided not to recommend him for promotion to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. Accordingly, the State Government was addressed by the High Court. to retire the appellant compulsorily. THE appellant thereafter continued 'as an Additional District and Sessions Judge until lie was served with the order of compulsory retirement dated 28/08/1981. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. THE petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 29/07/1982. This appeal is preferred by special leave against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) CLAUSE (a) of the Fundamental Rule 56 (3) as amended in 1976 which governs the case of the appellant reads thus : "F. R. 56 (3) (a). A Government servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he attains the age of fifty-five years without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing." It is contended that the order of compulsory retirement is unsustainable on various grounds and the principal ground urged is that the High Court had made the recommendation to retire the appellant compulsorily without applying its mind to the case as required by law; that it was a decision based on collateral considerations and that it was arbitrary. It is now firmly settled that the power to retire a Government servant compulsorily in public interest in terms of a service rule is absolute provided the authority concerned forms an opinion bona fide that it is necessary to pass such an order in public interest it is equally well settled that if such decision is based on collateral grounds or if the decision is arbitrary, it is liable to be interfered with by courts. (see Union of India v. J. N. Sinha (1971) 1 SCR 791 : (AIR 1971 SC 40)). We have also gone through the following decisions, namely, Union of India v. M. E. Reddy (1980) 1 SCR 736: (AIR 1980 SC 563) . Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U. P. (1980) 1 SCR 923: (AIR 1980 SC 269). Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 430 : (AIR 1981 SC 70), Brij Bihari Lal Agarwal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (1981) 2 SCR 297: (AIR 1981 SC 594) and D. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu (1982) 3 SCR 75: (AIR 1982 SC 793) which have a bearing on the question before us. We shall now proceed to deal with the facts of the case in the light of the principles enunciated in the above decisions.
(3.) IN para 10 of the counter affidavit of Shri A. K. Pandey, Additional Registrar of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh filed before this Court, it is stated as follows : "It is not disputed that Full Court Meeting was held on 27th/28th February, as well as 1/03/1981 to consider the cases of Additional District and Sessions Judges for promotion in the Higher Judicial Service. It is also not disputed that the petitioner stood at serial No. 10 in the seniority list of Additional District and Sessions Judges. It is also not disputed that he was confirmed as Additional District and Sessions Judge in August, 1976. The personal confidential record of the petitioner is placed before this Hon'ble Court and (it) speaks for itself (Annexure R-XI to XXXVIII). It is wrong to say that any extraneous consideration operated in the Full Court Meeting against the petitioner and it is wrong to say that the resolutions in the Court Meeting were unjust, arbitrary or mala fide... As already pointed out, the decision was taken in Full Court Meeting after consideration of the entire record of the petitioner. The decision to retire the petitioner under Fundamental Rule 56 (3) was after due consideration of the entire record of the petitioner. (Confidential entries are Annexures R-XI to XXXVIII)." On going through the said counter affidavit we are satisfied that apart from the confidential records, nothing else appears to have been relied on by the High Court to reach the decision that the appellant should be compulsorily retired. We shall now proceed to examine the confidential rolls maintained in respect of the appellant.;