RANGANATH MISRA - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, dismissing the claim of the appellant and rejecting his challenge to the order dated 28th of November, 1986, retiring the appellant from service under Art. 459(h) of the Civil Services Regulations.
(2.) THE order of the retirement impugned in the proceedings was to the following effect : "Whereas the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (n) of Article 459 of Civil Services, Regulations, the President hereby retires Dr. J. K. Sinha, Scientist 'E', DLRL, Hyderabad with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of 50 years on 27/03/1981. THE President also directs that Dr. J. K. Sinha shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of 3 months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement." The appellant was born on 27/03/1931, and took the Master's Degree in Science in Physics in 1953 and obtained Ph.D. in microwave Physics from the University of London on 1959. He also became a senior member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, USA and a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, London. He acquired professional training in the Institute of Semi Conductor, Leningrad, USSR, Leveder Institute of Physics, Moscow, and Rice University, Texas, USA. In August, 1960, he was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I in the Defence Science Laboratory, Delhi and in 1969 was promoted as Principal Scientific Officer. In August, 1973, he was further promoted as Deputy Chief Scientific Officer and posted in Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Hyderabad. While serving in the said post he was prematurely retired by the impugned order. Before the Tribunal the appellant contended that he had a brilliant academic career and had a clean record of service; his research projects had been nighly praised and appreciated and he deserved promotion to the post of Director (Scientitst 'G'/'F'). The appellant was actually interviewed for the said post during May and June of 1986. In February, 1986, he had made a representation to the authorities for redressal of personal grievances and while suggesting for improvement in the laboratory he had pointed out regarding the defective functioning of the Institution. the authorities developed bias against the appellant. This led to his not getting selected for the post of Director and ultimately to the making of the impugned order. These allegations were countered by the Department. before the Tribunal the service records of the appellant were produced. The Tribunal rejected the allegations of bias and mala fide and the appellant's claim that the order of retirement was based upon extraneous consideration and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) THE very contentions have been reiterated before us by mr. Rao appearing for the appellant. THE Department made available for inspection at the hearing the service records from 1973 till his retirement in support of its stand that the guidelines prescribed for review for deciding whether an officer should be prematurely retired had been strictly followed and the decision to retire the appellant was taken in a bona fide and legitimate manner and without any pass or prejudice. Mr. Rao mainly emphasised that the appellant had a clean service record and, therefore, there was no justification to prematurely retire him. This submission is based upon the assumption that the appellant's record of service is clean as he has not been communicated any adverse entry in his character roll. Mr. Dwivedi for the respondent refused refuted the assumption by stating that there were several entries by the authorities to indicate deficiencies and drawbacks in the appellant's functioning and to support this submission he relied upon the service records. According to Mr. Dwivedi the entries are such that there was no obligation to communicate the same under the prescribe guidelines. We may refer to some of the entries now:- JUDGEMENT_1_SUPP1_1989Html1.htm By the time the review was undertaken the report for the year 1985 was not ready mainly on account of the appellant not furnishing his self-assessment but the report which came later indicated that he was graded as poor for that year. ;