- (1.) This is a petition for quashing order dated 1.4.1999, (Annexure P.4) passed by Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by the petitioner against his premature retirement with effect from 31.5.1991.
(2.) The facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are that after qualifying his M.Sc. Engineering (Electronics) in 1st Division from the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and also qualifying Diploma from Madras Institute of Technology (Electronics) in the year 1968, the petitioner joined as Senior Scientist Assistant in Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory, Chandigarh on 19.7.1969. Thereafter, he worked on the post of Technical Officer in the Department of Electronics Testing Development Centre, Chandigarh from 19.4.1978 to 21.2.1980 and was appointed as Junior Scientific Officer in the Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory where he joined as such on 22.2.1980. He was promoted as Scientist 'B' with effect from 1.1.1986. He earned his promotion on account of his good/very good reports. However, he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 16.5.1991 with effect from 31.5.1991. The petitioner has claimed that during the entire period of his service he had never been conveyed any adverse report. It has also been explained that on 23.10.1990 he was conveyed remedial ACR for the year 1989. The remarks as recorded by the Assessor, the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority read as under :- "General Remarks by the Assessor. Shri C.M. Trikha is an officer with good theoretic background having done his post graduation in M.Sc. Engineering (Electronics) but his work out put is average. His participation in technical activities is as a member of the trial team and to up keep electronic instruments. The account of work given by the officer under Part II relating to the study of signals with analogue, digital and system techniques, has no relevance to Pin Oscillographic technique. This was brought to the notice of the officer on a number of occasion. The officer has so far not been able to solve any problem with the 'System-Techniques'. The Officer's contribution is average. He can make an excellent contribution if he involves himself more in project activities with the existing instrumentation setups. GENERAL REMARKS BY THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY. Officer's contribution is average. The officer is having an excellent academic background (i.e. M.Sc. Engg.) with more of his involvement in Project activities he can make a very good contribution. REMARKS BY THE ACCEPTING AUTHORITY. I agree with the R.O. Shri Trikha must change his nature and applies to his work. He is capable of very good out put." On 26.1 1.1990, the petitioner made a representation against the aforesaid advisory remarks by submitting that there was no basis for the comments as to hold a different point of view for a solution of a scientific problem. It was further submitted that there can always be more than one point of views for solving the same problem and the petitioner could not be penalised for holding a particular view. The official respondents sent reply to the petitioner vide letter No. 5.12.1990 and invited him for holding discussion from 10.12.1990 to 14.12.1990. The meeting in that regard was held on 2.1.1991 and the same remained inconclusive as it was postponed for some other convenient date but in the meanwhile, order dated 16.5.1991 ordering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 3 1.5.1991 was issued.
(3.) Aggrieved by order dated 16.5.1991, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 763/HR of 1991 titled as Chander Mohan Trikha v. Union of India. The Tribunal vide its order dated 1.4.1999 dismissed the application on the principal ground that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the same can be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority. The Tribunal has referred to the proceedings of the Review Committee and concluded as under: "There is now no more dispute that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It attaches no stigma or any suggestion of misbehaviour. The Officer/Official is entitled to the retiral benefits. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Government or the Reviewing Authority have to consider the entire record of service of the concerned official before taking a decision in the matter of course, attaching more importance to his record of performance during the later years. The order of compulsory retirement has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The proceedings of the Review Committee produced before us at the time of hearing reveal that the Committee, for reviewing the cases under the provisions of Article 459(h) of Civil Service Regulations (Corresponding to FR 56 (i) comprised. (i) Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development as Chairman; and (ii) Joint Secretary, Department of Education as Member. The Review Committee, in its meeting held on March 19, 1991 considered the case of 134 Scientists and Junior Scientific Officers (Group 'A' and Group 'B' Gazetted Officers) under Department of Defence Research and Development Organisation who have attained or are likely to attain the age of 50/55 years. The Review Committee, after examining the A.C.Rs, recommended that out of these officers, 121 be retained in service beyond 50/55 years, the case of 9 officers be re-submitted to the Committee after obtaining their A.C.Rs for the year 1990 and 4 officers including the applicant were recommended for premature retirement on attaining the age of 50/55 years. These recommendations were approved by CCR and D, SA to RM, RRM and PM as RM. The proceedings of the Review Committee indicated that the case of every officer was examined objectively and the opinion was formed on the basis of the relevant data furnished through Annual Confidential Reports. It cannot be disputed that uncommunicated adverse entries can be taken into consideration while passing the order of compulsory retirement and that there is no room for importing the facet of natural justice while passing the order." The Tribunal relied upon the judgment in the cases of J.K. Sinha v. Union of India and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 72 and Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., 1954 AIR(SC) 369 for the proposition that in cases of compulsory retirement neither any punishment is inflicted nor any stigma is attached which would necessitate issuance of show cause notice or complying with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also felt persuaded to accept that even the un- communicated entries in the service record of an officer could be taken into consideration for passing the order of compulsory retirement and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, 1992 2 SLR 2. In the concluding para, the Tribunal observed as under : "In the backgrounds of the facts stated above and the legal position as firmly and finally settled by the authoritative pronouncements as discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. The same is in consonance with the provisions of Article 459(h) of the Civil Service Regulations under which impugned action has been taken." Ms. Deepika Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that from the perusal of the Annual Confidential record of the petitioner no reasonable person can reach to the conclusion that the petitioner had become dead wood. She pointed out that there was no adverse remark in the confidential reports of the petitioner with regard to his integrity and, therefore, no material was available before the competent authority on which a bonafide opinion could be formed about the petitioner's suitability to continue in service. She further pointed out that the petitioner had only difference of opinion on the solution offered relating to the study of signals with analogue, digital and system techniques. According to the learned counsel such a solution has no relevance to Pin Oscillographic technique. Referring to the provisions of Rule 459 of the Central Service Regulations (for brevity 'the Regulations'). Learned counsel argued that the right conferred on the employer under clause (h) of Regulation 459 of the Regulations is not absolute and in appropriate cases the Court can interfere with the order of retirement if it is found that the authority concerned has acted arbtrarily or on irrelevant considerations.;