Order
1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 18-9-1975 passed under Rule 2046(h)(i) of the Railway Establishment Code regarding compulsory retirement of the appellant from service. At the relevant time the appellant was employed as Production Engineer, Loco Works in the Southern Railway. He had been promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer on officiating basis on 20-11-1974 but was reverted to the senior scale as Production Engineer in May 1975. An adverse remark was recorded in his performance appraisal by the Divisional Superintendent, Tiruchirapalli on 19-3-1975 that “his integrity is doubtful”. The General Manager has also made adverse remarks with regard to integrity of the appellant in the confidential report for the year 1973-74. Having regard to the service record of the appellant, the competent authority passed the order dated 18-9-1975 for compulsory retirement of the appellant. The writ petition filed by the appellant to challenge the said order of compulsory retirement was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by judgment dated 26-9-1980 and the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by impugned judgment dated 29-9-1982.
2. The case of the appellant is that his record of service was clean and that since he was promoted on 20-9-1974 shortly before the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, the said order of compulsory retirement is vitiated being passed on no material. The said contention has been rejected by the High Court, and in our opinion rightly so, on the view that after the promotion an adverse remark regarding his integrity came to be recorded on 19-3-1975.
3. Shri R. Sundaravardan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the said remark is not based on any material and he has invited our attention to the averments made by the appellant in the affidavit filed by him in support of his writ petition before the High Court and the reply to the same in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. We have carefully perused the said averments. We are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel. The scope of the inquiry in a writ petition assailing the order of compulsory retirement is confined to examining whether there was material on the basis of which the competent authority could form the opinion that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant. In the present case, we find that there was such material inasmuch as there was an adverse remark dated 19-3-1975 about his integrity in the service record. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the adverse remark was vitiated on account of the influence exercised by Shri T. Venugopal, Chief Personnel Officer, who is said to be hostile towards the appellant, cannot be accepted because the remark was made by Shri Narayanaswami, the Divisional Superintendent, who was the immediate superior of the appellant and no allegation of bias has been made by the appellant against Shri Narayanaswami. Moreover, the General Manager has also made an adverse remark regarding the integrity of the appellant in the confidential report for the year 1973-74 and in these circumstances we are unable to hold that the said adverse remark is vitiated by bias or mala fides.
4. It has been further urged by Shri Sundaravardan that the order of compulsory retirement could not be passed on the basis of a solitary adverse entry contained in the annual confidential report because the earlier record of the appellant was clean. Merely because till his promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer on 20-11-1974, there was nothing adverse in the service record of the appellant, does not mean that the action for compulsory retirement of the appellant could not be taken after such promotion if it is found that after such promotion there has been deterioration in his performance and an adverse remark about his integrity has been made. The contention of Shri Sundaravardan that an order for compulsory retirement cannot be passed on the basis of a solitary adverse entry in the service record cannot be accepted. The question whether action for compulsory retirement should be taken on the basis of a solitary adverse entry has to be considered in the facts of each case. Having regard to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that action for compulsory retirement could not be taken against the appellant.
5. Lastly, it was urged by Shri Sundaravardan that the adverse remark was not communicated to the appellant and in the absence of such communication the said remark could not be made the basis for passing the order of compulsory retirement. We find no merit in this contention in view of the law laid down by this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299, (1992) 21 ATC 649, JT (1992) 2 SC 1 wherein it has been held that an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration and that the said circumstance, by itself, cannot be a basis for interference.
6. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.