D RAMASWAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of premature retirement following close upon the heels of promotion and appointment to a coveted selection post is bound to perplex any right thinking man and make him wonder whether the right hand knows what the left hand has done. If in the month of May a Government servant is found to possess such high merit and ability, which naturally includes integrity, as to entitle him not merely to be promoted to a selection post but to be appointed to a very responsible and much desired post in that cadre, what could have happened between May and September to merit his being weeded out altogether from service in September under the rule which enables the Government to retire a Government servant in the public interest after he has attained the age of 50 years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service. One would expect that some grave and grim situation had developed in the interregnum, to warrant the pursuit of such a drastic course. But surprisingly, we found nothing whatsoever had happened in this, case during that period. Let us look at the totality of the facts.

(2.) The appellant appears to have had quite a noteworthy career. Starting at the lowest rung as a Lower Division Clerk in 1953, he was promoted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in 1954, next as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in 1957, then as a Joint Commercial Tax Officer in 1962, thereafter as a Commercial Tax Officer in 1966, later as an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in 1972 and finally as a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 7-5-1975. On promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes he was posted as Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the same cadre. On Sept. 20, 1975, he was retired under Fundamental Rule 56 (d). His Service Book shows that he had an excellent record of service. He had earned several encomiums, commendations and appreciations. The several promotions gained by him reflect his good record of service. But there was one dark spot. In 1969 when he was working as Commercial Tax Officer it was noted in his Confidential file by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as follows:

(3.) So, what do we have There was an adverse entry in the confidential file of the appellant in 1969. The basis of the entry was knocked out by the Order dated November 29, 1974 of the Government, and effect of the entry was blotted out by the promotion of the appellant as Deputy Commissioner. After his promotion as Deputy Commissioner there was no entry in the service Book to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a Govt. servant. If there was some entry, not wholly favourable to the appellant after his promotion, one might hark back to similar or like entries in the past, read them all in conjunction and conclude that the time had arrived for the Government servant to quit Government service. But, with nothing of the sort, it is indeed odd to retire a Government a few months after promoting him to a selection post. In the present case, we made a vain search in the service record of the appellant to find something adverse to the appellant apart from the 1969 entry. All that we could find was some stray mildly deprecating entries such as the one in 1964 which said: