STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAM CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) This appeal by special (leave) arises from the judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992. The respondent while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated August 1, 1983 which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds:(1) the respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after the adverse remarks were made, the record were wiped out; and (iii) the entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, therefore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under S.71(a) was not valid in law. The question is:whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, have to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest reports.