UNION OF INDIA Vs. S S PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When are remarks in confidential reports about officers regarded as adverse to them? What is the effect of non-communication to the officers of these adverse remarks ? Does such non-communication vitiate the material consisting of the adverse remarks which could be taken into consideration by the Government for forming the opinion whether the compulsory premature retirement of an officer would be "in public interest" within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(j) ? Whether the material on which disciplinary inquiry is to be held against an officer can be taken into account in passing an order of compulsory premature retirement against him? These are the main questions which arise in this appeal.

(2.) Shri S.S. Prasad (respondent No. 1) born on 2-8-1921. while holding the post of Deputy Director General of Mines Safety and Technical Advisor in the Minstry of Labour, was considered fit to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 in February 1976 by the Ministry of Labour (including the Labour Minister). Apparently, there was nothing adverse against him in the record of hi; service till then. His case for retention in service beyond the age of 55 was considered by the Establishment Board again on 4-1-1977. The Board decided to postpone consideration till the confidential report for the year 1976 become available. On 13-9-1977 the Central Establishment Board consisting of Sh. Gian Prakash, Shri F. C. Alexander and Shri U. C. Agarwal took the following decision

(3.) The reasons why on 13-9-1977 it was decided to compulsorily retire Shri Prasad when in February 1976 it had been decided to relain him in service beyond the age of 55 as given in the above decision of the Board may be analysed.