PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a former Joint Secretary to the Union Government assails the validity of the Presidential order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 56 (i) of the Fundamental Rules, on the eve of his attaining the age of 57 years, on the ground that the President was of opinion that it was in public interest to do so, and raises an interesting question if premature retirement could be justified merely on the ground that, on account of notoriety or unsavoury reputation that a public servant may have acquired on account of adverse publicity of certain charges, forming subject matter of departmental or criminal proceedings, which otherwise could not be taken into account, he was not acceptable to any Ministry or Department of the Central Government and it was, therefore, not possible to utilise his services in any effective and meaningful manner.

(2.) The following resume of the service career of the petitioner provides the necessary backdrop. The petitioner (b.: 2.11.1918)joined the Central Government by direct appointment to a Class I post in 1942 and rose to be the Joint Secretary to the Union Government, which is by itself considered meritorious for a civil servant, who was never a member of the covetous Indian Civil Service. During his long service career spanning more than 30 years, the petitioner admittedly held important and responsible assignments, like Regional Director of Food, Coordination and Sales Manager of the Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation and Joint Secretary to Government in the Ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Ministry of Foreign Trade. Between the years 1943 and 1972, the petitioner not only successfully completed the various assignments that he was called upon to handle from time to time and his work and conduct were adjudged satisfactory, but was also a frequent recipient of commendations and kudos from his superior officers, including a member of Central Ministers. A perusal of his character roll, which was placed before the Court, indicates that he was very highly spoken of, both with reference to his work and conduct, at almost all levels. In 1953, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described him as a tower of strength to the Committee and having shown 'outstanding ability and insight' in dealing with problems. His contribution to the deliberations of the committee was said to be 'characterised by remarkable originality of approach born out of an analytical mind, quick grasp and clear thinking and a sound and balanced judgment'. His drafting was described as being 'vigorous, lucid and comprehensive' and a recommendation was made to the then Hon'ble Minister of Communications that the petitioner was 'a positive acquisition to our Central Administrative Service and is fully competent to shoulder much higher responsibilities." In the same year, the then Minister of Communications was impressed by the petitioner 'as efficient, hard working and much above the average' and as having a promise 'to be an officer of great capacity, ready to undertake any responsibility demanding hard work and quick judgment'. In 1963, his Minister described him as having 'remarkable tact, enterprise and resourcefulness' and of being anoutstanding officer in the Government of India. The only dissenting note during the period in the long chain of complaiments was a near condemnation of the petitioner in 1966 by the then Chairman of the Indian Oil Corporation. He was, however, a recipient of high praise from late Humayun Kabir, the the then Minister in the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals as also from 0. V. Alegasan, who succeeded him. While late Humayun Kabir commended the work of the petitioner as Coordination and Sales Manager of the Marketing Division of the Indian Oil Corporation in Laudatory term Mr. Alegasan went a step further and made a severe indictment of ths former Chairman of the Indian Oil Corporation and attributed his condemnation of the work of the petitioner as being the result of abias probably attributable to the fact that before he relinquished, the former Chairman 'was completely unhinged and everybody felt that his behaviour was unworthy of a person of his position and seniority and of the traditions of the civil service". It is for this reason that part of the adverse remarks made by the former Chairman was eventually ordered to be expunged. In 1967, the petitioner received high praise for his work and conduct from the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting followed by a similar assessment by his successor, Shri K.K. Shah, in 1969. It is unnecsssary to multiply references to the assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner during this period because after he attained the age of 50 years, in 1968, the case for his retention in service beyond the age of 50 years was reviewed by the Senior Selection Beard in January 1970, quite interestingly enough after expiry of almost two years from the date he attained the age of 50 years, and his retention in service was recommended. In the year 1970, the then Minister of Foreign Trade described the petitioner as being 'of exceptional ability and absolute integrity'. He acknowledged that the petitioner 'has been a source of strength to the Ministry and has the rare capacity of imparting a sense of point, purpose and direction to his charge." The petitioner, according to the Minister, will make an ideal Additional Secretary as well as Chairman of any major public sector undertaking. The commendations were repeated in some what similar terms in January 1973 in respect of the period ending December 1971.

(3.) It, however, appears that in the year 1972, the petitioner fell on evil days and his conduct became subject matter of two vigilance cases. In the first case, the allegations pertain to contravention of certain conduct rules in the matter of financial transactions and the abuse of his official position in the matter of issue of an import licence to a firm. The Central Vigilance Commission advised initiation of Departmental proceedings and a minor penalty was eventually recommended but the proceedings were dropped as meanwhile the petitioner had been compulsorily retired. In the second case, the petitioner was charged with an offence of conspiracy to obtain compensation for his land from Government to which he was not entitled. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against him in a criminal Court in Orissa. The Court discharged the petitioner and the discharge has since been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court judgment is reported as A.I R. 1979 Supreme Court 366. Proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner for being in possession of assets incommensurale with his financial position but these were dropped for want of any material. An unfortunate aspect of these charges and the proceedings ha' been that on account of premature adverse publicity of these in the press, either because the petitioner held sensitive positions or because some one was interested in such adverse publicity, word had gone round the Central Ministeries and Departments that the petitioner was not a desirable person so as to be entrusted with any position of power or authority. That the adverse publicity and prejudicially affeced the interests and future of the petitioner is fully reflected not only in some of the subsequent remarks in his character role but also because the Ministry of Social Welfare, in which he was then working and was put on a supernumary post, was keen to get rid of him and some of the Ministries and Departments of Central Government, which were sounded for a possible venue of posting the petitioner, had shown unwillingness to take in the petitioner.