DHARMESWAR BARUAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Rule No. 174 of 1979 on 9.4.81.

(2.) The appellant joined the service under North East Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh) in the year 1948. At the relevant time the appellant was a member of the "Indian Frontier Administrative Service" and was working as Officer on Special Duty (Works Study) under the then Government of Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. While the appellant was in the service as such, the President of India issued a notice of Oct. 31st/ Nov. 1st, 1975 to the effect that the appellant shall retire from his services with effect from Feb. 1st, 1976, or on the expiry of the three months from the date of receipt of the notice, whichever is later. Before the notice of compulsory retirement, the appellant was communicated two adverse, entries, one for the year "1973-74" and another for the period "April to Dec. 1974" under letters dated Sept. 17th, 1975 and Sept. 5th, 1975 respectively. The appellant submitted representations against the adverse entries. After the notice of compulsory retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government o India by a letter dated Aug. 2nd, 1976 informed the appellant that his representation dated Oct. 8th, 1975 had been rejected.

(3.) The findings of the learned Single Judge are, inter alia, as follows. A high powered Committee consisting of Home Secretary, Additional Secretary (UT) and Joint Secretary (UT) was formed. The Committee reviewed the entire service career of the appellant from 1948 on the basis of the Character Rolls and recommended the retirement of the appellant sometime in Sept. 1975. The adverse remarks for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 were communicated the appellant by a letter dated Oct. 28th, 1974. Some of the adverse entries were not communicated in time to the appellant, and the representations of the appellant against those adverse remarks were not disposed of when the impugned order of retirement was made, but these adverse entries were taken into account while passing the impugned order of retirement.