http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: D. RAMASWAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1982

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1982 AIR  793            1982 SCR  (3)  75  1982 SCC  (1) 510        1982 SCALE  (1)92  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 630  (4,8)

ACT:      Service  matter-Fundamental   Rule  56   (d)-Government Servant earned  quick promotions solely on merit one adverse entry in  confidential file-Exonerated  after full  enquiry- Promoted  to  selection  post-No  adverse  entry  since  the Compulsorily retired  under P. R. 56 (d) within a few months thereafter-validity of.      Starting as  a Lower  Division Clerk  in 1953, by quick successive promotions  the appellant rose to the prestigious position of  a member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in less than  25 years of service. His service book showed that he had  an  excellent  record  of  service,  earned  several encomiums, commendations  and appreciations.  But a solitary entry made  in 1969 in his confidential file stated that his reputation was "not at all good" in that he was in the habit of threatening  dealers  and  taking  money  from  them.  An enquiry was  conducted by  tho Directorate  of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. After  framing charges  and  obtaining  his explanation the  full Board  of Revenue  reported  that  the charges "could not be pursued and proved" and suggested that "the charges  be dropped".  In November  1974 the Government dropped the  charges. A  few months later in May 1975 he was promoted to  the selection  post of  Deputy Commissioner  of Commercial Taxes  and posted  as Member  of  the  Sales  Tax Appellate  Tribunal.  Immediately  thereafter  in  September 1975, invoking  P. R.  56 (d),  he was  compulsorily retired from service;      Allowing the appeal to this Court,

HEADNOTE:      HELD: In  the face  of the  appellant’s promotion a few months before  his compulsory  retirement under F. R. 56 (d) and  nothing   even  mildly   suggestive  of  ineptitude  or inefficiency  after  his  promotion,  it  is  impossible  to sustain the  order  of  the  Government  retiring  him  from service. [79 G]      When the  Government  exonerated  him  of  the  charges levelled against  him, the basis of the adverse entry in his confidential  file   was  knocked  out.  By  reason  of  the promotion of  the selection  post of Deputy Commissioner and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

posting as a Member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the effect of  the entry  was further  blotted out.  Since then, there  was  no  adverse  entry  in  his  service  record  to discredit him  or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility  as a Government servant. Had there been another adverse  entry  after  his  promotion  it  would  have  been possible to read them all in conjunction and say that it was time for  him to  quit Government  service. But that was not so. It  was therefore  odd that  he was retired a few months after his promotion. [79 A-C] 76      All this  is not  to say  that previous  history  of  a Government servant  should be  completely ignored once he is promoted. Sometimes  past events  might help  to assess  the present conduct,  but when  there was nothing in the present conduct casting  any doubt  on the  wisdom of  the promotion there was  no justification  for needless  digging into  the past. [80 A-B]      Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., [1980] I SCR 923; Baldev Raj  Chadha v.  Union of  India &  Ors., [1981] I SCR 430; State  of Punjab  v. Dewan Chuni Lal, [1970] 3 SCR 694; and Union  of India etc. v. M. E. Reddy & Anr., [1980] 1 SCR 736; referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3436 of 1979.      From the  Judgment and order dated the 19th April, 1978 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 224178.      M.K.  Ramamurthi,   and  C.S.   Vaidyanathan  for   the      Appellant.      Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A.V. Rangam for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. An  order of pre-mature 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 SO 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 what. soever had happened in this case during that period. Let us look at the totality of the facts. 77      The appellant  appears to  have had  quite a noteworthy career. A  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  Deputy Commissioner  of Commercial Taxes on 7-S- 1975. On  promotion as  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Commercial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Taxes he  was posted  as Member  of the  Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in  the same  cadre. On  September 28,1975,  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 react  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:           "This Commercial Tax officer is a very intelligent      and capable  officer who kept the entire district under      his control  in perfect  discipline. Unfortunately, his      reputation is  not at  all good.  There were complaints      that he  used to  threaten dealers  and take money. The      entire matter  is under  investigation by the Vigilance      and Anti-Corruption Department".      There was  an enquiry  by the  Directorate of Vigilance and  Anti   Corruption.  Charges  were  framed  against  the appellant by  the Board  of Revenue.  The explanation of the appellant was  obtained. The  Full  Board  of  Revenue  then reported that  the charges should be dropped. The Government accepted the  report of  the  Full  Board  and  dropped  the charges making the following order on 29-11-1974:           "As the  preliminary  enquiry  disclosed  a  prima      facie case  of corruption, a detailed enquiry was taken      up by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.      Out of  eleven allegations  levelled against  Thiru  D.      Ramaswami, seven allegations were not substantiated, in      the enquiry  made by  the Directorate  of Vigilance and      Anti-Corruption. The Government, examined the report of      the Directorate 78      and considered  that there  was a  prima facie  case in      respect of  certain allegations and this was sufficient      to proceed  against Thiru  D. Ramaswami.  The Board  of      Revenue (CT)  was therefore  requested to frame charges      straightaway as  for a  major penalty  against Thiru D.      Ramaswami on  the basis of allegations levelled against      him. The  Board accordingly  framed charges against him      in respect  of allegations  substantiated, obtained his      explanation and sent its report thereon. The Full Board      considered that all the charges framed against Thiru D.      Ramaswami  in   consequence  of  the  detailed  enquiry      conducted by the Vigilance Department cannot be pursued      and proved.  The Full Board has therefore expressed the      view  that   the  said  charges  may  be  dropped.  The      Government accept  the views  of  the  Full  Board  and      direct that  all the  charges framed  against Thiru  D.      Ramaswami be dropped".      The effect  of the  order of  November 29,  1974 of the Government was to grant absolution to the appellant from the repercussions of,  the note  of the  Deputy Commissioner  of Commercial Taxes,  made in  1969. If there was any ambiguity about the  effect of the Government order, it was cleared by the circumstance  that, within a few months, on May 7, 1975, he was  promoted as  Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and posted  as  Member,  Sales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,  a prestigious post.  It has to be mentioned here that the post of a  Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is a Selection post. Under  Rule 36(b)  (i) of the Tamil Nadu Genera! Rules for the State and Subordinate Services:           "Promotions in  a service  or class to a selection      category or  to a  selection grade  shall  be  made  on      grounds  of   merit  and   ability,   seniority   being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    considered   only   where   merit   and   ability   are      approximately equal".      Under Rule  2(b) of  the Tamil  Nadu Special  Rules for Commercial Taxes Service:           "All promotions  shall be made on grounds of merit      and ability,  seniority  being  considered  only  where      merit and ability are approximately equal".      So, what do we have ? There was an adverse entry in the confidential file of the appellant in 1969. The basis of the entry 79 was knocked  out by the order dated November 29, 1974 of the A Government, and the 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 servant a few months after  promoting him  to a  Selection  post.  In  the present case, we made a vain search in 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:           "He is  sincere and  hardworking. He  ’manages his      office very  well. He  exercises adequate  control over      subordinates. He  maintains a cordial relationship with      public.           Because  of   his  stiff   attitude  some  of  the      assessees complain about him stating that he is rude in      his behaviour  This perhaps  is due  to  his  unbending      attitude. With  a little  more tact he will be an asset      to the Department".      one curious  feature of the case is that while the 1969 entry noted  that an  enquiry was pending with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption  Department in regard to the allegations against. the  appellant, the  ultimate result of the enquiry which was  that the  charges should  be dropped  was nowhere noted in  the personal  file of  the appellant.  One wonders whether the failure to note the result of the enquiry in the personal file led to the impugned order !      In the  face of  the promotion  of the appellant just a few months  earlier and  nothing even  mildly suggestive  of ineptitude or  inefficiency thereafter,  it is impossible to sustain the  order of  the Government retiring the appellant from service.  The learned  Counsel for  the State  of Tamil Nadu argued  that the  Government was  entitled to take into consideration the  entire history of the appellant including that part of it which was prior to his promotion, 80 We do  not say  that the  previous history  of a  Government servant should  be completely  ignored, once he is promoted. Sometimes, past  events may  help to assess present conduct. But when there is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt  on   the  wisdom   of  the   promotion,  we   see  no justification for needless digging into the past.      The learned  Counsel for  the appellant  relied on  the decisions in Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P, (1) Baldev Raj Chadha  v. Union  of India  & Ors (2) State of Punjab v. Dewan  Chuni   Lal,  (3)   while  the  learned  counsel  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

respondent relied  on the decision in Union of India etc. v. M.E. Reddy  &  Anr.  (4)  All  the  decisions  have  a  been considered by  us in  reaching our conclusion. The appeal is allowed. G.  O. Ms.  No.  1112  dated  September  19,  1975, Commercial Taxes Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil  Nadu is  quashed. The appellant will be reinstated in service  and paid  the arrears of salary due to him under the rules. He is entitled to his costs. P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 81