State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2411

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. CHANDRA MOHAN NIGAM & OTHERS.

State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Others. AIR 1977 SC 2411

The principle governing the order of preventive detention about effective representation against such order, is not applicable in the case of an order for compulsory retirement which casts no stigma on a government servant. The test which has been laid down in the case of preventive detention is in the context of the right to individual liberty of a person which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution while the order of compulsory retirement is passed in respect of a government servant who has ceased to have a right, as such, to continue in Government service under the rules governing his employment.

Shri Nigam was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. During his service career, he had some adverse entries in his character role.
He was suspended in 1964, pending inquiry on account of certain strictures passed against him by the Election Tribunal, but was reinstated when the High Court expunged the strictures on appeal.
On December 29, 1967, Shri Nigam attained the age of 50 years, and, following the Central Government’s instructions, in October 1969, a Review Committee examined his service records under R. 16(3) of the All-India Services (DCRB) Rules 1958, as amended in 1969.
The Committee’s recommendation for Shri Nigam’s continuance in service was accepted by the State Government, and the Central Government did not communicate any disagreement.
In May 1970, the State Government set up a second Review Committee u/r. 16(3) which examined Shri Nigarm’s service records on the same materials, and recommended compulsory retirement. The recommendation was accepted, and an order dated August 22, 1970, was passed, compulsorily retiring him.

It was held by the Supreme Court that since Rule 16(3) itself does not contain any guidelines, directions, or criteria, the instructions issued by the Government furnish an essential and salutary procedure to secure uniformity in the application of the rule.
They are embedded in the conditions of service, and are binding, on the Government, and cannot be violated to the prejudice of the Government servant.
It was also held that Once a Review Committee has considered the case of an employee, and the Central Government does not decide, on the report of the committee endorsed by the State Government to take any prejudicial action against an officer, there is no warrant for a second Review Committee under the scheme of Rule 16(3) read with the instructions, to reassess his case on the same materials, unless exceptional circumstances emerge in the meantime or when the next review stage arrives.