The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the government to pay ₹ 9 lakh in compensation for a bureaucrat’s loss of reputation after his compulsory retirement in 2018 on the grounds of questionable integrity, and to ensure a proper farewell at his office.
The bench set aside the CAT and high court orders and directed his farewell with full honour and in the manner in which he would have received on the date of his superannuation. The bench found that the decision was based on an additional secretary’s note which the court dismissed as not being worth the paper it was written on.
It said Das was entitled to all service benefits, including the notional promotion gained by any of his juniors during the period that he remained out of service. “The said note is not only bizarre, but sinister in its design. The immediate and inevitable question that arises on its perusal is, was the then additional secretary acting to protect the interest of the department or to espouse the cause of the representatives of the domestic industry,” the bench said. The bench said such a note, bereft of any credibility, was made the foundation for showing the door to an excellent public servant who, by dint of his independence, integrity and courage, stood tall to ward off pressures from the domestic industry to protect the interest of the revenue. “It does not require great intelligence to fathom the why and what of it, and as to who orchestrated the move for the marching orders to be given to such an officer,” said the bench, citing the service records. “We deem it fit to observe that this is a fit case, in which, the order smacks of arbitrariness, perversity and mala fides, warranting the case for judicial interference in full force.”
The bench underlined that discretion is not a charter for arbitrariness. It added that reputation is earned by dedicating the best years of life to the service of the nation. The bench added that it must be founded on credible, cogent material worthy of being acted upon and not on mere suspicion and conjecture.
The order was passed under Fundamental Rule 56(j) even as the government argued that this provision grants discretion to the competent officer to act in public interest. It added that recourse to FR 56(j) should not be exercised lightly or casually.
The bench said dismissing such a hard-earned reputation as “dead wood” smacks of a high degree of malice and a colourable exercise of power.
