The Allahabad High Court has held that the promotion of a government servant does not wipe out the adverse entries earned by him before the promotion when his case is taken up for compulsory retirement. It held that the entire service record must be looked at in such an assessment, and that even one entry touching integrity can be enough to retire an employee compulsorily.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,

“..the settled position is that for considering the case for compulsory retirement of a government servant, the entire record is required to be seen and it has also been observed that even a single entry with regard to the integrity is sufficient to compulsorily retire a person”

Petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee in District Farrukhabad in 1977 and was transferred to District Kannauj when the district was bifurcated in 1999. He was made permanent on the post of Daftari in 2000. By order dated 26^th April 2005, his overall performance having been assessed on his completing 50 years of age, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 56-C of the Fundamental Rules of the Financial Handbook, Part II (Part II to IV), on the report of a committee constituted for the purpose.

His application for a copy of that report was rejected by order dated 5^th May 2005. Both orders were challenged before the High Court on grounds that his promotion in 2000 had washed out all the earlier entries in his annual confidential report, and that those entries could not be looked into while deciding whether he should be compulsorily retired.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court had itself recorded, by an order dated 25^th May 2015 passed after summoning the original record, that ten years of the petitioner's service had been found unsatisfactory and a fine imposed, and that this finding was never challenged.

The Court found that the district judge had assessed the petitioner's overall performance over the preceding ten years before passing the retirement order.

“The claim of the petitioner that since the petitioner has already been promoted in between in the year 2000, therefore, the previous conduct of the petitioner has been washed out is unsustainable in law.”

The Court observed that although the washed out theory had found acceptance in some earlier interpretations, it was negated by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra, which held that a promotion granted after adverse entries does not render those entries inadmissible or irrelevant, and that the same material remains available to the government in deciding whether it is expedient to keep the servant in service.

The Court noted that this position was followed in State of Gujarat vs. Umed Bhai M. Patel and in State of UP vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, where it was held that the vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out merely because it belongs to the remote past.

In Piyare Mohanlal vs. State of Jharkhand, the wiping out of pre-promotion entries was confined to cases of further promotion and held, by the Supreme Court, to have no application where the question is whether the employee is fit to be retained in service, that assessment resting on the entire service record.

The Court observed that the counter-affidavit alleged repeated adverse entries against the petitioner and doubtful integrity, and that the screening report dated 21^st April 2005 showed his entire service record had been taken into account.

Finding no illegality in the order of compulsory retirement, the Court dismissed the petition. On the refusal of a copy of the committee's report, it held that the order dated 5^th May 2005 had lost its efficacy as the entire record had been brought before it in these proceedings.

Case Title: Mohd. Jamil Warsi v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru C.J. And Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order