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.
Court Orders Full Honors for Das Amid Controversial Dismissal
A recent ruling by the bench has overturned previous orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the high court regarding the dismissal of Das, a public servant. The court mandated that he be given a farewell with full honors, similar to what he would have received on his retirement date. It confirmed that Das is entitled to all service benefits, including any notional promotions achieved by his juniors during his time out of service.
The court criticized the basis of his dismissal, which relied on a note from an additional secretary, labeling it as lacking credibility. The bench described the note as ‘bizarre’ and ‘sinister,’ questioning whether the additional secretary acted to protect departmental interests or those of domestic industry representatives.
Highlighting Das’s reputation as an excellent public servant, the bench noted his independence and integrity in resisting pressures from the domestic industry to safeguard revenue interests. The court expressed concern over the arbitrary nature of the dismissal, stating that it warranted judicial intervention. It emphasized that the service records suggested a troubling orchestration behind the move to dismiss such a dedicated officer.
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.
