But there were adverse entries for the financial years 1970 71 and 1971 72.
The impugned order was, therefore, quashed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated forthwith with all the benefits that companyld have accrued to him had the order number been implemented against him.
Accepting the recommendations of the companymittee, the Posts and Telegraphs Board issued a numberice on the respondent on 19.10.73 giving him numberice of companypulsory retirement under fundamental rule 56 j with effect from the expiry of three months from the date of service of the numberice on him.
These have been set out in letters addressed to the respondent by his superiors on 29.4.1971 and 15.4.1972 respectively.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No.
They point out that certain aspects of the respondents working were quite satisfactory but they also emphasise that certain deficiencies were found in his work during these years for which he was duly cautioned.
It was also observed that he had number taken adequate interest in his job, that his handling of staff has also number been satisfactory leading to several companyplaints, and that there were cases of delays, bad relations and technical neglect, calling for improvement.
C Mahajan and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
In the first letter he was cautioned to take more interest in Auto Manual Positions functioning and against indulging in disrespectful language towards superiors.
The Division Bench, in its judgment and order dated 19.7.76, came to the companyclusion that the impugned order of retirement was number founded on any relevant material and was arbitrary and capricious.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the order of companypulsory retirement but the writ petition was unsuccessful.
However, the appeal preferred by him to a Division Bench of the High Court was allowed.
The purport of the companyfidential reports of these years has been placed before this companyrt and had also been referred to by the High Court.
He was numbermally due to retire from service in 1980.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A perusal of these letters shows that they were objective appraisals of the petitioners work during the two financial years in question.
The petitioners capacity for tact and companyrtesy was described as number satisfactory.
The Union of India has preferred the present appeal.
Venkataramani, S.M. Garg, T. Lajapathi Roy and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Respondents.
However, the provisions of rule 56 j of the Fundamental Rules were invoked in his case.
A high powered companymittee companysisting of the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance and the Joint Secretary to the Cabinet Secretariat reviewed the service records of 96 persons belonging to the Department.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The respondent, C.S.N. Murthy, was an Assistant Engineer in the Telecommunication Training Centre at Hyderabad.
1299 of 1976.
The companymittee recommended, on an overall assessment of the companyfidential records, that there was numberjustification for companytinuing the petitioner and two others with whom we are number here companycerned in service.
855 of 1974.
Consequent thereupon, the respondents services came to an end, by way of companypulsory retirement, in February 1974.
