Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 39 - HC - Indian LawsCompulsory retirement of petitioner - petitioner is an officer of Indian Revenue Services (IRS) of 1985 batch - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma to an employee Petitioner. Subjective satisfaction of the Government in public interest, arrived at after considering the entire service record of the Petitioner, where principal of natural justice is not required to be observed while passing an order of compulsory retirement because order of compulsory retirement does not amount to punishment - Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The Government servant does not loose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement while a minimum service is granted to the Government Servant, the Government is given power to energize its machinery and make more efficient by compulsory retiring those who in its opinion should not continue in the service of the Government in the interest of public. Even if promotion has been granted to him, still compulsory retirement can be granted by Union of India under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules as under the said rule the entire service record of the employee is to be seen and if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public looking to overall service record, the employee requires to be retired, there is no right vested in the employee to continue in the employment after a prescribed age under the Rules - Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as the charges levelled against the Petitioner in departmental inquiry have been quashed, the decision of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is because of legal malice on the part of the Respondents. This contention of the Petitioner is devoid of any merits. Compulsory retirement has various facets. Compulsory retirement can be passed looking to the overall service record of the Government employee. Compulsory retirement order can also be passed in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out people of doubtful integrity or corrupt employee but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules, so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the services - even if for this petitioner, the departmental charges have been quashed and set aside and the sanction granted for prosecution in two criminal cases have been quashed and set aside, still the Respondents can pass an order for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. Looking to the Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, from the very inception into the Government service till the age of 50 years there is enough and ample scope for the Government employee to improve his performance to prove is faithfulness and loyality to the Government, to make his services necessary in the Government, to make his services useful to the Government for rest of the years of his service. Government is taking the work from honest hands and dishonest hands - After a prescribed age of an employee, there is an assessment by the Government through Review Committee and if looking to the entire service record of the employee and looking to his performance and looking to his usefulness into the remaining services, if he is to be weeded out, the Union of India has all powers, jurisdiction and authority under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules to make such employee compulsory retired, even if there is acquittal from some of the charges levelled against him by the Union of India. Looking to the conclusion arrived at by the Respondents of compulsorily retirement of the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the Respondents were driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations - Proceedings under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is distinct and independent proceedings undertaken by the Respondents on the basis of the entire service record of the Petitioner and keeping in mind the performance of the Petitioner and his usefulness into the services. A subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Review Committee to compulsory retire the Petitioner. Even if the promotion has been granted to a Government employee he can be made compulsory retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. In the facts of the present case order under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules has been passed before grant of promotion to the Petitioner - Petitioner has already been made compulsorily retired since 10.06.2019, i.e., approximately for the last 27 months, he is not into the services of the Government. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order dated 10.06.2019. 2. Alleged malafide and arbitrariness in the compulsory retirement decision. 3. Compliance with guidelines for compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. 4. Impact of prior litigation successes by the Petitioner on the compulsory retirement decision. 5. Consideration of the entire service record by the Review Committee. 6. Alleged violation of an undertaking given in a related matter. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order dated 10.06.2019: The order of compulsory retirement was issued under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, which grants the government the absolute right to retire any government servant in public interest after they have attained the age of 50 years. The Court upheld the validity of Rule 56(j) and emphasized that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply any stigma or civil consequences. The order was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee after considering the entire service record of the Petitioner. 2. Alleged malafide and arbitrariness in the compulsory retirement decision: The Petitioner argued that the compulsory retirement order was arbitrary and issued with malafide intentions, particularly since he had succeeded in various litigations against the Respondents. The Court rejected this argument, stating that compulsory retirement is an independent decision based on the entire service record and not influenced by past litigation outcomes. The Review Committee's decision was found to be free from personal malice, arbitrariness, and perversity. 3. Compliance with guidelines for compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules: The Petitioner contended that the compulsory retirement order violated guidelines regarding the timing of such actions. The Court clarified that there is no requirement for the government to immediately retire an employee upon reaching the age of 50. The decision can be made at any time after the employee attains the prescribed age, based on the overall service record and public interest. 4. Impact of prior litigation successes by the Petitioner on the compulsory retirement decision: The Petitioner highlighted his successes in various litigations, arguing that these should preclude his compulsory retirement. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the decision to retire an employee compulsorily is based on the entire service record and overall performance, not just isolated litigation outcomes. The Court noted that even if the Petitioner had succeeded in some cases, it did not make him immune to compulsory retirement. 5. Consideration of the entire service record by the Review Committee: The Review Committee considered the entire service record of the Petitioner, including adverse entries, departmental inquiries, and criminal cases. The Court found that the Review Committee had sufficient material to form a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner's continuation in service was not in public interest. The Committee's decision was based on a holistic view of the Petitioner's service record and performance. 6. Alleged violation of an undertaking given in a related matter: The Petitioner argued that the compulsory retirement order violated an undertaking given by the Additional Solicitor General in a related matter concerning his promotion. The Court found no merit in this argument, stating that the proceedings under Rule 56(j) are distinct and independent from those related to promotions. The compulsory retirement decision was based on the Petitioner's overall service record and was not influenced by the undertaking in the promotion matter. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality and validity of the compulsory retirement order dated 10.06.2019. The decision was found to be in accordance with Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, based on the entire service record, and free from malafide, arbitrariness, and procedural errors. The Court emphasized that compulsory retirement is a measure to ensure public interest and administrative efficiency, not a punishment.
|