9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory retirement order dated 21.7.1986. 2. Examination of the Review Committee's findings and recommendations. 3. Application of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. 4. Judicial principles on compulsory retirement in public interest. Summary: 1. Validity of the Compulsory Retirement Order: The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment which set aside the order dated 21.7.1986, compulsorily retiring the respondent from service. The High Court's Division Bench allowed the respondent's Writ Petition challenging the validity of this order. 2. Examination of the Review Committee's Findings: The Review Committee doubted the respondent's integrity, noting serious charges against him, including issuing bogus cement permits and fabricating government stamps. Despite no adverse entries in the respondent's character roll regarding his integrity and his promotion in 1981, the Committee opined that he should be continued in service under suspension for severe departmental punishment. The Secretary and Chief Secretary decided on premature retirement with a condition to withdraw criminal cases if the respondent did not challenge the retirement order in court. 3. Application of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959: Rule 161(1)(aa) empowers the Appointing Authority to retire a government servant in public interest after attaining the age of 50 years with three months' notice or pay in lieu. The Supreme Court cited various precedents explaining "public interest" as weeding out inefficient, corrupt, or dishonest employees to maintain efficiency and integrity in public service. 4. Judicial Principles on Compulsory Retirement: The Court reiterated principles from past judgments, emphasizing that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply stigma. It should be based on the government's subjective satisfaction and entire service record, focusing on recent performance. Judicial scrutiny is permissible if the order is arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no evidence. In this case, the Review Committee's recommendation was inconsistent and not based on substantial material. The respondent's involvement in criminal cases alone did not justify compulsory retirement without adverse character roll entries. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Division Bench's judgment to reinstate the respondent, as the compulsory retirement order was deemed punitive and not in public interest. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
