No Compulsory Retirement Merely On Committee Recommendation, Competent Authority Must Be Satisfied Of 'Bonafide' Public Interest: J&K High Court
Shedding light on the criteria for compulsory retirement of government employees under the J&K Civil Services Regulations, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the decision to retire an employee prematurely cannot be solely based on recommendations from a committee. Instead, the competent authority must independently form a bona fide opinion that the retirement is...
Shedding light on the criteria for compulsory retirement of government employees under the J&K Civil Services Regulations, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the decision to retire an employee prematurely cannot be solely based on recommendations from a committee. Instead, the competent authority must independently form a bona fide opinion that the retirement is in the interest of the institution, it ruled.
“Merely because the committee has made recommendations for retirement of writ petitioner, he cannot be compulsorily retired unless the competent authority comes to a conclusion after forming a bona fide opinion of its own that the writ petitioner can be subjected to compulsory retirement in the interest of the institution”, Justices Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta observed.
The bench was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the earlier order of the Single Judge, which had quashed the compulsory retirement order of the petitioner. The impugned order, issued under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, had prematurely retired the petitioner from service.
The bench, after hearing the arguments presented by the counsels representing both parties, analyzed the concept of compulsory retirement in service law. It reiterated that premature retirement aims to eliminate inefficiency, corruption, dishonesty, and deadwood from government service. Citing previous rulings, the court highlighted that the formation of a bona fide opinion by the competent authority is crucial in justifying compulsory retirement.
Furthermore, the judgment underscored the obligation of the employer to produce relevant documents when an order is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court ruled that the service record of a government servant should not be considered a privileged document that cannot be inspected by the court.
“Not only the employer is obliged to produce the materials, but the onus of establishing that the order was made in public interest is also on the employer”, the bench maintained.
Addressing the issue of involvement in criminal cases as a basis for compulsory retirement, the bench clarified that mere involvement in a criminal case does not establish guilt, and an employee's livelihood should not be deprived solely based on such involvement. The nature of the offence and the circumstances of each case should be considered before making any decision regarding compulsory retirement, the court underscored.
In the case at hand, the court noted that the petitioner's reputation had not been officially questioned, as no adverse remarks were found in the Annual Performance Reports. The petitioner had also been acquitted of the charges against him. Therefore, the court concluded that the practice followed by the government in directing the petitioner's compulsory retirement based on the registration of a criminal case was unwarranted.
Thus, it dismissed the State's appeal.
Case Title: State of J&K Vs Rajinder Kumar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 171