Patna High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of Employee, Rules Compulsory Retirement Must Be Based On Subjective Satisfaction

The Patna High Court recently upheld the reinstatement of a Class-III employee posted in the Governor's Secretariat, Bihar who was made to compulsorily retire from the services in the midst of the departmental proceedings pending against him.

Affirming the Single Bench's decision, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that it would be inappropriate and unjust to order compulsory retirement of the employee on the charges labeled against the employee for which a departmental proceeding was pending against the employee.

The Court added that the order of compulsory retirement should be backed by the authorities' subjective satisfaction. According to the Court, if the compulsory retirement order was issued amid the department proceedings, then it would not be feasible for the authorities to develop a subjective satisfaction for issuing a compulsory retirement order for the employee.

The writ petitioner, Mehfooz Alam, was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Governor's Secretariat, Bihar, on 27.11.1991, and later regularized as a Lower Division Clerk on 3.1.2008. On 2.7.2018, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. The petitioner challenged this order, claiming it was unlawful. He had previously been served with allegations on 8.9.2017, followed by a charge sheet on 28.3.2018. Despite ongoing departmental proceedings, the compulsory retirement order was issued, which he argued was prejudicial.

The Single Bench held in the writ petitioner's favor, following this, a letters patent appeal was preferred by the State Authorities before the Division Bench.

The appellants argued that the compulsory retirement order was valid, citing public interest due to the petitioner's age and service record, and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Babu Lal Jangir (2014), which held such orders were non-punitive with limited scope for judicial review.

The respondents contended that the order was punitive, as it was based on allegations already under departmental inquiry. They argued it was issued prematurely while proceedings were ongoing and was not justified under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code.

Dismissing the appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Sarthy J. noted that the petitioner was already undergoing departmental proceedings for the same charges cited in the compulsory retirement order, which was issued prematurely before the proceedings were concluded.

Referring to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation judgment, the Court emphasized that compulsory retirement should be based on overall performance, not specific allegations under investigation. The Court concluded that the order was punitive and stigmatic, lacking subjective satisfaction and not in the public or administrative interest.

“It may be important to note here that as stated above, Departmental Proceeding was already initiated against the writ petitioner under the CCA Rules wherein he has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet. Further, the order impugned in the writ application of compulsory retirement imputes allegations against him, which in the departmental proceeding initiated may also have led to imposition of punishment. It transpires that the proceeding was abandoned midway and the impugned order was passed compulsorily retiring him from service. The order, on bare perusal, cannot be said to have been passed on the subjective satisfaction by the authorities ie the appellants herein, and a decision arrived at on the basis of his service that he is not fit to be continued, especially when specific allegations are levelled and imputation of misconduct made in the order passed.”, the court observed.

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Verma (AAG-3) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3

Case Title: The Principal Secretary Vs. Mehfooz Alam

Click here to read/download the judgment