"There Cannot Be Compulsory Retirement Proof Employee": Delhi High Court Denies Relief To IRS Officer; Cites 'Doctrine Of Pleasure'

Denying relief to Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, an IRS Officer of 1985 batch, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that there cannot be a 'compulsory retirement proof employee'.

It was also observed that the fundamental source of compulsorily retiring an employee of the Government is derived from "Doctrine of Pleasure" and there is no right vested in the employee to continue in the employment after a prescribed age under the Rules.

Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice V Kameswar Rao observed thus:

"There can be water proof tents or heat proof houses but there cannot be "compulsory retirement proof employee" even if, he has succeeded in few cases against the Central Government."

It added,

"It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is a subjective satisfaction which has been formed on the basis of the entire service record. It is not a punishment. Compulsory retirement may have some adverse effect upon the employee but if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public his services should be brought to an end by compulsory retirement after prescribed age on the basis of the entire record of service, such an employee has no right to continue into the services after a prescribed age, as per rules."

The Court also cited "Doctrine of Pleasure", saying:

"Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of "Doctrine of Pleasure"¸ If the employer – Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an employee into the services of the Union of India, in the public interest such an employee can be made compulsorily retired."

Background

The Court dismissed the petition moved by Aggarwal challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated June 10, 2019.

Aggarwal had alleged that he faced severe pressure from higher authorities of Enforcement Directorate after a search was conducted by Enforcement Directorate officers at the business and residential premises of one hawala dealer, Subhash Barjatya and his arrest. Pursuant to a CBI enquiry, Aggarwal was transferred from his post and was kept on compulsory wait. He was placed under suspension since 1999.

A criminal case was then registered against him by CBI, chargesheet in which was filed last year. Another case was registered against him for disproportionate assets of about Rs.12 crores.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appearing for Aggarwal submitted that the compulsory retirement order was in violation of guidelines as regards timing for exercise of powers under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules.

Significantly, the Rule 56(j) provides that the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, have the absolute right to retire any government servant (on 3 months' notice) if he entered the Government service (in Class I or Class II) before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years

It was therefore argued that on the date of passing of the order of compulsory retirement, Aggarwal was 56 years and six months of age and therefore the action should have been initiated prior to six months of attaining the age of 50 years of the Petitioner.

It was also his case that the Tribunal had appreciated two criminal cases which were registered against Aggarwal but failed to take note that both the matters were quashed.

On the other hand, it was the case of respondents that no error was committed while rejecting Aggarwal's representation and that the order of compulsory retirement was issued after independent decision taken by Review Committee after considering his entire service record.

Findings

"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," the Court said.

The Court also said that 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.

"If any employee of the Union of India has succeeded in litigation(s) that does not mean that looking to the overall service record of the Petitioner, after certain age as per rules, he cannot be retired by the Union of India. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is a subjective satisfaction which has been formed on the basis of the entire service record. It is not a punishment," the bench added.

"Government is taking the work from honest hands and dishonest hands. Sometimes they are enthusiastic and sometimes they are lethargic. Sometimes there is combination of both, i.e., honest man may be lethargic and dishonest man may be enthusiastic, but, all these employees for any reason whatsoever, sometimes because of even quashing of the charges against them, they have been continued into services, but, enough is enough," the Court observed.

Doctrine of Pleasure

This Doctrine springs from Article 310 of the Constitution of India. According to this, after certain minimum prescribed services and after the prescribed age as per rules, there is no right vested in the employee to continue into the services. It depends upon the pleasure of the Union of India to continue him into the services or not looking to his entire service record and his usefulness into the services and his overall performance during the later years.

Further, validity of Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules has already been upheld by the the Supreme Court in T.G. Shivacharana Singh v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 280. It has been held that a Government servant serving under the Union of India holds office at the pleasure of the President of India as provided under Article 310 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, finding no substance in the petition, the same was dismissed by the Court.

Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Click Here To Read Order 

Edited by Akshita Saxena