Order Of Compulsory Retirement Not Punishment, Does Not Require Observation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Rajasthan High Court

A division bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand and Justice Pankaj Bhandari observed:

"The order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma on an employee-petitioner. The subjective decision of the government in public interest arrived at after considering entire service record of the petitioner, where the principles of natural justice, are not required to be observed while passing the order of compulsory retirement because the order of compulsory retirement does not amount to a punishment."

The matter pertained to a challenge of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding compulsory retirement of an IPS officer, he had sought reinstatement back to service. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner moved Rajasthan High Court.

The petitioner had challenged the order by saying that the order dated 29.3.2018 has been issued without following the guidelines prescribed by the DoPT dated 28.6.2012. He stated that under these guidelines, only persons of doubtful integrity or those who have outlived their utility, can be given compulsory retirement.

He also submitted that a list of persons was considered by the Review Committee including some persons who were going to retire within one year, which shows total non-application of mind of the respondents. He states that the Review Committee has ignored the guidelines i.e. the conduct should be unsatisfactory for immediate 5-6 years but the Committee considered the 'good' and 'very good' ACRs of the petitioner as 'average' and 'weak'.

The petitioner further submitted that the Competent Authority has followed the advice of the Review Committee without any independent application of mind which amounts to delegating the satisfaction of the Competent Authority to the Reviewing Committee, which is not correct. He submitted that the Review Committee was prejudiced against the petitioner which is clear from the fact that there were number of cases before the Committee but it examined the case of the petitioner alone in detail while proposing action against him.

Counsel for respondent argued that no error has been committed by the tribunal while dismissing the Original Application preferred by the petitioner and also, no error has been committed by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 29.3.2018 by which premature retirement was given to him.

It was further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents is an independent decision taken by the Review Committee after considering the entire service record of the petitioner, the Committee was of the opinion that the petitioner is no longer useful into the service of the respondents.

He said that the continuation of service by petitioner is not in public interest.

"The conduct of the petitioner has shaken the confidence of the Department to post him to any public post which involves public dealing or is sensitive in nature. Thus, the Review Committee held that his continuation in the services will not be useful to the public and also in the general administration. The conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a Government servant and is injurious to public interest and obstructs the efficiency in public services."

It is also submitted that the order of premature retirement is absolutely independent decision taken by the Review Committee based on entire service record of the petitioner and the Court cannot sit in appeal in this matter.

Court opined that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment but it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. Further court said that the order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and the same is not liable to be quashed by this Court merely for the reason that the promotions were granted to the employee.

"Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The Government servant does not lose 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 public interest."

After perusing the review committee's order, the court was of the opinion that it was absolutely an independent proceeding and looking to over all service record of the petitioner, a subjective decision was recorded by the Review Committee and matter was recommended for premature retirement of the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the respondent No.1 took a decision to give premature retirement to the petitioner.

Court also observed that 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 Government 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 court observed that compulsory retirement is a complex decision and varieties of factors are to be kept in mind by the Review Committee. Those who are not obeying the orders of the Government during their service can be retired from the service, and this power is given to the Government to energize its machinery and to make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those, who in its opinion, should not be into the services, in public interest.

In view of the above the Court held that there is no perversity in the order passed by the review committee and petitioner has failed to prove the malice and malafides of the respondent No.4 against him.

"He has simply raised the allegations of malice but failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence in support of his allegations. Mere filing of final reports in two FIRs lodged against him, does not give clean chit to him. One after another, four FIRs were lodged against him and even protest petitions were submitted against the petitioner by the complainant in those cases in which Final Negative Reports were submitted."

Court held that the yardstick for judging the conduct of the higher police officer has necessarily to be strict and that discipline in uniformed services can never be compromised.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Kumar Indu Bhushan v. Union Of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

Click Here To Read/Download Order