Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The Central Government considering the aforesaid recommendation of the Review Committee, by its order dated 10.06.2019 passed an order of compulsory retirement in public interest, of the Petitioner with effect from 11.06.2019.

13. Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner about the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 mainly on the ground that this Petitioner has succeeded in several litigations against Union of India and hence, the order of compulsory retirement is tainted with malice in law and also on the ground that there is a delay on the part of the Respondents while passing the order of compulsory retirement and the same is contrary to the undertaking given to Delhi High Court in C.M.No.11272/2019 in W.P.(C) No.9230/2016.

10. It is true that a compulsory retirement is bound to have some adverse effect on the government servant who is compulsorily retired but then as the rule provides that such retirements can be made only after the officer attains the prescribed age. Further, a compulsorily retired government servant does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement. Three months' notice is provided so as to enable him to find out other suitable employment.‖ (emphasis supplied)

32. Even if there are decisions in the matter of suspension, departmental inquiries and any challenge of grant of sanction for prosecution in favour of the Petitioner, that does not mean that the Petitioner cannot be compulsorily retired by the Respondents. The observations made in the orders while deciding the matter initiated by the Petitioner is one thing whereas, the order of compulsory retirement which is passed on the basis of entire service record of the Petitioner and the decision taken by Review Committee, is altogether another thing. 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. 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.

53. As stated hereinabove, that the scope of the judicial review is very limited in cases of compulsory retirement only on limited grounds such as non-application of mind or malafide, the compulsory retirement order can be challenged. One must keep in mind, the principles enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 10 SCC ―18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory rules. (See Surender Kumar v. Union of India [(2010) 1 SCC 158 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 24] .) The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said Authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.