Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.17.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that though the Petitioner submitted a letter on 28.01.2011 (through proper channel) expressing his intention to retire from service voluntarily (the copy of the said representation was sent through RPAD to the Government), yet, no orders were passed within a period of three months and therefore, the Petitioner, in Law, shall be deemed to have retired voluntarily from service at the expiry of the period of notice.

7.18.Besides this, it is represented that the Petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings or was under suspension and therefore, it is the plea of the Petitioner, in emphatic term, that he is deemed to have retired on 28.04.2011. Viewed in that perspective, the plea of the Petitioner is that the impugned G.O.(2D) No.310, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 05.09.2011 placing the Petitioner under 'Compulsory Retirement' is not maintainable, since the Petitioner was deemed to have retire on 01.11.2011.

The Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people who are of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking the decision to retire a government employee compulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record of the government servant including the latest reports. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The employee compulsorily retired is entitled to all the pensionary benefits.

15.The aforesaid decisions unmistakably lay down that the entire service record of a government servant could be considered by the Government while exercising the power under FR 56(c) of the Rules with emphasis on the later entries. FR 56(c) of the Rules read with Explanation (2), empowers the State government with an absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead wood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the Government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The Government's right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The Government's right to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest. The Government's right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to the Screening committee or the State Government, as the case may be, to find out whether a government servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll, the Government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not.

8.Clause (2) of the Bye-law inter-alia provides for voluntary retirement from service of HPMC on completion of 25 years service or on attaining the age of 50 years whichever is earlier. The employee, however, has a right to make a request in that behalf and his request would become effective only if he is 'permitted' to retire. The words "may be......permitted at his request" clearly indicate that the said clause does not confer on the employee a right to retire on completion of either 25 years service or on attaining the age of 50 years. It confers on the employee a right to make a request to permit him to retire. Obviously, if request is not accepted and permission is not granted the employee will not able to retire as desired by him. Para (5) of the Bye-law is in the nature of an exception to para (2) and permits the employee who has not completed 25 years service or has attained 50 years of age to seek retirement if he has completed 20 years satisfactory service. He can do so by giving three months' notice in writing. The contention of the learned counsel for HPMC was that though Para 5 of the Bye-law relaxes the conditions prescribed by Para 5 of the Bye-law relaxes the conditions prescribed by Para 2, the relaxation is only with respect to the period of service and attainment of age of 50 years and it cannot be read to mean that the requirement of permission is dispensed with. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as Para 5 opens with the words "Notwithstanding the provision under para 2" and the words "may be ........ permitted at his request" are absent that would mean that the employee has a right to retire after giving three months' notice and no acceptance of such a request is necessary. We cannot agree with the interpretation canvassed by learned counsel or the respondent. The Bye-law had to be read as a whole. Para 2 thereof confers a right on the employee to request for voluntary retirement on completion of 25 years service or on attaining the age of 50 years, but his desire would materialize only if he is permitted to retire and not otherwise. Ordinarily, in a matter like this an employee who has put in less number of years of service would not be on a better footing than the employee who has put in longer service. It could not have been the intention of the rule- making authority while framing para 5 of the Bye-law to confer on such an employee a better and a larger right to retire after giving three months' notice in writing. The words "seek retirement" in para 5 indicate that the right which is conferred by it is not the right to retire but a right to ask for retirement. The word "seek" implies a request by the employee and corresponding acceptance or permission by HPMC. Therefore, there cannot be automatic retirement or shaping of service relationship on expiry of three months period. 10.18.At the outset, in regard to the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner was not issued with any charge memo and further that, had not faced any disciplinary proceedings or personal enquiry and therefore, the 'Decision to retire compulsorily is an arbitrary, capricious one', besides the same being against the methodology to be followed in the matter of Fundamental Rules 56(2), it is to be pointed out that the Compulsory Retirement of the Petitioner does not amount to 'Dismissal or Removal of Service'. Also that, the 'Compulsory Retirement' of the Petitioner does not involved civil consequences and as such, the Government Servant is not required to be given an opportunity to show cause notice against his Compulsory Retirement, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.Venkateswararao Naidu V. Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1973 SC 698.