Date of judgement:
27th April, 2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand & Pankaj Bhandari
Parties:
Petitioner – Kumar Indu Bhushan
Respondent – Union of India
SUBJECT
The petitioner, in this case, had challenged the order of the Tribunal upholding the order of compulsory retirement passed against him. The High Court while upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, held that the principles of natural justice need not be observed in compulsory retirement proceedings.
OVERVIEW
- The petitioner, in the instant case, had been aggrieved by the compulsory retirement given to him under Rule 16(3) of the All-India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958.
- He had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against the aforementioned order. However, the Tribunal affirmed the order of compulsory retirement.
- The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
- The petitioner contended that the retirement order had not been issued in accordance with the DoPT guidelines.
- As per the aforementioned guidelines, compulsory retirement can be given to persons whose integrity is in doubt or who have served beyond their utility.
- Furthermore, a person who is to retire within a year cannot be given compulsory retirement.
- The petitioner pleaded that his ACRs were incorrectly considered.
- Moreover, the Review Committee's recommendation was implemented by the Competent Authority without application of mind.
- The petitioner contended that the Review Committee was biased against him and took into consideration the 4 FIRs that were lodged against him without noting that 2 of them had closed with Final Negative Reports. Furthermore, no charge sheet was filed in the 3rd FIR and the 4th one was pending.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondents submitted that the Review Committee had not erred in passing the order of compulsory retirement and the Tribunal had rightly upheld the order.
- The Review Committee had taken an independent decision after examining the whole service record of the petitioner.
- The posting of the petitioner in any public post was against the interest of the public.
- The order of compulsory retirement did not prejudice the petitioner nor did it violate any of his fundamental rights.
- The petitioner had written to the CM and given threats of committing suicide upon being transferred from his post. Furthermore, he had used improper language against the DG Jails.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the order of compulsory retirement was in accordance with the law.
ANALYSIS
- The Court primarily observed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das &Ors. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, AIR 1992 SC 1029. The Supreme Court, in this case, had held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and this decision is taken in public interest by the Government and such order should not be quashed on the mere ground that the employee had been granted promotions.
- There are no civil consequences of a compulsory retirement. This order is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
- The Court further noted that it shall not interfere with the bona fide opinion of the competent authority that the compulsory retirement is in public interest.
- Since the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, the principle of natural justice need not be observed in such proceedings.
- The order was independent and was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee.
- The employee has no right to stay in service after the minimum prescribed period.
- The Government has the right to make its machine more efficient by compulsory retiring those officers whom it finds not to be useful.
- The burden was on the petitioner to prove mala fide intention on the part of the Review Committee and he had failed to discharge this burden.
- The order of the competent authority was in accordance with the guidelines of the DoPT.
- The Court noted that the petitioner had pleaded for action against the members of the Tribunal who had upheld the compulsory retirement order. This showed the lack of respect for authorities on the part of the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
The Court rightly held that no procedural error had been committed by the Review Committee and the decision for the Committee was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
