Chitransh Bhansali and Prakhar Suryawanshi
INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgement has upheld and heavily discussed the previously laid position of law that there cannot be a ‘compulsory retirement proof employee’. The hon’ble Court noted 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. The court also relied on the “Doctrine of Pleasure” enriched in the Article 310 of the Constitution and stated the settled position of law that “Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Central Administrative Tribunal earlier dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement from the position in Indian Revenue Services (IRS). Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the present petition has been preferred by the Original Applicant.
The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A. whereby order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Respondents of compulsorily retiring the petitioner was not interfered with. Similarly, order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Respondents rejecting the representation of the Petitioner was also not interfered with by the Tribunal. Thus, the order passed by the Respondents under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules of retiring the Petitioner with immediate effect from 10.06.2019 was not interfered with and since then the Petitioner already stands retired from services of the Respondents.
THE JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court stated that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma to an employee. 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 shed light upon Doctrine of Pleasure that draws its source from Article 310 of the Constitution of India. It was 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 and his overall performance during the later years. Further, the court also observed that validity of Rule 56(j) of fundamental rules has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in T.G. Shivacharana Singh v. State of Mysore[1]. 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.
Further clarifying its stand on the matter, the court 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.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Court relied on various pronouncements on 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules before dismissing the petition and while referring to the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer[2], the court reiterated the principles that was emerged from the referred case:
- An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
- The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
- Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
- The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter — of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
- An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above.
[1] AIR 1965 SC 280.
[2] (1992) 2 SCC 299.
Leave a Reply