0
hc alahbad

Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement: Allahabad High Court

Right from the joining of service by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has been awarded adverse entries or punishment. The committee is competent to broadly look into the entire service record of the petitioner to form an opinion as to whether the employee should be recommended for compulsory retirement as the object of the compulsory retirement is to weed out the deadwood and make a healthy working environment in the department for the public good. Such an opinion was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Saral Srivastava in the matter of Head Constable Ravindra Mishra vs State of U.P. & Anr. [WRIT – A No. – 55436 of 2017].

The facts involved in the case were that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in P.A.C. on 15.08.1981 and was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. A committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner by order dated 31.07.2017. It was the contention of the petitioner that the committee has not assessed his service record properly and had made the decision wrongly.

The Hon’ble High Court referred to the judgment of Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others (2013) 3 SCC 514 wherein the Apex court held that “An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma or any suggestion of misbehavior. 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

Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the record reflects that the petitioner has been awarded several punishments during the entire tenure of service. The service record of the last 10 years of the petitioner is not clean.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal with a view that the instant appeal has no merit.

Click Here To Read The Judgment.

Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat