Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 883

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
Sushil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8634 of 2012
Decided On : 06-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Dr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. D.m.sharma, Adv. Mrs. Amrita Behera, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anshu Singh, Adv. Ms. Anshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiva Khandelwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma-AOR, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compulsory Retirement – Principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem find no application in context of compulsory retirement.
(2) Order of compulsory retirement cannot be invalidated merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks formed part of material considered by authority.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Object underlying compulsory retirement is to weed out dead wood so as to maintain a high standard of efficiency and integrity in public service – Order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature and implies neither stigma, prejudice nor any suggestion of misbehaviour – Order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on subjective satisfaction of Government – Principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem find no application in context of compulsory retirement – However, order of compulsory retirement is not insulated from judicial scrutiny – Government or Review Committee, shall take a decision considering entire record of service, attaching more importance to records and performance during subsequent years, weighing in both favourable and adverse remarks – Order of compulsory retirement cannot be invalidated merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks formed part of material considered by authority – Such circumstance, by itself, does not furnish a ground for judicial interference. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – [Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules] – In last two years immediately preceding order of compulsory retirement, appellant’s performance suffered discernible decline, with gradings dropping from “Good” to “Average” and remaining stagnant thereafter – This is coupled with fact that after his last promotion in 2003, appellant was inflicted with one minor penalty – While “washed-off theory” may operate in matters relating to promotion, it has no application where competent authority assesses suitability of an employee for continued retention in service – Committee was justified in considering appellant's entire service record, including adverse material preceding appellant's promotion – Order of compulsory retirement upheld. (Paras 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal assails judgment and order passed by High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi, in W.P.(C) No.307/2011, whereby High Court dismissed writ petition filed by appellant and upheld orders of compulsory retirement passed against him.
Findings of Court:
Appellant was serving in the CISF, a disciplined and uniformed force entrusted with vital security functions. Members of such force are expected to maintain a consistently high standard of efficiency, vigilance and discipline. Viewed in that light, decision of competent authority warrants no interference.
Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1) The present Appeal assails the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi, in W.P.(C) No.307/2011, whereby the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by the appellant and upheld the orders of compulsory retirement passed against him vide order dated 06.06.2010 by the competent authority.

2) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts can be adumbrated as thus: the appellant joined the Central Industrial Security Force¹[For brevity, “CISF”] as an Assistant Sub-inspector on 28.06.1982. While in service, he was promoted twice, firstly to the post of Sub-Inspector on 29.03.1990 and later to the post of Inspector on 19.09.2003. Upon attaining the age of 50 years, the appellant’s case was placed before the Internal Screening Committee²[For brevity, “the Committee”] for assessment under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The Committee found the appellant to be unfit for retention in the service. The said view was affirmed by the Review Committee vide order dated 06.06.2010; consequently, the appellant was compulsorily retired from service. The appellant’s representation submitted being aggrieved by the aforesaid order was also rejected by the Representation Committee.

3) Assailing the order of compulsory retirement, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, after considering the appellant’s Annual Confidential Reports³[For brevity, “ACR”] opined that the efficiency of the appellant to perform his duties slackened in the last 2 years of the period under review and held that the decision of the Committee in compulsorily retiring the appellant was not arbitrary or unreasonable. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us in this Appeal.

4) Heard the learned Counsel for either side and perused the material on record.

5) The object underlying compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood so as to maintain a high standard of efficiency and integrity in public service. It is trite law that an order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature and implies neither stigma, prejudice nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. The order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Furthermore, the principles of natural justice, audi alteram partem find no application in the context of compulsory retirement. However, this cannot be construed to mean that the order of compulsory retirement is insulated from judicial scrutiny. Albeit, the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court, but nevertheless, can interfere, if the order so passed is malafide, based on no evidence or is arbitrary and perverse.

6) It is also well settled that the Government or the Review Committee, as the case may be, shall take a decision considering the entire record of service, attaching more importance to records and performance during the subsequent years, weighing in both favourable and adverse remarks. Equally well settled is the principle that an order of compulsory retirement cannot be invalidated merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks formed part of the material considered by the authority. Such circumstance, by itself, does not furnish a ground for judicial interference. [see: Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another, (1992) 2 SCC 299.]

7) Speaking in consonance with aforementioned adjudication and the limited role of judicial interference in an order of compulsory retirement, this Court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 1 SCC 801 observed as follows:

“6. …. The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by mala fides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interfere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 883

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.Sushil Sharma – AppellantVersusUnion of India And Others – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 8634 of 2012Decided On : 06-08-2026

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, JJ.
Sushil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8634 of 2012
Decided On : 06-08-2026