An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and can be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. Waiver of the right to make a representation against premature retirement precludes challenging the order on merits.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 2nd April, 2012 issued under Clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) thereby, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from services.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner had been employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the “CISF”) and at the relevant point of time was posted at CISF Unit, Kolkata Port Trust.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that he was appointed on 21st November, 1981. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik and later to the post of Head Constable in the month of May, 2002. The petitioner claims that by letter dated 27th December, 2011, he was informed by the Commandant that he had been awarded 14 minor penalties and accordingly, it was decided to issue a recordable warning for the past indifferent service of the petitioner. Subsequently, by a letter dated 19th March, 2012, the Superintendent, Bangur Hospital had directed the petitioner to appear before a Medical Board on 30th March, 2012 in pursuance to the order of the Balistha Commandant Karjalaya dated 17th March, 2012.

4. The petitioner had accordingly, appeared before the Medical Board and after medical examination he was advised to undergo further treatment from ATR Centre, MR Bangur Hospital. Subsequently, thereafter, by an order dated 2nd April, 2012 the Senior Commandant of the Unit prematurely, retired the petitioner from services.

5. The petitioner questions the aforesaid order of premature retirement, inter alia, on the ground that the Deputy Inspector General had no authority in law to issue the order of prematurely retiring him. By drawing attention of this Court to the instructions regarding the premature retirement of Central Government servants under Appendix-5 of the said Rules, he submits that at any time after a Government servant completes 30 years of qualifying service, he may be retired from the services on the basis of “consolidated instructions” regarding premature retirement of Central Government servants as available in Appendix-5 thereof. Further by referring to the aforesaid Appendix-5, he submits that not only the criteria but procedure and guidelines have also been framed, which are required to be followed while compulsorily retiring a Government servant. A Government servant may be retired on the basis of the recommendations of the committee constituted for the said purpose. While referring to Annexure II of Appendix-5 of the said Rules, he submits that the petitioner was a non-gazetted officer, serving under Ministry/Department and as such the Head of the Department or the Appointing Authority, whosoever is higher would be the Chairman, and another Senior Officer nominated by the Government/appropriate Higher Authority who does not exercise direct immediate control or supervision over the officers being screened, as member, should be part of the Review Committee. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General is not the Head of the Department and as such could not have taken the decision as regards the petitioner, for compulsorily retiring him from service. By referring to Rule 3(k) of the said Rules, he submits that Head of the Department has been defined to mean an authority specified in Schedule I to the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978, and includes such other authority or person whom the President may, by order, specify as Head of the Department. By referring to the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978, he says that the Director General of the Central Government Industrial Security Force is the Head of the Department and as such it is the Director General, who could have taken a decision in this matter and not the Deputy Inspector General. In such cir