Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking setting aside/quashing of orders dated 04.04.2015 of DA, 13.07.2015 of Appellate Authority, 02.01.2016 of DIG and June, 2018, passed by the respondents for removal of petitioner from service; directions to respondents to restore him in the service as per his seniority in the regular service.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner, on instructions, submits that though compulsory retirement of petitioner is with pensionary benefits, however, he submits that this Court may clarify that the order of compulsory retirement is not a stigma.
3. Notice issued.
4. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice.
5. Since there is no prejudice caused to the respondents, we hereby make it clear that the order of compulsory retirement will not be considered as stigma against the petitioner. However, pursuant to this order, petitioner shall not claim any benefit from the respondents.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.
Compulsory retirement of public servants is not punitive; it requires a bona fide evaluation of their service record and public interest without prejudicial stigma.
Compulsory retirement is upheld as a non-punitive measure if based on formal assessments of efficiency; judicial review is limited to ensuring decisions are not arbitrary or mala fide.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
