IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to compulsorily retire a government servant must be based on the principles of public interest and the employee's service record, and should not be used as a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

N.V.ANJARIA, J.

The State seeks to address a challenge to judgment and order dated 13.10.2016 of learned single Judge allowing the Special Civil Application, filed by the respondent – petitioner.

2. Whether learned single Judge was justified on facts and in law in setting aside the order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the respondent No.1- the Director General and the Inspector General of Police of compulsory retiring the petitioner, is the central issue to be considered by the court.

2.1 It is trite principle that government is permitted to resort to the mode of retiring government servant compulsorily in public interest, where the ultimate underlying object is to weedout the deadwood. Those employees who are deadwood or of doubtful integrity would be subjected to compulsorily retirement.

3. The respondent herein- original petitioner, having joined the services as Junior Clerk in the year 1975, came to be promoted as Senior Clerk, thereafter, also as Head Clerk upon passage of seven years and lastly, stood promoted as Office Superintendent in the same office in the year 2003. It was stated that when the petitioner completed fifty years, Rule 161 (1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 was invoked against the petitioner retiring him compulsorily. It was the said order which was called in question by filing the writ petition.

3.1 Justifying the action of retiring the petitioner compulsorily, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents it was contended that under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, a government servant could be retired upon attaining the age of fifty to fifty-five years, if the government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in public interest. It was further stated that after following Government Resolution dated 28.7.1987, the petitioner was subjected to compulsory retirement. It was stated that since three months pay was given to the petitioner, giving opportunity of hearing to him was not necessary.

3.2 It was sought to be highlighted that the petitioner was found in past remaining unauthorizedly absent and that the charge-sheet was issued on 18.11.2000 which followed by imposition of punishment of censure. It was also stated that the confidential reports of the petitioner were found to be average. Therefore, it was finally stated, the petitioner became liable to be retired compulsorily.

3.3 Learned single Judge while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement observed that the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Office Superintend. The aspect weighed with learned single Judge that this was the third promotion given to the petitioner during his service career and that he was found fit for promotion in the year 2000-2003 and therefore it was not possible to justify the order of compulsory retirement.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve submitted that the aspects of certain absentism on part of the petitioner and his average confidential remarks were taken into account. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Lal Jangir [(2013) 10 SCC 551], it was submitted with vehemence that in considering the question whether any government employee could be compulsorily retired or not in public interest, the past record of the employee cannot be taken as washed-off. She submitted that it is the prerogative of the government to judge the public interest in retiring a government servant compulsorily.

4.1 In support of her submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader also relied on another decision in Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Om Prakash [(2022)5 SCC 100] by highlighting therein in para 5 thereof, to point out that in that case the writ petitioner was retired compulsorily after giving promotion. Yet another decision in Ram Murti Yadav Vs. the State Of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 1 SCC 801] was pressed into service in support of her submissions.

4.2 The reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court