Retrospective penalties for compulsory retirement are impermissible and must align with the order date past which no previous penalty exists.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel submitted that he has been specifically instructed by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC to appear today in the instant matter. It is further relevant to take note of that this matter was heard by this Court on 26.11.2024, 16.12.2024 as well as on 09.01.2025 wherein Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC was heard.

3. Today, the matter was only fixed taking into account that Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the observations so made in the order dated 09.01.2025 sought to place before this Court certain judgments.

4. Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel in that regard has placed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Others. Vs. State of Kerala & Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 . Taking into that the matter has been duly heard, this Court takes up the instant writ petition for final disposal.

5. The dispute involved in the instant petition pertains to a challenge being made to the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.5 whereby the petitioner had been imposed the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement from Service” w.e.f. 06.03.2007. Additionally, it was also mentioned that as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, vide Sub-Rule 40(1), the petitioner would be eligible to full compensation pension and retirement gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement w.e.f. 06.03.2007. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 is severable into two parts. One is the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and the other is the effect given to the order of compulsory retirement from a date anterior to the imposition of penalty i.e. w.e.f. 06.03.2007.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court on 26.11.2024 that the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the first part of the order of compulsory retirement from service dated 04.01.2017. However, the petitioner's challenge is limited to the second part of the impugned order i.e. imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement from service giving retrospective effect from 06.03.2007. This aspect when submitted before this Court on 26.11.2024, this Court permitted the petitioner to file a short affidavit in that regard. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2024.

7. For ascertaining as to whether the petitioner’s challenge to the order of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 06.03.2007 holds merit, this Court finds it relevant to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

8. The materials on record show that the petitioner herein was inducted in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 24.09.1994 as a Constable/General Duty. While he was in service, penalty of “Dismissal From Service” was imposed upon the petitioner vide an order dated 15.10.1996 by the respondent No.5. The petitioner thereupon preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide an order dated 04.08.1997. The petitioner challenged this order of dismissal from service by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.541/1998. The said writ petition was dispos