1. By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned Government order No. 968-GAD of 2006 dated 14-8-2006, whereby he came to be compulsorily retired from service, on the grounds taken in the petition.

2. Respondents have filed their counter and resisted the petition on the grounds taken therein.

3. The meat of the matter is whether the impugned compulsory retirement order is legal one and cannot be interfered with by this court?

4. It is beaten law of the land that compulsory retirement is not a punishment at all and cannot be questioned by way of writ petition, except as per guidelines and tests laid down by the judicial pronouncements. Apex court in case Baikuntha Nath Das & another Vs Chief District Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020 laid down the following principles:-

32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour.

ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.

iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order.

iv) The Government or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records /character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.

v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This object has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.

5. These tests came to be discussed by the apex court and this court (both single and Letters Patent Bench) and other High Courts in numerous cases reported as Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65, Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, Baidyanath Mahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218, Ram Ekbal Sharma V. State of Bihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt, 1993 (2) SCC 179, S.Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of J&K V. Jia Lal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 24, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra Behera, AIR 1995 SCC 1745, K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 277, Allahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank, 1996(4) SCC 504, M.S. Bindra V. Union of India, 1998(7) SCC 310, M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999(1) SCC 529, State of Gujrat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109, State of U.P V. Chater Sen, 2005(9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India, 2005(9) SCC 748, Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. State of J&K & ors. LPA Nos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided on 5-8-2005, Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan Vs., State of J&K & ors., 2006(3)JKJ 240(HC), Shah Latief Vs, State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document