Compulsory retirement in public interest is an administrative measure to eliminate deadwood, not a punishment. It requires a holistic review of an employee's total service career. Judicial review is restricted to cases of jurisdictional error or patent perversity rather than re-evaluating the merits of the administrative decision.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order no. 44 dated 1.5.2014 issued from the office of the Deputy Inspector General, CISF (Respondent No.4) whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.2013 has been rejected and further quashing of the office order no. 2703 dated 7.5.2013 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.5 has compulsorily retired the present petitioner with immediate effect without any reason assigning therein.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus upon the commanding respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of ASI keeping in view that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities without following the due procedure of law and are violative of principle of natural justice as well as the petitioner has been awarded this punishment at the verge of his retirement I.e. at the age of56 years.

iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the impugned Orders dated 01/05/14 and 07/05/13 during the pendency of the instant Writ petition.”

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated read as under:-

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Security Guard/Constable on 02.09.1975 and promoted from the post of Constable to Lance Naik on 24.11.1993. He was further promoted from the post of Lance Naik to Naik on 03.12.1994 and further was promoted from the post of Naik to Head Constable/G.D. on 10.10.1997 and the last promotion granted to the present petitioner was on the post of ASI/EXE from Head Constable on 24.3.2011 and thereafter the present petitioner has not been given any promotion.

The date of birth of the present petitioner is 15.05.1956 and the petitioner will be superannuated in the year 2016 after attaining the age of 60 years as per the normal age limit prescribed in the CISF Rules.The present petitioner after his promotion as ASI on 24.3.2011 has been performing his duties of the said post in the CISF unit, BCCL, Dhanbad.

The respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been made to retire with immediate effect at the age of 56 years, and that too without giving any prior information to the petitioner and has not been permitted to perform his duty and has been restricted to superannuate prior to his superannuation age of 60 years.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred representation against the premature retirement on 27.05.2013.

The petitioner was asked to submit a representation duly addressed to the DG/CISF being the Chairman of the Representative Committee and in compliance to the said instruction, the petitioner submitted reminder representation on 10.10.2013 stating