IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Rajpal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 19636 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Premature Retirement - Police Official - Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and emphasized the concept of 'public interest' as the key factor in deciding premature retirement. The court highlighted the interpretation of 'public interest' by referring to various judgments and emphasized that the objective of premature retirement is to weed out inefficient, corrupt, and dishonest employees from government service. The court also clarified that compulsory retirement does not imply any stigma or punishment and can be ordered based on the subjective satisfaction of the government. The court further outlined the scope of interference by the courts in such orders, emphasizing that interference is permissible only if the order is mala fide, based on no evidence, or found to be perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police official, sought the quashing of an order for his premature retirement. The respondent, Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, ordered the petitioner's premature retirement based on his service record, which included instances of punishments, absence from duty, involvement in a criminal case, and forging official records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's past conduct did not meet the required standards of conduct and discipline expected of a police official. The court upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, stating that retaining the petitioner in the disciplined force would not be in public interest.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's challenge against the order for his premature retirement and the consideration of his service record by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the concept of 'public interest' in the context of premature retirement and clarified that such retirement does not imply any stigma or punishment. The court outlined the scope of interference by the courts in such orders, stating that interference is permissible only in specific circumstances.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - The petitioner had been appointed as a Constable in Sports Category in Punjab Police on 13.12.1991 and was promoted as Ad-hoc rank ASI on 26.11.2011. However, vide impugned order dated 21.8.2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner as well as 13 other police officials have been ordered to be retired pre-maturely by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of said dated 21.8.2023 (Annexure P-4) qua the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had always been performing his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had also been honoured with a First Grade Appreciation Letter by the Deputy Commander of Police, Amritsar City on 26.2.2013 (Annexure P-2). It has further been submitted that recently when the petitioner was required to go abroad to meet his son, he was granted permission by the respondent-department by clearly mentioning that no departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending against him, as is stated in order dated 15.8.2023 (Annexure P-3). The learned counsel submitted that under these circumstances, there was no occasion to have forcibly retired the petitioner who had put in more than 31 years of service and that too without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that dismissal of petitioner at this stage would surely cause a stigma on him and that he could be retained in service while assigning any lesser important assignment, in case for any reason the respondents nursed some doubts about efficiency of petitioner.
3. The learned State counsel, upon whom an advance copy of petition had already been served, submitted that as per provisions of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (as amended in 2014), the case of each of the officers/officials is to be reviewed upon completion of qualifying service of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years for the purpose of considering as to whether they should be retained further in service or not and that since the petitioner was not found fit to be retained further in service, therefore, he has been ordered to be retired. The learned State counsel, pursuant to a direction issued on the last date of hearing, has furnished a copy of letter dated 11.9.2023, accompanied by some documents indicating the record of the petitioner, addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar to the Advocate General, Punjab which is taken on record.
4. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to provisions of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (as amended in 2014), which is extracted herein-under:
3. Premature Retirement. -
(1) (a) The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right, by giving an employee prior notice in writing, to retire that employee on the date on which he completes fifteen years or twenty years or twenty five years or thirty years or thirty five years, as the case may be, of qualifying service on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.
(b) The period of such notice shall not be less than three months :
Provided that where at least three months' notice is not given or notice for a period less than three months is given, the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances, at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the date of retirement, for a period of three months or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months.
(2) Any Government employee may, after giving at least three months' previous notice in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service on the date on which he completes twenty-five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of 'public interest' in the context of premature retirement, and the clarification that such retirement does not imply any stigma ....
Premature retirement of a government employee must adhere to mandated procedures, requiring review prior to age limits and consideration of service record, highlighting the need for clear evidence ag....
Premature retirement must not substitute for disciplinary action and should be based on clear evidence of public interest, not unsupported allegations.
Compulsory retirement must be executed by the appointing authority, following due legal procedures and cannot be imposed as a penalty without disciplinary proceedings.
Compulsory retirement should not be based solely on pending criminal allegations; a comprehensive assessment of service record is essential to ensure justice.
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
The legal framework for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in public interest involves subjective satisfaction of the government, limited judicial review, and the consideration of the office....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.