Compulsory retirement requires a holistic evaluation of an individual's service record, ensuring decisions are fair, transparent, and not merely based on the presence of adverse entries.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

Raising identical questions of law and founded on similar factual matrices, both these writ petitions have been filed and are therefore being adjudicated by this common order.

2. The brief factual background in CWP-23129 of 2016, titled “ Shrikant Gowda Patil versus Union of India and Others ”, is that the petitioner, Shri Shrikant Gowda Patil, a resident of District Dharwad in the State of Karnataka, was inducted in the service of the respondent-Border Security Force (BSF) on 11th September, 1999, as Constable (General Duty). Upon the successful completion of the prescribed training at the Special Training Centre, Bangalore, he was, with effect from 16th September, 2000, posted to the 90th Battalion of the BSF. Subsequently, in the year 2010, the petitioner was transferred to the 125th Battalion, where he continued to serve until 2nd August, 2013. Thereafter, he was repatriated to the 90th Battalion, where he remained in service until his compulsory retirement was ordered. Said retirement was ordered by the competent authority vide order dated 20th November, 2014, invoking Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the BSF Rules, 1969”), on the ground of unsuitability. The statutory petition preferred by the petitioner assailing and seeking to set aside the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement came to be dismissed by the competent authority. Insofar as the submissions relating to the responses furnished to the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, this Court finds that such responses, being in the nature of administrative correspondences and not amenable to judicial review, are non-justiciable and hence do not warrant any detailed consideration in these proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 26 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the BSF Rules, 1969”) contemplates the retirement of an enrolled person from service on the ground of unsuitability. It is further urged that, in order to ensure that the exercise of such power is guided by objective criteria and is not left to arbitrary discretion, the respondent-State had issued an administrative circular bearing No. C.14011/1/88/CC-PERS/BSF/2100-2324 dated 26th May, 1992. The said circular laid down the objective as well as detailed guidelines governing the retirement of BSF personnel on the grounds of unsuitability and with a view to ensuring greater care and caution and to obviate arbitrary action at any level within the Force, as well as to maintain a uniform procedure across the organisation by constituting screening boards in the manner and composition prescribed therein. Such screening boards were mandated to assess the performance of officers/enrolled persons by taking into consideration their Confidential Report (CR) dossiers/Annual Confidential Report (ACR) files, wherever applicable, along with their service records, personal files, and an appraisal of their overall performance and reputation within the Force.

4. Learned counsel points out that, as per the general guidelines in the said circular, the evaluation of cases was to be undertaken in respect of such personnel,