The court upheld the validity of the Government Order regarding compulsory retirement procedures, affirming that it does not violate natural justice and that the entire service record may be considered in assessments.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner states that he initially joined service as a Stenographer in the Revenue Department on 07.11.1992. He was promoted to Senior Personal Assistant on 22.03.2016, thereafter to Personal Officer on 11.09.2019, and subsequently to the post of Chief Personal Officer on 02.12.2020 in the office of the District Magistrate, Haridwar. It is pleaded that his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 1992–93 to 2015–16 were all “Excellent”. The ACRs for the years 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 were not available with the District Magistrate as the petitioner was then posted in the Camp Office, Dehradun, office of District Magistrate, Dehradun and the office of District Magistrate, Uttarkashi. It is further submitted that no departmental inquiry was ever initiated or pending against him.

2. By means of present petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for record and quash G.O./Guidelines dated 20.02.2002 (Annexure 1) and the order dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure No.2) passed by Commissioner Garhwal Region.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to work as Chief Personal Officer, Haridwar otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

5. The petitioner has challenged the Government Order/Guidelines dated 20.02.2002, which prescribe the constitution of a Screening Committee for considering cases of compulsory retirement. Under these guidelines, in cases where the appointing authority is other than the Hon’ble Governor, the Screening Committee is to be chaired by the appointing authority, with two senior officers nominated by the appointing authority as its members.

6. The petitioner’s ground of challenge is that Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II–IV, empowers the appointing authority to compulsorily retire a government servant who has attained the age of 50 years or more, by issuing a three-months’ prior notice, without assigning reasons. According to the petitioner, the Government Order of20.02.2002 impermissibly alters this scheme.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Guidelines/G.O. dated 20.02.2002 is legally unsustainable because it make the appointing authority the Chairperson of the Screening Committee, and the same authority is thereafter required to pass the order of compulsory retirement based on the Committee’s recommendation. This, it is urged, violates principles of natural justice and fairness, as the appointing authority cannot be expected to objectively assess a report of a Committee that he himself presides over. It is further contended that Clause K(1) of the Guidelines/G.O. Dated 20.02.2002 effectively requires the appointing authority to judge his own recommendation, which is impermissible.

8. Learned senior counsel further argues that Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook requires the appointing authority to pass any order of compulsory retirement. Therefore, to maintain fairness, neutrality, and transparency, the Screening Committee should not be headed by the appointing authority. It is submitted that if the appointing authority itself presides over the Committee, the assessment becomes biased, as the authority may already have preconceived views about the employee. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on the judgment in Kashi Ram Ahirwar v. State of U.P. , 2001 ALJ 1655, where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that a person who has recorded adverse entries against an employee should not chair the Screening Committee. The Court observed that allowing such a person to lead the committee undermines fairness and violates the principles of natural justice, because the officer’s prior assessmen