The order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is subject to narrow judicial review, and the principle of natural justice does not apply in such cases.

ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 12-1-2022 (Annexure-A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 291 of 2004 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Industrial Training Institute on 9-12-1976. The appellant was promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk on 10-3-1986. He was promoted vide order dated 5-6-1993 on the post of Accountant. Vide order dated 27-1-2003, the appellant was reverted to the post of Assistant Grade-III from the post of Accountant. Vide order dated 18-12-2003, the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 42(1)(b) of Madhya Pradesh Pension Rules, 1976 (hereinafter in short “the Rules of 1976”), has directed for compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appellant has preferred writ petition before learned the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed by the impugned order and hence, the appellant is in the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not consider the arguments advanced by the appellant. The entire career of the appellant remained unblemished. The Scrutiny Committee made the recommendations on the basis of the circular which was already deleted by the State Government and under such circumstances, he submits that the rights of the appellant has been prejudiced on account of improper consideration by the Screening Committee. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another vs. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299, Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited and another vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221, Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2011) 10 SCC 1 and Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of U. P. and another, (2020) 1 SCC 801 has held that even a single adverse entry of integrity can be held to be sufficient for passing an order of compulsory retirement. The report of the Screening Committee was based on the evaluation of the entire service record and subjective satisfaction is recorded, which should not be interfered under the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. The scope of judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Unless the order of compulsory retirement is found to be arbitrary or capricious vitiated by mala fide, or overlooks relevant material, then only interference is warranted. The Courts cannot sit in the judgment over the decision taken by the employer. The principle of natural justice has no application in the case of compulsory retirement. Even if the general reputation of an employee is not good and there may not be any tangible material against him, he may still be compulsorily retired in public interest. Of course, if it is a case of no material or no evidence, the same can certainly be held to be arbitrary or without application of mind, but the sufficiency of material cannot be examined by a writ Court. Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution and such an action is necessary for better administration to chop-off dead-wood having regard to the entire service record of the officer/employee concerned.

6. The language of the Rule 42(1)(b) of the Rules of 1976 suggests that the appointing authority may in the public interest require a government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying se