The decision of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer, and the entire service record of the employee must be considered. The court's scope of judicial review in cases of compulsory retirement is narrow, and interference is warranted only in specific circumstances, such as malafides, lack of evidence, or arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18.12.2003, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest exercising the power under Rule 42(1)(b) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

2. The aforesaid order has been assailed interalia on the ground that the same has been passed without summoning and considering petitioner's entire service record. The stand of the petitioner is that his case was not placed before the duly constituted screening committee and as such the procedure prescribed under the circulars dated 22.08.2000 and 20.03.2003 has not been followed, under the circumstances his compulsory retirement in public interest is wholly unjustifiable. It is further argued that he has been retired as a punishment purely on the basis of a single penalty of reversion. Further no approval was sought from the State Government not notice as required under Rule 56 or 3 months salary as provided under Rule 42 of Pension Rules was paid.

3. Per contra, the stand of respondents is that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law after considering the entire service record of the petitioner. It is submitted that in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the circular dated 22.08.2000 and 20.03.2003, a screening committee was constituted for scrutiny of the service record of Class III and Class IV employees working in the Directorate of Training. The committee first met on 30.06.2002 and considered the case of petitioner as well as other employees who had completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service as on 01.04.2002. The committee after assessment of the entire service record of petitioner with special emphasis on the CR of the last five years, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service. The committee found that the over all assessment of the petitioner was below average. Further vide order dated 27.01.2003 he was reverted from the post of Accountant to the post of Assistant Grade III on account of financial irregularities and dereliction in performance of duties. The committee also found that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.04.2003. It is contended that the recommendation of the screening committee was placed before the competent authority, i.e., Director, Training, who agreed with the same and issued the impugned order.

4. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The scope of judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement of a government servant is very restricted and permissible to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such in (2020) 1 SCC 801, Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of UP and another, the Supreme Court has held :-

'6......The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by malafides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference. The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same as an Appellate Authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement.'

6. In (2011) 10 SCC 1 Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others, the Supreme Court has held thus :-

'192.............if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before cour