The main legal point established is that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require principles of natural justice. The entire service record, including adverse entries, can be considered for compulsory retirement.

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.12.2013 dismissing WP(C)No.284/2012 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 for compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner from service w.e.f. forenoon 01.07.2009.

2. Heard Mr. R Jha, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. K Paul, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

3. The fact of the case sufficient for deciding the present writ appeal is briefly noted. The appellant/writ petitioner was enrolled as a recruit General Duty in Assam Rifles on 22.06.1979 and after completion of training at Assam Rifles Training Centre, he was posted to 13th Assam Rifles as his parent unit. On 26.01.1985, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Laince Naik/GD on the basis of good performance and thereafter on 10.11.1986, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the rank of Naik/GD. On 01.12.1987, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar/GD. The appellant/writ petitioner was further promoted to the post of Naib Subedar/GD on 13.07.2006. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he successfully performed the duty of the Company Commander, ROP Duty, Insurgency Duty (I.S. Duty), Patrolling Duty, Platoon Commander Duty as well as any other duty which had been assigned to him being General Duty personnel by the respondent-authorities. It is also the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that during the entire period of service, the appellant/writ petitioner successfully and diligently performed all type of tasks and duties conferred by the respondents and there was no adverse report against the appellant/writ petitioner in his service tenure. Moreover, in the year 2005, the appellant/writ petitioner was awarded with DIGAR Awards. All of a sudden, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 27.03.2009 giving notice upon the appellant/writ petitioner to retire from service on the afternoon of 01.07.2009. The impugned order dated 27.03.2009 for compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner from service was assailed by the appellant/writ petitioner by filing WP(C) No.284/2012. The main grounds for assailing the impugned compulsory retirement order dated 27.03.2009 were that:

(a) No show cause notice of discharge/compulsory retirement was served upon the appellant/writ petitioner in any point of time and the appellant/writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the respondents at the very early age and as per the Central Service Rules any incumbent of the Assam Rifles is to continue to be in service till 60 years of age which the appellant/writ petitioner would have attended in the year 2021;

(b) The impugned order dated 27.03.2009 for compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner from service is highly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law;

(c) The power of the authority for compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner from service ought to have been exercised by the respondents not arbitrarily but only upon forming an opinion based on material, that too in public interest. There was nothing in the service record of the appellant/writ petitioner to show that any adverse entry was ever recorded therein;

(d) Any adverse entry in the service career of the appellant/writ petitioner regarding performance of his duties and general behaviour was not based on material upon which the respondent authorities could form an opinion that the service of the appellant/writ petitioner was liable to be dispensed with in public interest;

(e) The purpose of compulsorily retirement is to weed out deadwood, by compulsorily retiring the employee who is inefficient, corrupt and doubtful integrity. However, before compulsorily retiring a Govt. employee from service, the appropriate authority must form a bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement of a Govt. employ