Compulsory retirement decisions must consider the entire service record, including past disciplinary actions, not merely recent performance, establishing the narrow scope of judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Present case is arising out of an order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Executive Director, North Zone, Food Corporation of India whereby petitioner was compulsorily retired in the interest of Corporation and public interest in general as well as an order dated 24.11.2023 whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected after examination by the Representation Committee.

2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shariq Shamim has not disputed a well settled position of law that order of compulsorily retirement is itself not an order of punishment nor it casts any stigma, however, he has argued that Reviewing Committee has not considered the detailed representation filed by the petitioner that his immediate previous service record was found satisfactory that he was found fit for promotion and was promoted also before impugned order was passed as well as broad criteria as mentioned in Circular dated 09.07.2021 issued by Food Corporation of India were also not followed and without assigning any reason, his representation was rejected by the Reviewing Committee.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has referred Clause No. 22(2) of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1971 as amended as well as Clause-10 of Circular dated 09.07.2021 and for reference, same are quoted below :-

“(2) (A) (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Corporation employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:

(a) If he is, in Category I & II service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Corporation service befon attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;”

************

“10. Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee:- The broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making the recommendations are as follows:-

(i) Corporation employees whose Integrity is doubtful shall be retired.

(ii) Corporation employees found to be Ineffective shall also be retired. The basic consideration In Identifying such Corporation employees should be their fitness / competence to continue in the post held.

(iii) No Corporation employee should ordinarily be retired on ground of Ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of his case. However, In a case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of a Corporation employee, It would be open to review such a case also for premature retirement: The sald Instruction of not retiring the Corporation employee within one year on the ground of Ineffectiveness except In case of sudden and steep. Ineffectiveness, but not on the ground of doubtful Integrity.

(iv) No Corporation employee should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, his service during the preceding 5 years or where he has been promoted to a higher post during that 5 year period, his service in the highest post, has been found satisfactory. There is no such stipulation, however, where the Corporation employee is to be retired on grounds of doubtful Integrity. In case of those Corporation employees who have been promoted during the last 5 years, the previous entries in the APARs may be taken Into ac