Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Shukla - Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Secretary of Home Ministry of Central Government & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 556 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Shukla
For the Respondent : Dr. Bhawani Dubey i/b. Mr. Arun Kumar Roy, Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar with Mr. Y. S. Bhate and Ms. Priyanka Chavan

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manish Shukla
For the Respondents: Dr. Bhawani Dubey i/b. Mr. Arun Kumar Roy, Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar with Mr. Y. S. Bhate and Ms. Priyanka Chavan

Compulsory retirement under CCS Pension Rules Rule 48 valid in public interest despite good APARs where service record shows multiple punishments indicating doubtful integrity and poor conduct.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 48(1)(b) - Compulsory retirement after completion of 30 years qualifying service - Order passed simpliciter in public interest by competent authority - Not a penalty under CCS (CCA) Rules - Petitioner had 01 major and 17 minor punishments - Habitual offender with low level of conduct and scant regard for discipline - No justification to continue till superannuation - Impugned order valid and in accordance with law. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 13)

(B) Fundamental Rules - FR 56(j) - Periodical review for retirement in public interest - Absolute right of appropriate authority - Criteria include doubtful integrity or ineffectiveness - Entire service record considered - Adverse entries weigh in decision - No breach of guidelines or non-application of mind. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Petition assailed order of compulsory retirement after 30 years service, sought quashing and retention of service quarter. Respondents relied on service record showing repeated misconduct and punishments, justifying retirement to maintain discipline.

Findings of Court:
No merit in challenge to order; passed strictly per rules after due consideration of material on record; petitioner continued in quarter post-order.

Issues: Whether compulsory retirement order contrary to good service record, arbitrary, non-compliant with FR 56(j) para 5, or short-cut to avoid enquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Compulsory retirement not punitive but for public interest; upheld where service record reflects repeated lapses, lack of reform, average performance; principles require regard to entire record including uncommunicated entries; not invalid merely if promotion despite adverse remarks. Result : Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. impugned compulsory retirement order under rule 48; not punitive. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflicting claims on service record: good vs. 18 punishments. (Para 5 , 6)
3. rule 48(1)(b) and fr 56(j) allow public interest retirement. (Para 7 , 8)
4. order valid per service record; precedents distinguished; not shortcut. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. petition dismissed; no merit in challenge. (Para 13)

Judgment :

(Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition primarily assails the order dated 30 October 2019 passed by the Commandant, CISF, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “CCC Pension Rules”), after the petitioner having completed 30 years of service by holding the petitioner being entitled to qualify for pension as on 10 October 2019. At the outset, the impugned order requires to be noted which reads thus:-

ORDER

Whereas the Commandant is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Commandant hereby retires CISF No. 884501046 HC/GD Shukla Mahesh Narayan with immediate effect, he having already completed 30 years of service/30 years of service qualifying for pension on the 10.10.2019 CISF No. 884501046 HC/GD Shukla Mahesh Narayan shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement.”

3. It appears that, although the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner continued to occupy the service quarter. He has hence made a prayer in the petition seeking retention of the said service quarter. The substantive prayers made in the petition are required to be noted, which read thus:-

“a. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing the quashing of the Compulsory retirement being the order dated 30/10/2019 passed by the Competent authority on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

b. that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrained the Respondents to take the possession of the quarter QUARTER NO.95, R.C.F.L. COLONY, TYPE 1 BUILDING NO.4, MAHUL ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI – 400 074, during the pendency of the present petition.”

4. At the outset, it may be observed that the impugned order is a simplicitor order of compulsorily retirement and not an order imposing a penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is from such prospective that the present proceedings are required to be considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in assailing the impugned order, has limited submissions. It is contended that the impugned order is contrary to the petitioner’s service record, inasmuch as the petitioner had a good record of service, hence, there was no justification in law to compulsorily retire him in the manner as done/imposed. It is further submitted that the impugned order reflects a patent non-application of mind, particularly when the petitioner could have been continued in service until attaining the age of superannuation. In support of these contentions reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, Appeal (Civil) 1561 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (civil) 12652 of 2000 wherein the principles governing compulsory retirement have been laid down. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Union of India vs. Maganbhai P. Parmar, Special Civil Application No.9397 of 2007, decided on 30.06.2011 and on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of HC (GD) Om Prakash vs. Central Industrial Security Force, WP (C) No. 7471 of 2011, decided on 14.10.2011.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document