Compulsory retirement under the CISF Act necessitates an inquiry and adherence to constitutional due process.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by Union of India challenging the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 768 of 2012. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by respondent, challenging order of his compulsory retirement, was set-aside on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of provision contained in Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968.

2. Operative portion of the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2014 is extracted below:-

“10. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The two orders dated 26.02.2011, passed by the Commandant, CISF Unit BHEL, Haridwar and order dated 02.02.2012, passed by the Assistant Inspector General/Estt. being violative of Article

311(2) of the Constitution of India are hereby quashed.

11. A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.

12. Having made the above determination, it is however, provided that the respondents are always at liberty to proceed against the petitioner on medical grounds but under the procedure as provided under Rule 91B of the CISF Rules, 2001.”

3. Section 8 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, which is relevant in the present case, is extracted below:-

“8.Dismissal, removal, etc., of members of the Force:- Subject to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the Central Government may make under this Act, any supervisory officer may –

(i) dismiss, remove, order for compulsory retirement of or reduce in rank, any enrolled member of the Force whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or (ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any enrolled member of the Force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, to who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:-

a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days pay or reduction in pay scale;

b) drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty c) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emolument.

d) withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect.

e) withholding of promotion.

f) censure.”

4. It is not in dispute that neither any enquiry was held nor opportunity of hearing was given to respondent before passing the order of compulsory retirement against him, despite the provision contained in Section 8(1) of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, applicable to Central Government employees, enables the Competent Authority to retire any employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. He thus submits that the Competent Authority exercised this power under Section 56(j) of the said Rules, and gave three months notice to the respondent, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of compulsory retirement and interference made by learned Single Judge was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the service record of respondent was not satisfactory, as there were as many as eighteen minor penalties imposed upon him during his service career, besides one major penalty

6. Section 56(j) of Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, relied by the appellant, is extracted below:-

“56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, 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 Government Servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of s