CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE v. OM PRAKASH

Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported as [1992] 1 SCR 836 – Held: High Court misread the said judgment which holds that order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment – It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour – Order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another (1992) 2 SCC 299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836; Union of India v. M. E. Reddy and Another (1980) 2 SCC 15 : [1980] 1 SCR 736; Posts and Telegraphs Board and Others v. C.S.N. Murthy (1992) 2 SCC 317 : [1992] 2 SCR 338; Union of India and Others v. Dulal Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179 : [1993] 1 SCR 853; Secretary to the Government and Another v.

Nityananda Pati (1994) SCC (L&S) 1052; Union of India v. V.P. Seth and Another (1993) Supp 2 SCC 391; State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh (1998) 4 SCC 92; State of U.P. and Others v. Raj Kishore Goel (2001) 10 SCC 183; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Babu Lal Jangir (2013) 10 SCC 551 : [2013] 11 SCR 159; Brij Mohan Singh v. Chopra v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 188 : [1987] 2 SCR 583; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2010) 10 SCC 693; Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2020) 1 SCC 801 : [2019] 14 SCR 818 – relied on. Case Law Reference [1992] 1 SCR 836 [1980] 1 SCR 736 G [1992] 2 SCR 338 [1993] 1 SCR 853 relied on relied on relied on relied on (1994) SCC (L&S) 1052 relied on (1993) Supp 2 SCC 391 relied on H Para 3 Para 4 Para 6 Para 7 Para 8 Para 9 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE v. OM PRAKASH (1998) 4 SCC 92 (2001) 10 SCC 183 [2013] 11 SCR 159 [1987] 2 SCR 583 (2010) 10 SCC 693 [2019] 14 SCR 818 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 10 Para 11 Para 12 Para 12 Para 12 Para 13 205 A B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.

5428 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2011 of the High Court C of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. No.7471 of 2011. Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Akshay Amritanshu, Rajesh K. Singh, Mohd. Akhil, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Ayush Puri, A K Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant. Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present appeal arises out of an order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi whereby the order of premature retirement passed against the respondent was set aside.

The respondent, Head Constable Om Prakash1 was prematurely retired on 16.08.2011 in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 19722 after completion of 30 years of service. The order is to the effect that the Superannuation Review Committee under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Rules found the writ petitioner not fit to continue in service beyond 30 years of qualifying service with immediate effect.

In the writ petition challenging such order, the High Court set aside the order of premature retirement on the ground that the writ petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on 14.06.2000 and thus 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Writ Petitioner’ 2 For short ‘the Rules’ D E F G H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 2 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H penalties imposed prior to the year 2000 have to be ignored while determining suitability of the writ petitioner to be retained in service. The two penalties of sleeping on duty and overstaying leave by two days were inflicted in the year 2005 and 2008 respectively which were minor penalties. The Annual Confidential Reports3 grading of the writ petitioner in the preceding five years have to be considered with greater focus while noticing the fact that even earlier ACR’s had to be taken into consideration. The ACR’s from 1990 till the year 2009 were either good or very good. The ACR for the year 2010 was graded average but the same was not conveyed to the writ petitioner. Therefore, such ACR could not be taken into consideration while arriving at an opinion that the writ petitioner is a dead wood. The High Court referred to a three Judge Bench judgment of this Court reported as Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another4 wherein it has been held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. The order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration.

This Court approved the earlier judgment of this Court reported as Union of India v. M. E. Reddy and Another5 wherein it was held as under:

12. An order of compulsory retirement on one hand causes no prejudice to the government servant who is made to lead a restful life enjoying full pensionary and other benefits and on the other gives a new animation and equanimity to the Services. The employees should try to understand the true spirit behind the rule which is not to penalise them but amounts just to a fruitful incident of the Service made in the larger interest of the country. Even if the employee feels that he has suffered, he should derive sufficient solace and consolation from the fact that this is his small contribution to his country, for every good cause claims its martyr.

We find that the High Court has completely misdirected itself while setting aside the order of premature retirement of the writ petitioner.