Service Law – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Premature retirement – Adverse remarks – Consideration of – Order of premature retirement passed against respondent, set aside by High Court on the ground that that he was promoted as Head Constable in year 2000 and thus, the penalties imposed prior to 2000 have to be ignored while determining the suitability to be retained in service – On appeal, held: High Court has not only misread the judgment of Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported as [1992] 1 SCR 836 but wrongly applied the principles laid down therein – Adverse remarks can be taken into consideration – Also, there is a factual error in the order of High Court that there are no adverse remarks and that the ACRs for the year 1990 till 2009 were either good or very good – However, the summary of ACRs reproduced by the High Court itself shows average, satisfactory and in fact below average reports as well – Entire service record is to be taken into consideration while passing the order of premature retirement which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion, though the recent reports would carry their own weight – In the present case, in the last 5 years, the respondent has been graded average – Further, he was awarded number of punishments prior to his promotion including receiving illegal gratification while on duty – There are also allegations of absence from duty, overstaying of leave – After promotion also, a punishment of four days fine was imposed on the charge of sleeping on duty and two days fine was imposed for overstaying from joining time – Order of High Court setting aside the order of premature retirement set aside. Judicial Review – Scope of – Compulsory retirement – High Court setting aside the order of premature retirement, referred to three Judge Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.