Compulsory Retirement not a penal measure, it aims at weeding out inefficient employees, deadwood from public service: P&H HC [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that though the State government has an absolute right to retire an employee in order to weed out ‘deadwood’ from the government services, a conclusion on this aspect has to be based on subjective satisfaction about the employee’s performance during service (Hawa Singh Bhambhu v. State of Haryana and Ors)..The Bench of Justices Daya Chaudhary and Meenakshi I Mehta emphasized that the employee’s record from the last ten years was especially crucial to deciding whether to compulsorily retire an employee or not in the public interest. .The Court also reiterated, ."It has been a settled principle in various judgments of this Court as well as judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court that compulsory/premature retirement is not a punishment as it does not leave any stain or stigma."Punjab and Haryana High Court.The Judges were hearing an appeal made by a Tehsildar. The appellant had challenged an order dated April 1, retiring him prematurely after at the age of 55. A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier dismissed his plea against the compulsory retirement..Referring to the State’s policy allowing for premature retirement, the Bench pointed out that the objective of the said policy was for “providing clean administration, improving efficiency, strengthening administrative machinery at all levels and weeding out deadwood where integrity was doubtful.”.As per the State’s retirement policy, an employee could be prematurely retired once he attained the age of 55 years, or after his completion of 20 years in service..The Rules explain that an employee could be retired in this manner if it was found that his efficiency was impaired but “against whom it is not desirable to make formal charges of inefficiency or who has ceased to be fully efficient.".Speaking for the Bench, Justice Chaudhary reiterated the position of law laid down in Union of India v. ME Reddy and another and Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj. .In these cases, it was laid down that a competent authority had to ensure an application of mind to the employee’s record while making an objective analysis. Such an objective analysis is necessary to ascertain whether the employee in question is fit to continue in service, the Court highlighted..Additionally, whether a particular employee’s term of service was to continue was also to be viewed from the perspective of public interest. The public interest in administrative matters is the retention of honest and efficient persons in government service..In the case at hand, the employee was recorded to have consistently maintained good conduct, except for two instances where he had failed to file an appeal before the High Court on time and when an incorrect mutation entry was made in a register. He was exonerated for the first instance and penalised for the second, the Bench noted..The Court observed that the error in mutation was inadvertent and not a deliberate act done for consideration. Apart from this, there was no other material in the Tehsildar's service record that warranted his premature retirement..It was held:“From the facts as mentioned above, it can safely be said that there is not material before us, which would show that there were adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports or integrity was doubtful at any point of time or the appellant was found to be a man of doubtful integrity or he was not found fit to be retained in service in any manner or his continuation in service was not in public interest..The appeal was, therefore, allowed..Senior Advocate VK Jindal and Advocate Akshay Jindal argued the appellant-Tehsildar's cause, while Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan represented the Haryana State Government..Read the Judgment here: