Order of premature retirement merits to be passed on basis of entire service records, including Annual Confidential Reports of period prior to promotion: SC

Read Judgment: Central Industrial Security Force V. Hc (gd) Om Prakash 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, February 7, 2022: While considering an order of premature retirement of Head Constable, the Supreme Court has observed that the order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records, which would include the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the period prior to the promotion. 

A Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that the order of the High Court setting aside the order of premature retirement was clearly unsustainable. 

Going by the background of the case, Om Prakash (Respondent – Head Constable) was prematurely retired on August 16, 2011 in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules r/w Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after completion of 30 years of service. The order was to the effect that the Superannuation Review Committee under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Rules found the Respondent not fit to continue in service beyond 30 years of qualifying service with immediate effect.

On writ being filed, the High Court set aside the order of premature retirement on the ground that the Respondent was promoted as Head Constable on June 14, 2000 and thus penalties imposed prior to the year 2000 had to be ignored while determining suitability of Respondent to be retained in service. 

After considering the submissions, the Top Court observed that the High Court had completely misdirected itself while setting aside the order of premature retirement of Respondent.

The Respondent was awarded a number of punishments prior to his promotion including receiving illegal gratification from a transporter while on duty in the year 1993 and there were also allegations of his absence from duty and overstaying of leave, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Gupta found that after promotion, 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.

Apart from the said punishments, the Respondent had a mixed bag of ACRs such as average, below average, satisfactory good and very good, added the Bench. 

Justice Gupta quoted the decision in case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another, (1992) 2 SCC 299, wherein it was held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, as it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

Thus, the High Court had not only misread the judgment of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das Case(Supra) but wrongly applied the principles laid down therein, added the Bench. 

Accordingly, the Top Court allowed the appeal.