Premature retirement is neither punitive nor entails any civil consequences: DB

Excelsior Correspondent

Srinagar, Sept 29: The High Court has held that premature or compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor entails any civil consequences by way of stigma and set aside the writ court judgment whereby compulsory retirement of a Government employee was quashed.

The Appeal was sought by the Government against the judgment dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Single Judge in a case titled Ghulam Mohammad Lone v. State of J&K. By the said judgment, the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Government Order No. 1264-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016, whereby Lone had been prematurely/compulsorily retired from Government service in exercise of the power contained in Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'JKCSR' for brevity).

The State, being aggrieved of the said judgment, preferred the Appeal seeking setting aside of the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissal of the writ petition.

The impugned order of compulsory retirement had been passed after consideration by a committee constituted for examining cases of premature retirement, and that the Committee had taken into account the service record, the petitioner's alleged involvement in a vigilance case and his general reputation.

Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp 

"The premature/compulsory retirement is neither punitive in nature nor does it entail any civil consequences by way of stigma. The order is an administrative measure founded upon the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority regarding the public interest involved in retaining or retiring a Government servant. The Court, while exercising judicial review, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority merely because another view may also be possible", the division bench of Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeev Kumar said.

The appellant-State contended that the power under Article 226(2) of the JKCSR is exercised in the public interest and is intended to enable the Government to remove deadwood and persons whose continued presence in service may adversely affect the efficiency and integrity of administration. The State submitted that the purpose of such power is not to impose a punishment upon the employee but to maintain an efficient and effective administration.

It was specifically urged that the Committee consisted senior officers of the Government and had considered the entire service record and relevant circumstances before recommending premature retirement.

The State has relied upon the fact that the erring employee had been caught allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.9,000 while holding a responsible post in the School Education Department, resulting in registration of FIR No.18/2010 by the Vigilance Organization.

"Applying the above principles to the present matter, it becomes evident that the basic character of the impugned order has to be appreciated correctly. The Government order dated 21.11.2016 was an order of premature/compulsory retirement under Article 226(2) of the J&K Civil Services Regulations. It was not an order of dismissal or removal imposed by way of punishment", the DB said.

The court further added that such retirement of the State is intended to enable the Government to maintain efficiency, integrity and effectiveness in public administration and to weed out employees whose continued retention is considered detrimental to public interest.

"The competent authority, upon consideration of the relevant service record and the material placed before it, had accordingly formed the requisite opinion in the public interest for his premature retirement", the court said and accordingly has held that an order of compulsory or premature retirement is neither punitive in nature nor does it entail any civil consequences by way of stigma, and that the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.

The bench said that the impugned order of compulsory retirement cannot be interfered with merely because another view may be possible on the same material. The DB consequently set aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge and upheld the Government Order No. 1264-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016, whereby the petitioner-respondent was prematurely/compulsorily retired from service.