The government has wide powers to compulsorily retire employees in public interest, the Supreme Court has maintained, observing that such decisions can be taken to ensure administrative efficiency and weed out employees whose continued retention is not considered conducive to public interest.
An employee cannot challenge compulsory retirement merely by arguing that another government servant with a comparable service record was allowed to continue, the court said.
An employee cannot challenge compulsory retirement merely by arguing that another government servant with a comparable service record was allowed to continue. The court, however, clarified that the power of compulsory retirement is not unfettered. Judicial interference is warranted where the decision is based on no evidence, reflects non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or is vitiated by mala fides. The judgment came while dismissing appeals filed by two Chhattisgarh government employees challenging their compulsory retirement. The remaining nine employees were found suitable for continued service. The assessment involved examining several factors, including honesty, integrity, physical fitness, reputation, efficiency and the employees’ overall service records, particularly their Annual Confidential Reports. The court noted that the petitioners’ overall service record fell below the prescribed benchmark of Grade ‘B’.
A screening committee had assessed 14 employees and recommended five for dismissal. The Supreme Court noted that the same assessment criteria had been applied uniformly to all 14 employees and that there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment or selective application of standards. Their confidential reports between 2013 and 2017 reflected consistently low gradings and concerns regarding their performance and efficiency.
The court said the assessment of an employee’s utility, integrity, efficiency and overall service record is an exercise undertaken by the competent authority. “If a wrong has been committed in an earlier case, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate a similar wrong in subsequent cases,” the court said.
The bench observed that the constitutional principle of equality does not permit an employee to claim the same treatment on basis of an earlier illegality or omission by the authorities.
