NEW DELHI, Nov 7: The Supreme Court has ruled that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature, as it does not amount to an allegation of misconduct or cast any aspersions on an employee’s conduct.
A bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar made the observation while upholding the compulsory retirement of five employees of the Chhattisgarh government out of a total of 14 employees considered under the exercise.
The court observed that compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that an employee’s continued retention in government service is no longer in the public interest.
However, it clarified that such decisions cannot be based on assumptions, personal whims or arbitrary considerations and must be supported by relevant and objective material available in the employee’s service record.
The Supreme Court upheld the April 12, 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had affirmed an earlier single-judge ruling supporting the state government’s 2017 circular providing for compulsory retirement.
Rejecting the employees’ argument that similarly placed colleagues had not been subjected to the same action, the bench said that an employee cannot challenge compulsory retirement merely because another officer with a comparable service record was allowed to continue in service.
The court explained that assessing an employee’s integrity, efficiency, performance and overall suitability is an individual exercise undertaken by the competent authority on the basis of that employee’s service record.
It further observed that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, does not recognise the concept of ‘negative equality’. An earlier irregularity or omission in favour of another individual cannot be used as a justification for extending the same benefit to someone else.
The bench also clarified the scope of judicial review in compulsory retirement cases, stating that courts must examine whether the decision was supported by relevant material, including Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), integrity assessments, performance evaluations and other service-related records.
However, judicial review does not permit courts to reassess or re-evaluate the administrative decision as if they were hearing an appeal against it.
According to the court, interference is justified only when an order is based on no evidence, reflects non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or is affected by mala fide intentions.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the prescribed procedure had been followed and that the Screening Committee had objectively assessed the employees’ overall utility, efficiency, integrity and suitability for continued service.
The bench noted that all eligible employees were evaluated using uniform criteria. Following the assessment, five employees were identified for compulsory retirement as their overall service records fell below the prescribed standards, while their recent confidential reports indicated unsatisfactory performance, declining efficiency or lack of utility in public service.
The remaining nine employees were found to have met the required standards and were considered suitable for continued service.
The court concluded that there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment or selective application of criteria in the compulsory retirement exercise and upheld the government’s decision.
