SC: Govt has wide powers to compulsorily retire staffer, improve efficiency

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has ruled govt has wide powers to compulsorily retire an employee to improve efficiency of administration and that the person aggrieved cannot challenge such a decision on the ground that other similarly placed employees have not met the same fate. Upholding Chhattisgarh govt's decision to compulsorily retire five employees, a bench of Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar said the principle of "every person must be heard before being punished", as enshrined in Article 311(2) of Constitution, is not applicable to cases of compulsory retirement because it is neither punitive nor casts aspersion upon an employee's conduct. Justice Manmohan said, "The decision is founded upon the subjective satisfaction of competent authority that the employee's continued retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest." Writing the judgement, Justice Manmohan said, “The ultimate assessment as to whether an officer has become ‘dead wood’ or whether his continuance would be detrimental to administrative efficiency falls within the domain of the executive.” Chhattisgarh additional advocate general Rajat Nair said decisions to compulsorily retire the five ‘assistant’ grade officers was arrived at in public interest for maintaining efficiency of administration after a two-tier scrutiny of their performance, efficiency, track records, integrity and annual confidential records. When such decisions are challenged by aggrieved employees, courts need to re-appreciate or re-evaluate material considered by authorities. “The court is concerned only with whether relevant material existed, whether such material was taken into consideration by competent authority, and whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is one which a reasonable person could have arrived at,” it said while rejecting the appeals. It said, “The power to compulsorily retire a govt servant under applicable service rules is of wide amplitude and is conditional principally by the requirement that the authority must form its opinion bona fide and upon relevant material. Mere fact that another officer, who may appear similarly placed, was not compulsorily retired cannot constitute a valid defence to an otherwise lawful order of compulsory retirement.”