Compulsory retirement Order is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character and does not cast any aspersion on the conduct of an employee, nor does it imply any finding of misconduct.


A bench of Justices Manmohan and Shree Chandrashekhar, which upheld the Chhattisgarh government's order of compulsory retirement to five of its 14 employees, said it was based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee's continued retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest.


"...an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct," it 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. However, such satisfaction cannot be found upon mere conjecture or whim. It must rest upon objective and relevant material available on record," it held.


The top court on Friday upheld that the April 12, 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court upholding the single-judge bench's order affirming the 2017 government circular to compulsorily retire the employees, and rejected their contention that other similarly placed employees were not retired.


"An employee cannot successfully assail an order of compulsory retirement merely by contending that another officer possessing a comparable service record was not subjected to similar action," it said, adding that the evaluation of an employee's utility, integrity, efficiency and overall service profile is essentially an individualised exercise undertaken by the competent authority based on the materials pertaining to that particular employee.


The bench said the fact that action was taken against one employee while another similarly situated employee was left untouched does not, by itself, render the action unconstitutional or discriminatory