A.R. ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, erstwhile employee of National Book Trust, India (represented by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition) impugning the order dated 15.4.1996 whereby the petitioner was prematurely/compulsorily retired in exercise of the powers under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (FRSR). The provision of Rule 56(j) of FRSR is a provision entitling premature retirement in public interest by the employer.

(2.) Before I turn to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to refer to the law under Rule 56(j) of FRSR inasmuch as the scope of hearing in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only a very limited right to challenge the decision of premature retirement taken under Rule 56(j) of FRSR by the employer and which is that unless the order of premature /compulsory retirement suffers from malafides or that it is based on no evidence or it is completely arbitrary, courts do not interfere in the orders of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 56 (j) of FRSR. Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. Babu Lal Jangir, 2013 10 SCC 551, speaking through Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, has referred to the chain of earlier judgments on the law of premature/compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of FRSR and has laid down the ratio that entire service record can be referred to take the decision of compulsory retirement and earlier adverse entries are not wiped out on account of the 'washed-off theory'. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others are paras 20 to 23 and 27 and which paras read as under:-

(3.) This Court therefore has to see that whether there was sufficient material as available from the service record to prematurely retire the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 56(j) of FRSR. This court will also have to examine that as to whether there exists any malafides or arbitrariness in the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner.