DR. DHARAMVIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chopping of the dead word/weeding out dishonest and retention in service of only those who are efficient and whose integrity is beyond doubt is the primary object of the rule which empowers the State to retire an employee before attaining the age of superannuation. This object can be achieved by the government/public employer by scrutinising the records of the employees after a particular age or on completion of the particular years of service with a view to determine whether retention of the particular officer is in the interest of service and/or public interest. The Courts have also recognised the right of the government to weed out those who are inefficient and/or whose integrity is doubtful. Judicial review of an exercise undertaken by the government/public employer to prematurely retire an employee is permissible on very limited grounds, such as order being mala fide or having been passed by the authority not competent to do so. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, 1992 2 SCC 299 their lordships of the Supreme Court reviewed a large number of judicial precedents on the subject including Shyamlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1954 AIR(SC) 369 Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha,1970 2 SCC 299 and Union of India v. M.E. Reddy, 1980 AIR(SC) 563and culled out the following propositions :

(2.) In State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, 2002 3 SCC 641 , the Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of the employer's right to retire an employee and observed as under :-

(3.) In Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2001 2 SCC 305 a three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between compulsory retirement brought about as a measure of punishment and one brought about in public interest in the following words :