New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the government has wide powers to compulsorily retire employees in public interest, particularly when their continued service is considered detrimental to administrative efficiency.
The court observed that compulsory retirement can be used as an administrative measure to remove employees whose performance, integrity or overall service record does not meet the required standards. It clarified that employees cannot challenge such decisions simply by pointing out that another government servant with a similar service record was allowed to continue.
The bench noted that assessing an employee’s efficiency, integrity, reputation, physical fitness and overall performance falls within the responsibility of the competent authority. It also emphasised that the constitutional guarantee of equality cannot be used to demand similar treatment on the basis of an earlier administrative mistake.
The court observed that an error committed in one case cannot become a justification for repeating the same mistake in another.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the government’s power to order compulsory retirement is not absolute. Courts can intervene if the decision is unsupported by evidence, demonstrates a lack of proper consideration, is clearly arbitrary or unreasonable, or is influenced by mala fide intentions.
The observations came while dismissing appeals filed by two Chhattisgarh government employees who had challenged their compulsory retirement.
A screening committee had evaluated 14 employees and recommended five for compulsory retirement, while the remaining nine were considered suitable for continuing in service.
The assessment covered several parameters, including honesty, integrity, physical fitness, reputation, efficiency and overall service history. Particular attention was given to the employees’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
The Supreme Court found that the same evaluation standards had been applied to all 14 employees, with no evidence of discrimination or selective treatment.
It also noted that the two employees who challenged the decision had service records below the prescribed Grade B benchmark. Their confidential reports between 2013 and 2017 reflected consistently poor assessments, along with concerns over their performance and efficiency.
The judgment reinforces the government’s authority to take compulsory retirement decisions in public interest while keeping such decisions subject to judicial scrutiny in cases involving arbitrariness or improper motives.
