Supreme Court Allows State Appeals in Compulsory Retirement Cases, Upholds Orders Based on Involvement in Corruption Cases. Mere involvement in criminal proceedings can constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement under Article 226(2) of J&K Civil Services Regulations, depending on circumstances.

Civil appeals against High Court judgments quashing orders of compulsory retirement of government employees.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir sought to set aside the High Court's judgments and uphold the compulsory retirement orders.

The State was aggrieved by the High Court's decision to quash the compulsory retirement orders passed under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations.

The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the compulsory retirement order; the Division Bench dismissed the State's Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the compulsory retirement orders solely on the ground that they were based on registration of FIRs and involvement in criminal cases. Whether the principles laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das and Suryakant Chunilal Shah were correctly applied by the High Court.

Appellant (State): The order of compulsory retirement was passed in public interest after consideration by a high-level Committee. The involvement in criminal cases and sanction for prosecution constituted relevant material. The High Court erred in relying on Chunilal Shah where there was no material, unlike the present case. Respondents: The orders were based solely on registration of FIRs without considering the entire service record, including APRs. The norms for assessing integrity were not followed. The High Court correctly applied Chunilal Shah.

An order of compulsory retirement under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations is not a punishment and can be based on subjective satisfaction of the government in public interest. Mere involvement in a criminal case can constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement, depending on the circumstances and nature of the offence. The High Court's interference is limited to cases of mala fides, no evidence, or perversity.

The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter — of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee.

The respondents were compulsorily retired by orders dated 30.6.2015 under Article 226(2) of J&K CSRs. They filed writ petitions in the High Court, which were allowed by a Single Judge on 22.12.2016. The State filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPASW No. 182/2017, 159/2017, 180/2017), which were dismissed by a Division Bench on 11.12.2017. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions, which were converted into Civil Appeals.

• Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations: Article 226(2), Article 226(3)
• Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006: Section 5(1)(d), Section 5(2)
• Ranbir Penal Code: Section 120-B