‘Weeding out dead wood’: Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects ex-cop’s plea against forced retirement over 17 penalties

The order added that, as per government instructions, an employee should not be retained beyond 55 years if his integrity is found doubtful and he has less than 70 per cent good reports in the previous 10 evaluation reports.

Highlighting that the petitioner was found unreliable in many performance evaluations of the last 10 years, and he was awarded major or minor punishments on 17 occasions, the court noted that, considering the overall performance, it cannot be concluded that the department exercised its power arbitrarily or contrary to the rules relating to retirement at the age of 55 years.

Case of compulsory retirement

• The petitioner, Pardeep Kumar, challenged an order dated December 4, 2018, which directed his retirement upon reaching the age of 55.
• The State of Haryana exercised this power under Rule 9.18(1)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), 1934.
• The petitioner belongs to the Haryana Police and was holding the rank of head constable.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Aditya Yadav submitted that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason.
• He stated that the petitioner has an unblemished service record of 33 years, and he has more than 70 per cent good Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) during the last 10 years. Thus, he has been wrongfully ordered to retire at the age of 55 years.
• Representing the state, additional advocate general, Vivek Chauhan, argued that the reporting authority is the best assessing authority, and it knows act and conduct of its subordinates.

‘Integrity doubtful’

• The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M Patel has elaborated principles which ought to be followed in matters relating to compulsory retirement.
• The power to pass an order of premature retirement is an absolute discretion of the competent authority.
• The said power cannot be exercised whimsically and arbitrarily. There should be application of the mind.
• The competent authority has considered the last 10 ACRs of the petitioner. The order has been passed by the competent authority.
• The authority, after examining the entire service record, formed an opinion that the petitioner should be retired at the age of 55 years.
• There is neither any allegation nor evidence to the effect that there was mala fide intention on the part of the respondents.
• His integrity was also found doubtful in the ACR for November 2011 to March 2022. The impugned order is not stigmatic.

• The respondent, by impugned notice/order, retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years.
• The said order was passed on April 4, 2018, and a period of more than seven years has passed. Had the impugned order not been passed, the petitioner would have worked for three more years.
• He was made to retire in March 2019, as per service rules, the state government may or may not retain an employee beyond 55 years.
• The petitioner has already attained the age of 58 years. He must have received a pension during the period, which could be extended beyond 55 years.
• The amount of pension is normally 50 per cent of the last drawn pay. As the petitioner has already received 50 per cent of pay without work, there seems to be no reason at this stage to interfere with the impugned order.