ORDER
Whereas the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so:- Now, thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(2) of Regulation 22 of the Food Corporation of India, Staff Regulations, 1971, the Sr. Regional Manager hereby retired Shri R.B. Chauhan, Asstt. Grade-I(Depot) with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of 50/55 years, by giving him 90 days pay in lieu of the notice after deduction of Income Tax dues. Shri R.B. Chauhan, Assistant Grade-I(Depot) is being paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement. An account payee cheque bearing No. 725121 dated 27-1288 for a sum of Rs.6530-50 P (Rs. Six thousand five hundred thirty and fifty paise drawn on SBI in favor of Shri R.B. Chauhan is accordingly enclosed.
15. The relevant provision, Regulation 22 of the FCI Staff Regulations, reads as follows:
Regulation 22. Superannuation and retirement:
(1) Every employee appointed to the service of the Corporation shall retire on the last date of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. Provided that a category IV employee who has been transferred to the Corporation under Section 12 A of the Act and who has opted to be governed by leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central government in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government as amended from time to time in terms of Sub-Section (4) of Section 12 A of the Act, shall retire on the last date of the month, on which he attains the age of 60 years.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (1): the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, have the absolute right to retire a Category I, II, III and IV employee after he has attained the age of 50 years, by giving him a notice of not less than 3 months in writing or 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Provided that an employee belonging to the above four categories may, by giving a notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service of the Corporation after he has attained the age of 50 years.
16. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer : (1992)ILLJ784SC , a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court laid down five principles, to be considered in judicial review, while determining validity of orders of compulsory retirement. Those principles have been universally followed, in subsequent decisions. The judgment and formulation of law was affirmed, by another three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in Posts and Telegraphs Board v. C. S. N. Murthy : (1993)IILLJ866SC . The court held as follows:
An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. FR 56(j) authorises the Government to review the working of its employees at the end of their period of service referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service, if, in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of the delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona side and on the basis of material available on the record.
17. In K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India : (1996)ILLJ979SC , the Supreme Court, after reiterating the law laid down in the previous judgments, held that opinion formation for an order of compulsory retirement is to be be based on the materials on record otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power. It was also held that the decision to compulsorily retire an employee can, be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion was based on no evidence or had not been formed or the decision was based on collateral grounds. In M. S. Bindra v. Union of India : (1999)ILLJ923SC it was held that judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. The observation that principles of natural justice have no place in the context of compulsory retirement does not mean that if the version of the delinquent officer is necessary to reach the correct conclusion, the same can be obviated on the assumption that other materials alone need be looked into. The threshold of a sustainable challenge to such orders of compulsory retirement was held to be as follows:
13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny, i.e., want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials, no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion.
18. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel : (2001)IILLJ1140SC the Supreme Court re-stated the law on the point as follows:
11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favor of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
19. In order to find out whether any government or public servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of his overall performance has to be taken before deciding, after he has attained the age of 50 years, either to retain him further in service or to dispense with his services in public interest. The scope of judicial review is limited, to overseeing that parameters indicated in Baikuntnath Dass's case and Umedbhai Patel's case (supra) are satisfied. In Umedbhai Patel and M. S. Bindra's case the court had held the materials to be inadequate, and the decision to retire the public servant to be vitiated. Umedbhai Patel's case was an instance where the decision was premised upon lodging of a criminal complaint, without any further action, which impelled, inter alia, the State to retire the public servant compulsorily.
20. In this case, the records of the respondent were produced. I have examined them. The respondent considered the relevant ACRs of the petitioner, which do not reflect any outstanding performance. There are several ACRs, which can lead to a conclusion that the petitioner outlived his utility. The review committee also noted existence of allegations. In addition, the petitioner does not dispute that he had faced five disciplinary proceedings, during his career; two of them culminated in imposition of penalties upon him. thereforee, this is not a case of no materials, or the materials not justifying a reasonable inference that the petitioner's services ought not to be continued, in public interest. Having regard to the objective of the exercise, in considering whether to continue services of such employees, or retire them, in public interest, the employer's considerations in this regard, as borne out from the facts of the case, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The mere circumstance that the FCI had occasion to make some investigation into allegations of shortage in certain supplies, does not ipso facto lead to the inference that the impugned order was founded on a misconduct, and thereforee a masked or disguised dismissal, without following the procedure of holding an enquiry.
21. In view of the above findings, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. CCP No. 354/2002
22. This petition alleges non-compliance with directions of the court to produce relevant records, and permit inspection to the petitioner. No formal notice was issued in these proceedings. During the hearing of the main writ petition, the respondents produced the records relied upon; the counsel for petitioner states that all the records were not shown to him, as well as to the Court. The other grievance raised originally was that some amounts had not been paid; a look at the documents filed in support of the contempt petition discloses that the petitioner does not deny payments; his grievance is that the amounts were disbursed late. In view of the findings on the merits in the writ petition, and considering the circumstance that the original records relied upon were produced, I am of the opinion that there is no justification for issuing orders in these proceedings. The contempt petition is thereforee, dismissed.