A bench comprising of Supreme Court Justices S B Sinha and Mukundkam Sharma ruled that, ‘The law relating to compulsory retirement is no longer res integra. Such an order of compulsory retirement inter alia can be passed when the officer concerned is found to be a deadwood.’
It was further clarified that, such an order of compulsory retirement should not be passed in place of or in lieu of disciplinary proceedings. If such an order turns stigmatic in nature, the same would be bad in law.
While setting aside the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sinha allowed the appeal of the appellant Swaran Singh Chand against his compulsory retirement. According to him, this was not the case where there has been a steady decline in the performance of employee and he was given promotion despite adverse entries in his service record.
Also, that here the appellant has not committed any harm to the facts of matter. The requirement to comply with the direction contained in the circular letter dated August 14, 1981, issued by the Punjab government, was necessary. Non-compliance would amount to malice in law.
He further noted that, as the order suffered from malice in law, no averment, as such, needs to be made nor a strict proof thereof needs to be insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would be wholly unsustainable.
UNI
| Source: http://www.indlaw.com/search/news/default.aspx?fa464e95-48f7-474c-8d4e-a413d9a22cda |
Also Check: Other Legal Aspects