S. Rafat Alam, J. AND Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) 1. Sri Upendra Nath holding brief on behalf of Sri R.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the entire service record has not been considered before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement and he was also not afforded any opportunity as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by Hon'ble Single Judge, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. However, he could not dispute the fact that there exists three adverse entries in his service record. The other findings recorded by Hon'ble Single Judge regarding his behaviour etc. has also not been disputed by him as a matter of fact.
(2.) IT is well settled law that an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 is not a punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Compulsory retirement is a facet of "doctrine of pleasure" embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. The rule holds balance between the rights of individual Government servant and the interest of the public. It is intended to enable the employer to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. The object is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of efficiency and honesty. It does not cast any stigma and cannot be construed to be a punishment of a Government servant when exercised in public interest under F.R. 56. In Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1954 SC 369 it was held that an officer who has compulsory retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with Rules. There is no deprivation of the accrued benefits. Though from the point of view of the officer/employee concerned, he may think to have been punished for not being allowed to serve till he attains the age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules, but there is distinction between the loss of benefits already earned and loss of prospects to earn something more. It was held that since compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(c) is not a punishment when resorted to in public interest, Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application.
(3.) THE whole purpose of the provision made for compulsory retirement is to weed out the worthless without resorting to bona fide extreme process covered under Article 311 of the Constitution. After all the administration to be efficient has to be manned by active and competent prone workers and should not be manned by drones do nothing, incompetent and unworthies. Lack of efficiency by itself does not amount to a misconduct and, therefore, such incumbent may not be delinquent needs to be punished but may prove to be a burden on the administration, if by insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the floor or promote stagnation. In a developing country where speed, probity, sensitive, enthusiastic, creativity and non-brevity process are immediately required, callous cadres and paperlogged are the bees setting sin of the administration. Sometimes, reputation or otherwise the information available to the superior officers reflects on the integrity of the employee but there may not be sufficient evidence available to initiate punitive action, but simultaneously conduct and reputation of such person is menace for his continuance in public service is injurious to public interest. In all such cases order of compulsory retirement may be passed by the competent authority. In making the aforesaid observations we are further fortified by the view taken by Apex Court in a catena of judgments subsequent to Shyam Lal (supra) and we may refer only some of such recent authorities handed down in the last one decade as hereunder.;