Government has broad powers to compulsorily retire employees in public interest

The Supreme Court has stated that the government possesses broad powers to compulsorily retire employees in the public interest. According to an NDTV report, the court observed that such decisions can be taken to ensure administrative efficiency and to remove employees whose continuation may be detrimental to the public interest or who are not suited for the public interest.

The court clarified that evaluating an employee's utility, honesty, efficiency, and overall service record is a process carried out by the competent authority. An employee cannot challenge their compulsory retirement merely by arguing that another government employee with a similar service record was allowed to continue in service.

The bench noted that the principle of constitutional equality does not permit an employee to claim equal treatment based on any previous illegality or error committed by the authorities. The court stated, "If an error was made in a previous case, it cannot be used as a basis to continue the same error in subsequent cases."

However, the Supreme Court also clarified that the power of compulsory retirement is not uncontrolled. Judicial intervention is considered appropriate only if the decision to retire was taken without any evidence, lacked consideration, was clearly arbitrary or perverse, or was motivated by mala fide intentions.

This judgment came while dismissing appeals by two employees of the Chhattisgarh government challenging their compulsory retirement. In this case, a screening committee had evaluated a total of 14 employees, in which the committee recommended the dismissal of 5 employees, while the remaining 9 employees were found fit to continue in service.

In this evaluation process, several factors such as honesty, integrity, physical capacity, reputation, efficiency, and the overall service record of the employees, particularly their Annual Confidential Reports, were examined. The Supreme Court noted that the criteria for evaluation were applied uniformly to all 14 employees and no evidence of discriminatory treatment or the use of selective standards was found.

The court further stated that the overall service record of the petitioners was below the prescribed benchmark grade 'B'. Their confidential reports between 2013 and 2017 showed consistently low grading, and concerns were expressed regarding their performance and efficiency. According to a Times of India report, the decision emphasizes bona fide appraisal.