Compulsory retirement based on service record and public interest under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules is non-punitive.

The Petitioner, a Head Constable (GD) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenged an order dated October 30, 2019, issued by the Commandant, CISF.

The order compulsorily retired him after 30 years of qualifying service in "public interest" under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Petitioner contended the order was contrary to his service record and reflected non-application of mind.

The Respondents justified the action by producing service records showing 1 major and 17 minor punishments, including assault, insubordination, and sleeping on duty.

1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was arbitrary or contrary to the Petitioner's service record.

2. Whether the Respondents failed to comply with the procedural requirements of FR 56(j) and relevant guidelines before retiring the Petitioner.

Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which empowers the appointing authority to retire a government servant in the public interest after 30 years of qualifying service.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j), which grants the State an absolute right to retire a servant to "chop off dead-wood" in the public interest.

The principles from State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, which establish that compulsory retirement is not a punishment under Article 311 but an administrative tool based on the entire service record.

The Court noted that the impugned order was a simpliciter order of retirement and not a punitive penalty under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Upon reviewing the Petitioner’s service record, the Court found a "low level of conduct" evidenced by 18 total punishments, which the Petitioner failed to disclose in his petition.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that he was protected by Paragraph 5 of the FR 56(j) guidelines (which limits retirement based on "ineffectiveness" in the final year of service), clarifying that the Respondents had specifically invoked Rule 48(1)(b) for "public interest" based on his habitual misconduct and lack of discipline.

The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting that in this case, the decision was substantiated by material evidence of the Petitioner being "dead-wood".

The Court found the decision was taken in strict accordance with Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and in the public interest to maintain Force discipline. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.