Premature Retirement Under Regulation 19(1) Vitiated by Non-Disclosure of Material and Mechanical Application of Mind

The petitioner joined United Bank of India in 1981 and rose to the position of Senior Manager.

On March 22, 2016, with four years of service remaining, he was served a memorandum of premature retirement under Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, 1979.

The Bank justified the move based on a Medical Board report dated January 28, 2016, which diagnosed him with "persistent delusional disorder", and a pattern of "intemperate and derogatory" communications sent by him to various authorities.

The petitioner alleged the action was retaliatory, discriminatory (based on his Dalit background and conversion to Islam), and procedurally flawed.

He challenged the immediate effect of the retirement, the non-disclosure of the Special Committee's recommendations, and the mechanical approval by the General Manager.

Regulation 19(1) of the United Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, which permits the Bank to retire an officer in the "public interest" after 55 years of age or 30 years of service, provided it is based on a review by a Special Committee and notice is given.

Constitutional mandates of Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to life/livelihood), and 25 (freedom of conscience) to ensure administrative actions are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

The principle from Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Tarun Kanti Sengupta, asserting that unconscionable exercise of power cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.

The Competent Authority merely recorded "Approved as recommended," indicating a mechanical adoption of the Special Committee’s report without independent application of mind.

There was a gross violation of natural justice as the Bank suppressed the Medical Board report and the Special Committee’s recommendations, depriving the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to represent his case.

The Court noted a departure from the explanatory clause of Regulation 19(1), which stipulates retirement on the last day of the month; the petitioner was retired abruptly on March 22 without recorded justification.

If the petitioner's intemperate language constituted misconduct, the Bank should have initiated disciplinary proceedings under the 1977 Regulations; using Regulation 19(1) as a "convenient alternative" to bypass disciplinary rigours was deemed an abuse of statutory power.

The Court set aside the impugned memorandum dated March 22, 2016, and all consequential appellate orders, remitting the matter for fresh consideration with directions to furnish all relied-upon materials to the petitioner and afford him a reasonable opportunity of representation.