CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE versus OM PRAKASH

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 04-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 203
203
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
v.
OM PRAKASH
(Civil Appeal No. 5428 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 04, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law – CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Premature
retirement – Adverse remarks – Consideration of – Order of
premature retirement passed against respondent, set aside by High
Court on the ground that that he was promoted as Head Constable
in year 2000 and thus, the penalties imposed prior to 2000 have to
be ignored while determining the suitability to be retained in service
– On appeal, held: High Court has not only misread the judgment
of Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported as [1992] 1 SCR 836
but wrongly applied the principles laid down therein – Adverse
remarks can be taken into consideration – Also, there is a factual
error in the order of High Court that there are no adverse remarks
and that the ACRs for the year 1990 till 2009 were either good or
very good – However, the summary of ACRs reproduced by the High
Court itself shows average, satisfactory and in fact below average
reports as well – Entire service record is to be taken into
consideration while passing the order of premature retirement which
would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion, though
the recent reports would carry their own weight – In the present
case, in the last 5 years, the respondent has been graded average –
Further, he was awarded number of punishments prior to his
promotion including receiving illegal gratification while on duty –
There are also allegations of absence from duty, overstaying of leave
– After promotion also, a punishment of four days fine was imposed
on the charge of sleeping on duty and two days fine was imposed
for overstaying from joining time – Order of High Court setting
aside the order of premature retirement set aside.
Judicial Review – Scope of – Compulsory retirement – High
Court setting aside the order of premature retirement, referred to
three Judge Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Das and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another
reported as [1992] 1 SCR 836 – Held: High Court misread the said
judgment which holds that order of compulsory retirement is not a
punishment – It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of
misbehaviour – Order of compulsory retirement is in public interest
and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and
is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that
uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration.
Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada and Another (1992) 2 SCC
299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836; Union of India v. M. E. Reddy
and Another (1980) 2 SCC 15 : [1980] 1 SCR 736;
Posts and Telegraphs Board and Others v. C.S.N.
Murthy (1992) 2 SCC 317 : [1992] 2 SCR 338; Union
of India and Others v. Dulal Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179 :
[1993] 1 SCR 853; Secretary to the Government and
Another v. Nityananda Pati (1994) SCC (L&S) 1052;
Union of India v. V.P. Seth and Another (1993) Supp 2
SCC 391; State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh (1998) 4
SCC 92; State of U.P. and Others v. Raj Kishore Goel
(2001) 10 SCC 183; Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation and Others v. Babu Lal Jangir (2013) 10
SCC 551 : [2013] 11 SCR 159; Brij Mohan Singh v.
Chopra v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 188 : [1987]
2 SCR 583; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand
and Others (2010) 10 SCC 693; Ram Murti Yadav v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2020) 1 SCC 801
: [2019] 14 SCR 818 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 1 SCR 836
relied on
Para 3
[1980] 1 SCR 736 
relied on
Para 4
[1992] 2 SCR 338
relied on
Para 6
[1993] 1 SCR 853
relied on
Para 7
(1994) SCC (L&S) 1052
relied on
Para 8
(1993) Supp 2 SCC 391
relied on
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
(1998) 4 SCC 92
relied on
Para 10
(2001) 10 SCC 183
relied on
Para 11
[2013] 11 SCR 159
relied on
Para 12
[1987] 2 SCR 583
relied on
Para 12
(2010) 10 SCC 693
relied on
Para 12
[2019] 14 SCR 818
relied on
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5428
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2011 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. No.7471 of 2011.
Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Akshay Amritanshu, Rajesh K. Singh,
Mohd. Akhil, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Ayush Puri, A K Sharma, B.
Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant.
An
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.