GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DOPT OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dated 11TH September, 2015 ON COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

The GOI, DOPT has issued an OFFICE MEMORANDUM No.25013/0 I /2013-Estt.A-1V Dated Il thSeptember, 2015 detailing the details and procedure to be followed in the case of compulsory retirement under the Fundamental rule and the Pension rules. This is mainly referring to the DOPT’s OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules. It also quote the instructions/precautions issued by the Supreme court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umedbhai M.Patel, 2001(3) SCC 314 as follows:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer."

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

There are also many other cases referred in support of the administration. There are also various technical procedures mentioned in the OM.

But the main lacuna in the OM is that it is silent about the Supreme Court cases went against the Administration not following these instructions.

In reality the purpose of the provision is not followed. If followed, nearly 70% of the total beurocracy would have been vacant and youngsters would have got more chance of employment. The provision is generally used to silence the persons who are not liked by the corrupt administration for personal interest and not the general administration for the sake of public interest as per the instructions of the Supreme Court mentioned above.