Synopsis

The petitioner, a head constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenged his compulsory retirement order dated 30th October 2019 passed under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had completed 30 years of qualifying service and that it was in the public interest to retire him. The petitioner contended that his service record was good and that the order suffered from non‑application of mind. The respondents filed a reply disclosing the petitioner’s service record, which showed one major and seventeen minor punishments for offences including assault, desertion, misbehaviour with seniors, breaking rifle parts, sleeping on duty, and absence. The High Court held that Rule 48 confers an absolute right on the appointing authority to retire a government servant in public interest after 30 years’ qualifying service; that such retirement is not a penalty but a measure to maintain discipline and efficiency; and that the order was based on sufficient material. The writ petition was dismissed.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Honourable Ms. Justice Aarti Sathe

Date of Judgment: 20th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 556 of 2020 (2026:BHC-AS-19601-DB) (unreported)

Core Law: Service law – compulsory retirement; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 48; Fundamental Rules – FR 56(j); administrative law – judicial review of compulsory retirement orders

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 48(1)(b) (retirement on completion of 30 years’ qualifying service in public interest)

• Fundamental Rules – FR 56(j) and FR 56(l) (compulsory retirement of government servants)

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – provisions for disciplinary proceedings (distinguished from compulsory retirement under Pension Rules)

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Key legal principles applied

Compulsory retirement under Rule 48 is not a penalty: Compulsory retirement under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is distinct from a penalty imposed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is a measure to ensure administrative efficiency and is not punitive. It does not attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution (reasonable opportunity before dismissal/removal).

Absolute power of the appointing authority: The appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest under FR 56(j), FR 56(l) or Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.