Compulsory retirement is not a punishment which is an axiomatic principle in law. As a government employee compulsorily retired is entitled to receive retirement benefits, the appropriate authority should exercise its power only in public interest, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held.
Justice M. Venugopal was allowing a writ petition by C. Vadakathian, who sought to quash an order of the Virudhunagar District Collector of February 2003 dismissing him and the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration of October 2004 modifying the earlier order into one of compulsory retirement.
Mr. Vadakathian was appointed VAO in Thanjavur district in 1981-82. He was transferred to Virudhunagar district in 1995. He was posted as Additional VAO in Enjar village, Sivakasi taluk.
The Sivakasi Sub-Collector issued a charge memo against him on June 9, 2000. Stating that the Sub-Collector was not competent to issue the charge memo, the District Collector issued a fresh charge memo on December 20, 2000 containing similar charges.
The petitioner said that the Collector's charge memo was not served on him. He could not submit his explanation. Non-serving of charge memo before appointing the inquiry officer was bad in law.
The government advocate submitted that while working as VAO the petitioner colluded with the then Special Deputy Tahsildar, M. Thiyagarajan, in wrongly transferring 35 patta cases, incorrect booking of six ‘B' memos on various individuals who had not actually encroached on government lands and misappropriated government money. Based on the Sivakasi Tahsildar's report, the petitioner was suspended from May 2000.
Mr. Justice Venugopal said it was a well settled principle in law that a charge sheet must be served on the delinquent.
An opportunity to put forward one's defence was an essential principle of natural justice. Before serving the charge memo on the petitioner well in advance, the inquiry officer had been appointed which was an incorrect procedure.
He said the power to compulsorily retire an employee should not hang like a Damocle's Sword on a public servant, as opined by the High Court.
Per contra, the same must act as a check and a legitimate and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence.
Setting aside the impugned orders as they were not in tune with well established principles of law, Mr. Justice Venugopal remitted the matter back to the Collector, who should issue the charge memo of December 2000 to the petitioner. The petitioner should submit his explanation. Thereafter, the Collector should appoint an inquiry officer.