CHANDIGARH, June 21 – The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday upheld the premature retirement of Mehar Singh Rattu, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge in Punjab, ruling that the action was taken in public interest and within the legal framework.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, while dismissing Rattu’s petition, said the Full Court’s recommendation dated September 21, 2000, and the Punjab Government’s retirement order dated October 10, 2000, were valid exercises of discretion.
“It emerges that the Full Court, having duly considered the petitioner’s service record in its entirety, has exercised its discretion within the bounds of law. Ergo, the writ petition in hand deserves rejection,” the Bench observed.
The case was heard during the court’s summer vacation. The Bench noted that the decision to prematurely retire the officer was taken strictly in public interest, a ground that falls within the exclusive and subjective domain of the competent authority and is not easily open to judicial scrutiny.
“The phrase ‘public interest’ is inherently broad,” the court said, adding, “the competent authority enjoys exclusive discretion based on subjective satisfaction regarding an employee’s continued utility to public service.”
Rattu had approached the High Court seeking to quash the retirement decision, but the court held that it was not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the Full Court.
“The scope of judicial intervention in such matters is inherently limited, as the writ court is not expected to substitute its own opinion for that of the authority vested with the discretion to assess whether an employee’s continuation in service is conducive to the greater public cause,” the Bench stated.
A close examination of Rattu’s service record revealed a history of adverse remarks, the judges noted. “It is not a case where the service record has remained unblemished throughout. The remarks are not only spread over different years of his service tenure, but also have been recorded by different Administrative Judges,” the Bench said.
The court also rejected the argument that dropping of a chargesheet and issuance of a recordable warning exonerated the officer.
“Even the dropping of a chargesheet, accompanied by a warning to remain careful in future, would not ipso facto absolve the petitioner,” the order reads. “The adverse remarks or advisory or recordable warning made against the petitioner cannot wash off such lapses so as to render them otiose for consideration of the petitioner for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years.”
With this ruling, the High Court reinforced the principle that public interest retirements, when backed by service records and due process, are legitimate and insulated from broad judicial review.
