Follow by Email

Saturday, June 30, 2012

All India services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 (3) - Guidelines for intensive review of re


NO. 25013/02/2005-AIS II
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2012
To

         Chief Secretaries to
         Government of all States/Union Territories

Subject:      All India services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 
                  1958 - Rule 16 (3) - Guidelines for intensive review of records.


sir, 
         Rule 16(3) of the all India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 
1958 has been amended on 31-01-2012 which provides as follows;

        "The Cnetral Government may, in consultation with the State Government 
         concerned, require  a Member of the Service to retire from Service in public
         interest, after giving such Member at least three month's previous notice in 
         writing or three nonth's pay and allowances in lieu of such
         Notice:-
         (i)      After the review when such Member completes 15 years of qualifying 
                  Service: or
         (ii)     After the review when such Member completes 25 years of qualifying 
                  service or attains the age of 50 years, as the may be: or
         (iii)    If the review referred to in (i) or (ii) above has not been conducted, 
                  after the review at any other time as the Central Government deems fit
                  in respect of such Member.

 Explanation:  For the Purposes of sub-rule (3) "review" means the review of the 
entireservice record of the Member of the service regarding suitability or 
otherwise of such Member for further retention in the service, to be conducted 
regularly of eachMember of such Service, firstly, after his completion of 15 years 
of qualifying service,and secondly,after his completion of 25 years of qualifying 
service or on his attaining the age of 50 years, as the case may be, or if the review
referred to in clauses (i) or (ii) of this sub-rule has not been conducted in respect of
such Member, such review may be conductedat any other time as the 
Central Government deems fit."
  
2.   The rule, commonly referred to as the rule of premature retirement, is based 
on sound policy and in order to sub serve public interest.  Explaining the objects
of the rule, the Supreme Court observed in the case of Union of India 
Vs. M.E.Reddy and another(AIR 1980 SCC : 563) as follows:

          (i) " the object of the  Rule is to weed out the deadwood in order to maintain
                a high standard of efficiency and initiative in the State Services.  It is not
                necessary that a good officer may continue to be efficient for all times to
                come.  It may to that there may be some officers who may possess a 
                better initiative and higher standard of efficiency and if given chance the
                work of the Government Might show marked  improvement.  In such a 
                case compulsory retirement of an officer who fulfills the conditions 
                of Rule 16 (3) is undoubtedly in public interest and is not 
                passed by way of punishment."

          (ii)  "Compulsory retirement contemplated by the aforesaid rule is designed 
                 to infuse the administration with initiative ........ So as to meet the
                 expending needs of the nation, which require exploration of "fields and
                 pastures new" such a retirement involves no stain or stigma nor does it 
                 entail any penalty or civil consequences.  In fact, the rule merely seeks  
                 to strike a just balance between the termination of the completed career
                of a tired employee and maintenance of top efficiency in the diverse 
                activities  of administration".

3.   The Supreme court has observed in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai
 M.Patel (Civil Appeal No.1561 of 2001, 3 SCC:320 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.



No comments:

Post a Comment