Can an order of compulsory retirement be invalidated merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks formed part of the material considered by the authority?

No. Such a circumstance, by itself, does not furnish a ground for judicial interference; the Government or Review Committee may consider the entire record of service, attaching more importance to the subsequent years while weighing both favourable and adverse remarks.

Fundamental Rules — Rule 56(j) — Compulsory retirement — Judicial review — Entire service record — Fundamental Rules — Rule 56(j) — Compulsory retirement — Not punitive; narrow judicial review — Held: Compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules is not punitive and carries no stigma; natural justice has no application to it. Judicial review remains available, but only where the order is malafide, based on no evidence, or arbitrary and perverse. (¶5, 6) Fundamental Rules — Rule 56(j) — Entire service record — "Washed-off theory" inapplicable — Held further: The "washed-off theory", under which adverse entries preceding a promotion lose relevance for further promotion, does not apply when assessing fitness for retention; the entire service record may be considered, with greater weight given to the immediate preceding years. (¶10, 11, 14) Fundamental Rules — Rule 56(j) — CISF Inspector — Decline in last two years justified retirement — Held further: The appellant's gradings declined from "Good" to "Average" through the two years immediately preceding retirement, accompanied by a censure and warnings for negligence, which the Committee was entitled to weigh; the compulsory retirement warranted no interference. Appeal dismissed. (¶9, 14, 16)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUSHIL SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India