Supreme Court of India· 06 August 2026

Can very old adverse entries relating to a government servant's integrity justify an order of premature or compulsory retirement, even where the immediate past record shows exemplary performance?

SUSHIL SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 809 · CIVIL APPEAL NO.8634 OF 2012
Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra; Shree Chandrashekhar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Rule 56(j) Fundamental Rules 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

It depends on what the old record concerns. Ignoring a recent exemplary record and retiring a person solely on very old adverse entries is an arbitrary exercise of power, but where the old record pertains to integrity, that may itself be sufficient to justify premature retirement.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 10At this juncture, it is necessary to deal with the appellant’s contention that the penalties and adverse material preceding his promotion as Inspector could not have been considered while assessing his suitability for retention in service. In this regard, a beneficial reference can be made to a decision of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Babu Lal Jangir[^6], wherein it was observed as follows:

Acts & Sections

Rule 56(j) Fundamental Rules

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules require compliance with the principles of natural justice?On what grounds can a court judicially review an order of compulsory retirement, given that natural justice does not apply to it?Can an order of compulsory retirement be invalidated merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks formed part of the material considered by the authority?Does the "washed-off theory", under which adverse entries preceding a promotion lose relevance for further promotion, apply when assessing an employee's fitness for continued retention in service?What weight must be given to a government servant's performance in the years immediately preceding a decision on compulsory retirement, as against the earlier part of the service record?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections