On what grounds can a court judicially review an order of compulsory retirement, given that natural justice does not apply to it?

The court cannot examine the matter as an appellate authority, but can interfere only if the order is malafide, based on no evidence, or is arbitrary and perverse; the scope of judicial review of such an order is extremely narrow and restricted.

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