VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

736 DECISION - 367
as officer or servant of Municipal Committee if he had been convicted
for an offence, involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the appellant
who had been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude was
ineligible for being appointed in the service of the Municipality. There
is no record to show that the appellant while seeking appointment
had appraised the authorities of his having been so convicted.
(367)
Compulsory retirement (non-penal)
Compulsory retirement (non-penal) should be based
on material but a speaking order is not necessary.
Union of India vs. Dulal Dutt,
1993 (4) SLR SC 387
Respondent, Controller of stores, Metro Railway, Calcutta
was compulsorily retired by order dated 24.4.1990. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta allowed the application of the
respondent holding that the competent authority was certainly entitled
to differ with the recommendation of the Review Committee for the
retention of the respondent but in arriving at any contrary decision,
he should have recorded a speaking order indicating the reasons of
his own opinion, and that departmental file contains only a single
sentence viz. ‘he should be removed from service forthwith’.
Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had erroneously
distinguished the law on the subject laid down by the Supreme Court
in Baikanth Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, 1992 (2)
SLR 2 SC and that the Tribunal completely erred in assuming that
there ought to have been a speaking order for compulsory retirement.
Supreme Court held that an order of compulsory retirement is not an
order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government
but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the
subjective satisfaction of the Government. Very often, on enquiry by
the Court the Government may disclose the material but it is very
much different from saying that the order should be a speaking order.
No order of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order.