No. 25013/02/2005-AIS II
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi, 28th,June, 2012
Chief Secretaries to the
Government of All States/Union Territories
All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 – Rule 16(3) — Guidelines for intensive review of records.
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 Central 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 month’s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, –
(i) after the review when such Member completes 15 years of qualifying Service; or after the review when such Member completes 25 years of qualifying Service or attains the age of 50 years, as the case may be; or 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.
For the purposes of sub-rule (3), “review” means the review of the entire service 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 each Member 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 ember, such review may be conducted at 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 subserve 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:
“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 be that there may be some officers who may possess a better initiative
-2- 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 fulfils the conditions of Rule 16(3) is undoubtedly in public interest and is not passed by way of punishment ” “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 ‘Yields 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 shod 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.
4. These same principles relating to retirement in public interest apply to the revised Rule 16(3) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958.
5. Members of the All-India Services are appraised periodically before they are allowed to move to the next higher level. Such appraisal takes place when a member is appointed to the Selection Grade or Super Time Scale. An appraisal also takes place when a member is appointed to higher management posts at the level of Additional Secretary or Secretary to the Government of India (or equivalent levels in the State Government). It is essential that such appraisals should be rigorous and any fall in standards should be noticed immediately. -3-
6. A member of the All-India Service who has completed 15 years of qualifying service or has completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years will, invariably, be found to occupy a senior administrative post. It would not be acceptable to find that such a member has become a mere passenger in the senior level in which he/she is placed. One must always guard against the operation of the ‘Peter Principle’ .
7. Nevertheless, it is sometimes found that a few members of the All-India Services do tend to become mere passengers in the post or at the level in which a member is placed for the time being. They become either stale or listless; they do not exhibit any creativity or innovativeness; and they do not achieve results. In some other cases, information may be available which casts grave doubt upon the integrity of a member. The form of the Annual Confidential Report/Performance Appraisal Report is designed in order to bring out, as far as possible, these tendencies or traits, which would alert Government to take suitable action under the rules.
8. It is seen that in some cases the overall grade or assessment given on the performance of a member of an All-India Service is “average”. To describe a member of an All-India Service as average is not complimentary. While it may not be an adverse remark, it is nevertheless a reflection upon his work or conduct and should be taken to indicate output, which is ordinary and routine. Remarks like “Adequate” and “Satisfactory” over a period of 5-7 years, without mention of any notable achievement, would also indicate that the member has reached a plateau. Similarly, it is found that in some cases, a member of an All-India Service receives a lukewarm or equivocal certificate of integrity. Such an entry would indicate that there is some doubt in the mind of the Reporting/Reviewing authority about the integrity of the member. In all such cases, it would be quite appropriate for the Government to examine the matter thoroughly in order to decide whether action under Rule 16(3) of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 would be warranted.
9. The procedure for review under Rule 16(3) has been laid down in this Department’s letter No. 25013/12/86-AIS-11 dated 31.7.1987. These stand further modified and enclosed herewith consequent to the revised rule 16(3) in the light of introduction of intensive review at two stages.
10. The State Governments are required to carry out a review in respect of:-
(i) All officers who have completed 15 years of qualifying service;
(ii) All officers who have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained
the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, subject to the following conditions;
*commonly known as ’employee tends to rise to the level of incompetence. -4-
a) An officer should have completed minimum 15 years of qualifying service;
b) In the case of the State Service Officers appointed to an All India Service by promotion or by selection, they should have completed a minimum of 5 years of actual service in the respective All India Service.
11. Additionally, there may be officers who may have completed 16 years or more of qualifying service but their review was not carried out as the rule has been amended recently. Therefore, a review is required to be carried out by the State Governments in respect of the officers who have completed qualifying service of 16- 23 years and the recommendations of the respective State Governments may be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action within six months of the issuance of this letter.
12. It is clarified that in the above rule, the officers who will be retired prematurely shall be entitled for pensionary benefits in terms of the relevant provisions of All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958.
Additional Secretary to the Government of India