ORDER Sujata V. Manohar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent entered the services of the State Bank of India as a Cashier in 1950. In 1972 he was appointed as Head Cashier. In 1978 he was promoted to Grade I and was brought to the Accounts Wing. In November, 1979, he was posted as Branch Manager, Kupari. From there he was brought to the Balasore Branch in March, 1984. By this time the respondent had crossed the age of 50 years.
3. Paragraph 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 provides :
19(1): An Officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years' service or 30 years' pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first. Provided that....
Provided further....
Provided further....
that an officer may, at the discretion of the executive Committee, be retired from the Bank's service after he has attained 50 years of age or has completed 25 years' service or 25 years' pensionable service, as the case may be, by giving him three months' notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof.
Provided further....
4. The reviewing Committee of the appellant at its meeting held on 11.5.1985, considered the case of the respondent under the third proviso to Paragraph 19(1). The Committee recorded that the overall performance of the respondent during the past five years had been 'Average'. He was censured for procedural irregularities as a Head Cashier. His performance as a Branch Manager had not been satisfactory on account of (sic) job knowledge. His initiative had also been only average for the last five years. Though he was withdrawn as a Branch Manager and was posted as a Passing Officer since April, 1984 to impart further training in the Accounts Wing, he had shown no improvement despite his seniority. The Bank was not able to utilise him effectively commensurate with his seniority. Even the proposal to transfer him to the cash wing could not be suggested against the back-drop of his earlier performance as a Head Cashier. The Committee further observed that the respondent's extension of service was already delayed by more than three years and was hearing the second review. Hence there was no alternative but to grant him extension of service till he attained 54 years of age on 23.1.1986. He should be compulsorily retired on that date after giving him requisite notice in October, 1985, as per paragraph 19(1). This report was duly approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board and thereafter the respondent was served with the impugned order dated 30.10.1985 retiring him from service with effect from 23.1.1986. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa challenging the letter of 30.10.1985. The High Court allowed the petition by quashing the impugned order. The present appeal is from this order of the Orissa High Court.
5. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. this Court has, after examining the relevant authorities described the scope of intervention by the High Court or this Court in respect of orders of compulsory retirement. It has reaffirmed that the court would not examine the matter as an appellate court. It would interfere only if it is satisfied that the order is mala fide, or is based on no evidence or is arbitrary -in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. Such is not the case here.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a decision in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Ors.. In that case, the appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his poor performance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar and there was nothing adverse in his service record for the past five years. This Court said that the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it ignored relevant material. This judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
7. In the present case, looking to the findings arrived at by the Reviewing Committee after a detailed examination of the service record of the respondent, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted on any ground. The High Court cannot examine for itself the service record of any employee and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Reviewing Committee. The power under the third proviso of paragraph 19(1) has been properly exercised in this case on relevant considerations in public interest. The order cannot be termed as either arbitrary or mala fide.
In the premises, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. There will, however, be no order as to costs.