2024 (1) TMI 955 - HC - Indian Laws

Compulsory / premature retirement - Doubting integrity and expressing discontent about the functioning of the Petitioner - Approval of the ACC is a precondition to invoke FR 56 (j) against the officers of SAG or not - correctness of action taken by the respondent compulsorily retiring the petitioner on May 10, 2018 by invoking FR 56 (j) - The petitioner became the Director in the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping ( DGAD , for short) in the year 2014. He was posted as Regional Joint DGFT, Guwahati and Shillong in the year 2017. Thereafter, he was put in the Senior Administrative Grade ( SAG , for short) of ITS, at the level of Joint Secretary, on November 16, 2017 and was promoted on regular basis to SAG on February 27, 2018. HELD THAT - The Second Review Committee was of the view that in a few APARs of the petitioner, there were remarks which cast doubts on the integrity of the petitioner. Reference was also made, specifically, to the APAR of 2014-2015, which recorded in the integrity column of the petitioner, that there is a room for improvement . Suffice to state, this remark was also disclosed to the petitioner, however, no representation was submitted against the same. The petitioner herein has been given fair opportunity to file his representation against the order of compulsory retirement. Moreover, the First Review Committee, the Representation Committee as well as the Second Review Committee have gone through the entire service record of the petitioner. In fact, when the representation dated June 1, 2018, was in depth examined by the respondent, it remanded the case of the petitioner back to the review committee for a fresh consideration and only thereafter, the Second Review Committee, came to the conclusion that the service of the petitioner, was no more required. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by petitioner shall have no applicability in the facts of the present case and as such, not help the case of the petitioner. There are no merit in the present petition. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. The writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the compulsory retirement order under FR 56(j).
2. Requirement of consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
3. Necessity of approval from the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
4. Allegations of bias and procedural irregularities in the review process.
5. Consideration of the entire service record and adverse remarks.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Compulsory Retirement Order:

The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) issued on May 10, 2018, arguing that his service record was unblemished and that the order was arbitrary. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that the Review Committee's assessment, which included allegations of demanding favors, justified the decision under FR 56(j). The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority and the minimal scope for judicial review in such matters.

2. Requirement of Consultation with the CVC:

The petitioner argued that the compulsory retirement order, based on questionable integrity, required consultation with the CVC, as per the OM dated May 10, 1974. The respondent contended that the presence of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) in the Review Committee sufficed. The High Court agreed with the respondent, noting that the OM of 2015, which governed the field, did not mandate CVC consultation but required the CVO's involvement, which was complied with.

3. Necessity of Approval from the ACC:

The petitioner claimed that as an ACC appointee, his compulsory retirement required ACC's approval. The respondent argued that the ACC's role was limited to appointments, empanelment, and upgradation, not retirement. The High Court supported the respondent's view, stating that the Review Committee, headed by the Secretary of the concerned ministry, was competent to decide on compulsory retirement without ACC approval.

4. Allegations of Bias and Procedural Irregularities:

The petitioner alleged bias due to the involvement of the same officers in multiple review committees and procedural irregularities, such as not considering his comprehensive representation. The High Court found no merit in these allegations, noting that the officers' presence was mandated by DoPT instructions and that the Second Review Committee had duly considered the relevant materials, including the petitioner's representations.

5. Consideration of Entire Service Record and Adverse Remarks:

The petitioner argued that his promotions negated earlier adverse remarks and that his integrity was unfairly questioned. The High Court emphasized that the entire service record, including past adverse remarks, must be considered for compulsory retirement. It upheld the Review Committee's reliance on the confidential note and adverse APAR entries, stating that the integrity of a senior officer must be above board.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision and validating the compulsory retirement order under FR 56(j). The Court found that the procedures followed were in accordance with the relevant OMs, the decision was based on the entire service record, and no procedural or substantive irregularities were established.