9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted by Union of India under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules as under the said rule the entire service record of the employee is to be seen and if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public looking to overall service record, the employee requires to be retired, there is no right vested in the employee to continue in the employment after a prescribed age under the Rules - Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as the charges levelled against the Petitioner in departmental inquiry have been quashed, the decision of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is because of legal malice on the part of the Respondents. This contention of the Petitioner is devoid of any merits. Compulsory retirement has various facets. Compulsory retirement can be passed looking to the overall service record of the Government employee. Compulsory retirement order can also be passed in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out people of doubtful integrity or corrupt employee but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules, so as to inculc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1177/2020 & CM APPL.34872/2020 (stay) - - - Dated:- 22-9-2021 - HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Mr. Kapish Seth, Mr. Mrityunjay Singh, Mr. Akshay Dev, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi and Ms. Samruddhi Bendbhar, Advocates Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India with Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Central Government Standing Counsel and Mr. Farman Ali, Advocate JUDGMENT PER D. N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal‟) in O.A. No.1835/2020 dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this petition), the present petition has been preferred by the Original Applicant. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.1835/2020 whereby order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure P-2 to the memo of this petition) passed by the Respondents of compulsorily retiring the petitioner was not interfered with. Similarly, order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-3 to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner before Delhi High Court and the Criminal Revision was allowed and the order for sanction of prosecution was set aside. 2.12 Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the Respondents before Hon ble the Supreme Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 10112/2016, which is still pending. 2.13 The Petitioner filed one more O.A. No.495/2012 challenging the second order of suspension which was dated 25.04.2003. This OA was allowed against which writ petition preferred by the Respondents was dismissed by the High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP preferred by the Respondents. 2.14 The suspension was revoked on 06.01.2014 immediately after the order of Hon ble the Supreme Court. The Petitioner was transferred to Kolkata 2.15 One more O.A.No.3971/2015 was preferred by the Petitioner claiming promotions at par with his juniors as no promotion was given to the Petitioner during suspension. Suspension continued from 1999 to 2014. 2.16 The petitioner was posted as Senior Departmental Representative at ITAT, New Delhi. 2.17 Thereafter, representations were made by the Petitioner for his posting under Senior Officer. 2.18 The Petitioner preferred one mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y retiring the Petitioner was issued in violation of guidelines issued by the Respondents as regards timing for exercise of powers under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. The date of birth of the Petitioner is 11.12.1962 and on 10.06.2019, i.e., on the date of passing of the order of compulsory retirement, the Petitioner was 56 years and six months of age. Thus, the order of compulsory retirement was in violation of OM No.25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21.03.2014. In fact the action should have been initiated prior to six months of attaining the age of 50 years of the Petitioner. 3.4 It is also submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh that legal malice on the part of the Respondents have not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal while deciding O.A.No.1835/2020 vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2020. Hence, the impugned judgment deserves to the quashed and set aside. 3.5 Learned Senior Counsel read out several orders passed in different O.As., Writ petitions and SLPs and submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is in violation of the assurance given by the learned Additional Solicitor General in C.M.No.11272/2019 and C.M.No.19013/2019 in W.P.(C) No.9230/2016. He pointed out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner and hence the order passed by the Respondent rejecting the representation dated 19.08.2019 also deserves to be quashed and set aside. ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS 4.1 It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing O.A.No.1835/2020 preferred by the Petitioner vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 and no error has been committed by the Respondents while rejecting the representation preferred by the Petitioner vide order dated 19.08.2019. 4.2 It is further submitted that there are 64 officers who have been compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules in public interest including the present Petitioner. Initially, SLP(C) No.22421/2019 was preferred by the Petitioner against order of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9339/2019. The said SLP was dismissed by Hon ble the Supreme Court. In W.P.(C) No.9339/2019, the High Court held that challenge to the order of compulsory retirement should be made before the Tribunal and not directly in the High Court. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed on 21.10.2019. 4.3 It is further submitted by learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court which was dismissed and SLP preferred by the Department was also dismissed. Suspension was revoked on 24.03.2014 and was made effective from 12.01.2012. 4.8 It is also submitted by the Respondents that the Petitioner was facing two departmental inquiries vide charge sheets dated 14.03.2014 and 20.03.2014. Again in two separate litigations before the Tribunal, these chargesheets were quashed. 4.9 It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents that in his career span of 34 years, Petitioner has been in litigation against the Respondents for 20 years. 4.10 It is submitted by the Respondents that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the continuation of the services of the Petitioner with the Respondents is in public interest. The conduct of the Petitioner has shaken the confidence of the Department to post him to any public post which involves public dealing or is sensitive in nature and hence, the Review Committee concluded that his continuing in the services will not be useful to the public and is injurious to public interest and the services of the Petitioner are no longer useful to the general administration. The conduct of the Petitioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACR/APAR is public trust and responsibility and, therefore, the Petitioner has failed to perform the public duty of writing of ACRs and APAR. Thus, the Petitioner has developed a tendency of not following Government instructions in writing of APARs/public duty. Promotions etc. are based upon ACRs/APARs and, therefore, the Petitioner obstructed his superior authorities to evaluate his work, conduct, character and capacity and, therefore, taking a holistic view of the record of the Petitioner, the Review Committee concluded that the conduct of the Petitioner is such that his continuance in the service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest and hence, his services are no longer useful to the general administration. 4.17 The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner has been acquitted on a technical ground. SLPs are pending against the same before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Sanction for prosecution was quashed by the High Court on technical ground, that entire material was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority at the time of granting of sanction. Thus, decision of the High Court is under challenge and matters are pending before the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56. 4.26 Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in Ram Murthy Yadav vs. State of U.P. Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 801. 4.27 On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by counsel for the Respondents that no error has been committed by the Tribunal while deciding O.A.No.1835/2020 by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 and rightly the Tribunal has not interfered with the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Respondents on 10.06.2019 and the rejection of the representation dated 19.08.2019. 4.28 It is, therefore, submitted that this petition may not be entertained by this Court and the same may kindly be dismissed. REASONS:- 5. This petition has been preferred by the Original Applicant in O.A.No.1835/2020 against judgment dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi as well as the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the Respondents (Annexure P-2). This Petitioner has also challenged an order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Respondents whereby representation of the Petitioner was rejected. This Petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of Fund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servant referred to in Clause (c) who entered Government service on or before 23rd July, 1966 and to Government servant referred to in Clause (f) (emphasis supplied) 11. As per Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015 bearing O.M.No.25013/01/2013, all the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities will constitute Review Committees consisting of two members at appropriate level (Annexure R-4 to the memo of counter affidavit of Union of India in O.A.No.1835/2020). Review Committee was constituted in terms of the aforesaid office memorandum. Before the Review Committee all the facts were presented about the Petitioner and entire service record of the Petitioner was placed before the Review Committee including entries in the Confidential Reports and the litigations entered into by the Petitioner with the Respondents and the orders passed in all the litigations between the parties to this writ petition. A subjective satisfaction was arrived at by the Review Committee and a recommendation was made for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner in public interest, which was accepted by Union of India and Petitioner was made compulsorily re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dies one of the facts of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution and that the rule holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public. The rule is intended, it was explained, to enable the government to energise its machinery and to make it efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. It was also held that rules of natural justice are not attracted in such a case. If the appropriate authority forms the requisite opinion bona fide, it was held, its opinion cannot be challenged before the courts though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or that it is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. It is significant to notice that this decision was rendered after the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150] . Indeed, the said decisions were relied upon to contend that even in such a case the principles of natural justice required an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above. xxx xxx xxx 36. So far as the appeals before us are concerned, the High Court which has looked into the relevant record and confidential records has opined that the order of compulsory retirement was based not merely upon the said adverse remarks but other material as well. Secondly, it has also found that the material placed before them does not justify the conclusion that the said remarks were not recorded duly or properly. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from mala fides or that it is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary. (emphasis supplied) 17. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The Government servant does not loose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been farmed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the Government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the Government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court that compulsory retirement is bound to have some adverse effect on the Government servant who is compulsorily retired but the rule provides that such retirements can be made only after the officer attains a prescribed age. Compulsorily retired Government Servant does not loose any benefits earned by him till the date of retirement. 21. The fundamental source of compulsorily retiring an employee of the Government is derived from Doctrine of Pleasure which springs from Article 310 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by Hon ble the Supreme Court in Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. UOI Anr. (Supra) in paragraphs, 33,40,42,43 as under:- 33. Further, it is pertinent to note that the grounds referred to in Rule 135 nowhere contemplate it as a consequence of any fault or wrongful action on the part of the officer and unlike penal actions, do not stigmatise the outgoing officer or involve loss of benefits already earned by him and there is no element of punishment. Sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 135 reinforce this view as the same provide for appropriate benefits such as pension, gratuity, lump sum amount, etc. for the public servant who has been subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to reach its own satisfaction, the authority is free to seek information from its own sources. Thus, in cases when the ingredients of Rule 135 stand satisfied in light of the prevalent circumstances, the need for giving opportunity to the officer concerned by way of an inquiry is done away with because the underlying purpose of such inquiry is not the satisfaction of the principles of natural justice or of the officer concerned, rather, it is to enable the competent authority of the Organisation to satisfy itself in a subjective manner as regards the fitness of the case to invoke the rule. Therefore, the procedure underlying Rule 135 cannot be shackled by the rigidity of the principles of natural justice in larger public interest in reference to the structure of the Organisation in question, being a special rule dealing with specified cases. xxx xxx xxx 42. A conjoint reading of Articles 309 and 311 reveals that Article 311 is confined to the cases wherein an inquiry has been commenced against an employee and an action of penal nature is sought to be taken. Whereas, Article 309 covers the broad spectrum of conditions of service and holds a wider ground as compared to Arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and using it as a genuine document with the intention to create false evidences to implicate one Shri S. C. Barjatya. RC S-19/1999/E-001: The case was registered against Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal for alleged possession of disproportionate assets against his known sources of income. The CBI in its report has estimated the total disproportionate assets of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal at ₹ 12,04,46,946/-. 23. Charge sheets were filed in both the aforesaid criminal cases against the Petitioner. Sanction for prosecution was also granted vide orders dated 26.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 by the Competent Authority. Delhi High Court quashed the order of granting sanction for prosecution in Criminal Writ Petition and in Criminal Revision Petition against which the Department has preferred the Special Leave Petitions before Hon ble the Supreme Court being:- a) SLP(Crl.) No.10083/2016, b) SLP(Crl.) No.10112/2016, c) SLP (Crl.) No.418/2017 and d) SLP (Crl.) No.419/2017. 24. These SLPs are preferred against the common judgment and order dated 13.01.2016 delivered by Delhi High Court. All these SLPs are pending before the Supreme Court. 25. Much has been argued out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a tendency of not following Government instructions of writing APARs. Thus, after considering all these materials available on record including relating to the departmental inquiries against the Petitioner and taking a holistic view of the record, the Review Committee concluded that conduct of the Petitioner is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. Hence, the services of the Petitioner are no longer useful to the general administration. The conduct of the Petitioner is unbecoming of a public servant and obstructs efficiency in public services. Therefore, the Review Committee had recommended that Petitioner be compulsorily retired in public interest under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. 31. This decision of the Review Committee is an absolutely independent proceedings and looking to the overall service record of the Petitioner, this subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Review Committee. There is no allegation of personal malafide upon the members of the Review Committee. What is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is legal malice by the Respondents because of certain observation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and earlier adverse entries could not be taken into account because even when those existed Gurdas Singh had earned his promotion. It is not necessary for us to again reiterate the principles where the Court will interfere in the order of premature retirement of an employee as these have been accurately set down by various pronouncements of this Court and particularly in Baikuntha Nath Das case [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] . Before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. (emphasis supplied) 36. It has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra Das v. State of Orissa Others (1996) 5 SCC 331 in paragraph-7 as under:- 7. It is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f promotion has been granted to him, still compulsory retirement can be granted by Union of India under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules as under the said rule the entire service record of the employee is to be seen and if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public looking to overall service record, the employee requires to be retired, there is no right vested in the employee to continue in the employment after a prescribed age under the Rules. 38. Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as the charges levelled against the Petitioner in departmental inquiry have been quashed, the decision of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 is because of legal malice on the part of the Respondents. This contention of the Petitioner is devoid of any merits. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 which relied upon the judgment in Shyamlal vs. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 369 in paragraph 10 as under:- 10. Before we advert to the question which we are required to decide, it is necessary to notice the nature of an order compulsorily retiring a governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated 1-8-1983 which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds: (i) the respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after the adverse remarks were made, the records were wiped out; and (iii) the entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, therefore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under Rule 71(a) was not valid in law. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a government employee compulso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, those who are not useful into the services, those who are interested only in litigation in the Court, those who are not obeying the orders of the Government during their service tenure can be retired from the service. This power is given to the Government to energize its machinery and to make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those, who in its opinion should not be into the services in public interest. 44. Thus, even if this Petitioner has succeeded in few litigations, a subjective satisfaction can always be arrived at by the Respondents looking to the entire service record and performance of the Petitioner to make him compulsory retire. 45. Much has been argued out about the honourable acquittal and acquittal on technical ground but we are not going into much detail about this aspect of the matter because the difference between the two is remarkable and noticeable and has been clarified in several decisions referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but, as the Special Leave Petitions are pending, we are not going into the detail analysis of honourable acquittal and acquittal on technical ground in this case. Suffice it would be to say that even if there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Such compulsory retired Government servant does not loose any benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement. 49. Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that there is a delay while passing the order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, the date of birth of the Petitioner is 11.12.1962, he attained the age of 50 years much prior to the order of compulsory retirement. It ought to be kept in mind that there is no need for the Respondents under the law to immediately pass an order of compulsory retirement, no sooner did the Central Government employee has attained the age of 50 years. On the contrary, looking to the Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, compulsory retirement order can be passed after the age of 50 years of the Petitioner. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Nasirmiya Ahmadmiya Chauhan (1994) Suppl.(2) SCC 537 in paragraph 3 as under:- 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has authoritatively laid down in various judgments that the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imes because of even quashing of the charges against them, they have been continued into services, but, enough is enough. After a prescribed age of an employee, there is an assessment by the Government through Review Committee and if looking to the entire service record of the employee and looking to his performance and looking to his usefulness into the remaining services, if he is to be weeded out, the Union of India has all powers, jurisdiction and authority under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules to make such employee compulsory retired, even if there is acquittal from some of the charges levelled against him by the Union of India. 52. The Review Committee has formed bonafide opinion under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules without any malafides, arbitrariness and perversity. Hence, the correctness of the decision which is a subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee, on merits, cannot be challenged before this court. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. UOI Anr.(Supra) in paragraphs 54 and 71, as under 54. Given the factual matrix of the present case, we deem it proper to carve out some important events from the aforementioned ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, balancing and protective outlook of the Rule as it seeks to deal with the competing considerations of public interest including security (of the Organisation or the State) and individual interest of the outgoing employee. Thus, we direct the respondents to abide by the stipulations contained in sub-rules (2) to (4), and in particular the benefit extended to the appellant by the High Court referred to above, in their true letter and spirit and in right earnest, if already not done. (emphasis supplied) 53. As stated hereinabove, that the scope of the judicial review is very limited in cases of compulsory retirement only on limited grounds such as non-application of mind or malafide, the compulsory retirement order can be challenged. One must keep in mind, the principles enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 10 SCC 693. 18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory rules. (See Surender Kumar v. Union of Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, it cannot be said that the Respondents were driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations. 55. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murthy Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2020) 1 SCC 801, in paragraph - 6 as under:- 6. The service records of the appellant have been examined by the Screening Committee, the Full Court as also by the Division Bench of the High Court. The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by mala fides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference. The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same as an appellate authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement. (emphasis supplied) 56. There are serious allegations against the Petitioner of corruption and of disproportionate assets including CBI cases for which sanction was given for prosecution and the SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the meanwhile, on 10.06.2019 in an independent and separate proceedings under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, Petitioner has been made compulsorily retired. 61. Proceedings under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is distinct and independent proceedings undertaken by the Respondents on the basis of the entire service record of the Petitioner and keeping in mind the performance of the Petitioner and his usefulness into the services. A subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Review Committee to compulsory retire the Petitioner. These proceedings under Rule 56(j) is a proceedings under separate rule, hence, no question whatsoever arises that as the Additional Solicitor General had taken time in C.M.No.11272/2019 preferred in a disposed of W.P.(C) No.9230/2016, there will be automatic stay upon the decision making process under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. Even if promotion is due, a decision can always be taken by the Respondents under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. 62. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court In State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Das (1996) 5 SCC 331 in para-7 as under:- 7. . The object always is public interest. The material ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
