9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by Petitioner 2/ State Government of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 11 August 2017. 2. Situated at the epicentre of action initiated by various Government agencies, including that of the Department of Income Tax [IT Department], Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI], Economic Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau [EOW/ACB], and the Enforcement Directorate [ED], Babulal has been alleged of numerous offences involving financial misappropriation, disproportionate assets, misuse of public office, and violation of service conduct rules. 3. Babulal was appointed as an Indian Administrative Service [IAS] officer of the 1988 batch and was initially allotted to the Madhya Pradesh cadre. Following the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, he was transferred to the cadre of Chhattisgarh State and has rendered 29 years of service. 4. The genesis of the dispute appears to be when he was subjected to a search by the IT Department on 4 February 2010, where cash amounting to Rs. 5,04,798/- along with jewellery valued at Rs. 3.76 lakhs were seized. However, the amounts seized were returned due to it being accounted for in the books of Babulal and his wife. Simultaneous search and seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RC dated 31 December 2010 registered by CBI, Chhattisgarh Allegations of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC], Section 120-B r/w Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PCA were made against Babulal, with a Rs. 15 lakh recovery made by the IT Department. This Court has stayed the arrest of Babulal in WPC 8052/2011, and the matter is at the pre-charge stage. The State Government of Chhattisgarh declined sanction to prosecute Babulal under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 [DSPE] on four separate occasions between 2014-2016. iv. RC dated 4 January 2010 registered by CBI, EOU VII, New Delhi Allegations of misappropriation of around Rs. 21 crore of public funds were made against Babulal. These funds were sanctioned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in 2005-06 for the implementation of World Bank aided enhanced Malaria Control Programme in Chhattisgarh. The case is pending sanction to prosecute, to be provided by the State Government of Chhattisgarh. v. RC dated 18 February 2017 registered by CBI ACU, AC II, New Delhi In this trap case, allegations were made by the CBI, as also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us cases against him as we have recorded at para 7(supra), along with numerous other complaints, his suspension, inter alia. 10. Upon receipt of a letter dated 21 February 2017 sent by the UOI to the State of Chhattisgarh regarding Babulal's arrest in connection with CBI FIR dated 18 February 2017, he was placed under immediate suspension due the pending criminal investigation against him. His suspension spanned from 22 February 2017 until 9 August 2017. 11. Thereafter, OA 2208/2017 was filed by Babulal before the Tribunal, assailing the denial of his vigilance clearance by the DOPT, inter alia. During the pendency of this OA, a Review Committee was constituted on 13 April 2017 to assess Babulal's suitability for compulsory retirement under Rule 16 (3) in light of the CBI FIR of 2017 and his subsequent arrest. 12. It is on the findings and recommendation of this committee that an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 16 (3) dated 9 August 2017 was passed by the UOI against Babulal due to "grave doubts on the integrity of the officer", and this order was confirmed on 11 August 2017 by the State of Chhattisgarh. 13. Babulal filed an MA before the Tribunal to amend his prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has advanced the following lines of argumentation assailing the order of compulsory retirement passed against Babulal : a) The second review conducted was impermissible; and b) The second review failed to consider the entirety of his service records and was contrary to the object of Rule 16 (3) as well as the law laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment in Umedbhai M. Patel; and c) Mere registration of FIRs does not make an officer suitable for compulsory retirement. Analysis 20. At the outset, it would be imperative to clarify that we are confined to the determination of whether the order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 16 (3) is capable of standing on its own legs. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the Rule in its entirety: - "16 (3) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activism so that it is made poignant and piquant, specious and subtle so as to meet the expanding needs of the nation which require exploration of "fields 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 the administration. 12. An order of compulsory retirement on one hand causes no prejudice to the government servant who is made to lead a restful life enjoying full pensionary and other benefits and on the other gives a new animation and equanimity to the Services. The employees should try to understand the true spirit behind the rule which is not to penalise them but amounts just to a fruitful incident of the Service made in the larger interest of the country..." (emphasis supplied) Challenge to an Order under Rule 16 (3) 23. As held in M.E. Reddy, inter alia, Rule 16 (3) provides an absolute right to the Government to retire an employee and even dispenses with the requirement of conforming with principles of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (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." (emphasis supplied) 25. Therefore, the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement must be sustainable on any one of the three grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness, or a lack of material considered while recommending an officer's compulsory retirement under Rule 16 (3). Whether a Second Review may be Permissible 26. Mr. Tiwari submits that the exceptional circumstances in the case of Babulal warranted the conduction of a second review, and that the same is not barred by law. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya sought to persuade the Court that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (3) (ii) is not warranted where the Government decides not to take any prejudicial action against an officer despite the recommendations of the review committee. This is not the case before us, given that the 2015 committee did not recommend that Babulal be compulsorily retired. However, what is relevant, is the observation of exceptional circumstances and additional material pertaining to the officer that has come to light after the convening of his/her first review. Therefore, in case exceptional circumstances emerge thereafter, a second review may be in order, especially when the integrity of an officer is doubted. 29. The relevance of the rider contained within para 27 of Chandra Mohan Nigam to the facts before us become clear upon perusal of the minutes of meeting recorded by the second Review Committee on 13 April 2017, which have been reproduced below: "In view of the arrest by CBI of Dr. B.L. Agarwal, IAS (1988) on 21 02 2017 in a case registered by the Bureau on 18.02.2017 U/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him and two others, his name was also included in the zone of consideration for review." ***** " 2/ Dr.B.L.Agarwal (IAS: 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 intimated to the State Government that CBI has arrested Dr. B.L. Agrawal IAS (CG:1988), Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Chhattisgarh Govt., on 21.02.2017 in a case registered by the Bureau on 18.02.2017 U/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him and two others. The CBI informed in its letter that during the investigation of the case, the residential premises of Dr. B.L. Agrawal at Raipur, were searched. The officer was arrested on 21.02.2017 at 08:02 AM to be produced before the court of Spl. Judge for CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. On Receipt of the above information the State Government having examined the CBI's report against Dr. Agrawal invoked Sub rule 3 of IAS (D &A) rules 1969, and accordingly Dr. B.L. Agrawal, IAS (CG: 1988) has been suspended by the State Government vide Order No. E2-5/2017/1/2 dated 21.02.2017. Recommendations: The above mentioned facts cast grave doubts on the integrity of the officer therefore committee recommends that his continuation in service is not in the interest of administration, and he be retired in public interest. 30. Here, we findthat claims of arbitrariness based onthe mere conducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en into consideration include- *ACR/PAR *Personal file *History of entire service *Status of Departmental Enquiry, if any *Confidential reports throughout the period of service *Complaints against the officers" (emphasis supplied in bold) 35. We observe here that ACR's of the officers under review have been considered. Furthermore, among the relevant records that constitute the basis for such review, complaints against officers form a necessary factor in determining whether he may be recommended for compulsory retirement. 36. Therefore, upon a holistic reading of the relevant facts, we are unimpressed by the submission that "entire service record" of an officer begs the interpretation of prioritising positive ACR entries over complaints against the officer - especially when these complaints are of such gravity that they attract numerous investigations across different states by the CBI. 37. With respect to the contention that the order of compulsory retirement passed against Babulal was contrary to the law laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment in Umedbhai M. Patel, we find clear distinguishability of the aforementioned judgment from the facts that are before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pass an order of compulsory retirement against him. There appears to be a conflation of the threshold of doubtful integrity with that of conviction in a criminal case, the latter of which requires proving the charges against an officer beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this argument does not impress the Court. 44. Furthermore, considering the object and nature of orders passed under Rule 16 (3) as being non-stigmatic nor punitive, mandating the conviction of an officer in criminal cases to justify his characterisation as having "doubtful integrity" would be inappropriate. In such cases, where an officer has been convicted, it would be unjust to bid him farewell from the services with a mere tap on the wrist. Such an officer, if compulsorily retired, would still enjoy all retiral benefits with no punitive action against him, despite being convicted in a criminal case. 45. Therefore, we would like to reiterate our reasons for disagreeing with the impugned order of the Tribunal: - I. Grave Doubt on Integrity a. The Tribunal overlooked the recommendations made by the 2017 Review Committee and its finding that the relevant facts considered cast grave doubt on Babulal's integ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n due weightage by the Tribunal. IV. Public Interest a. Babulal's compulsory retirement was ordered in Public Interest, as per Rule 16 (3), due to grave doubts against his integrity. The Rule is designed to maintain high standards of efficiency and integrity in public service, and the decision to retire the respondent was made after careful consideration by the Review Committee and the Appointments Committee of Cabinet. b. The Tribunal's judgment does not sufficiently consider the importance of maintaining public trust and integrity in the administrative services. On the contrary, the Tribunal has observed that instead of taking action as per Rule 16 (3), the petitioners should have opted for a departmental enquiry and that appropriate action could have been taken after the conclusion of a departmental enquiry. c. We fail to understand why, when a specific provision of law allows the department to take immediate action, it was suggested that a departmental enquiry should have been conducted instead. Rule 16 (3) permits immediate action in cases where the delinquent official is suspected of being engaged in activities that require intervention in public interest. d. The tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
