Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURAJ PRAKASH SAGTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivanshu Bhardwaj (through VC) and Mr.Archit
Mudgal, Advs.
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC, Mr.Parvin Bansal, Adv. for
MCD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1716/2020, titled Suraj Prakash Sagta v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, wherein a challenge was made to the Order dated 31.10.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, as also the Order dated 17.02.2020 rejecting his representation against the Order dated 31.10.2019.
2. The limited facts relevant for the purposes of the present petition are that, in the exercise of powers under FR 56(j) read with Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent passed an Order dated 31.10.2019, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. A representation filed against the same was also rejected by the Order dated 17.02.2020, compelling the petitioner to file the above O.A.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that although a penalty was inflicted on the petitioner by an Order dated 21.02.2000, however, thereafter the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), on an ad-hoc basis, by an Order dated 23.07.2009, and thereafter was also granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the year 2013 with effect from 01.07.2010.
4. He further submits that the ACRs of the petitioner for the period from 2008-09 to 2018-19 were either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’, and reflected his integrity as ‘Beyond Doubt’.
5. He submits that the Reviewing Committee appears to have taken note of a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in the year 2015. He submits that the petitioner has been exonerated in the same by an Order dated 27.08.2020.
6. He further submits that, in any case, in terms of the Circular dated 25.07.2019, the respondent cannot resort to compulsory retirement as a mode of punishment or as a short cut to avoid disciplinary proceedings.
7. He further submits that the proforma of deliberation by the Screening Committee, that has been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, also does not appear to have been signed by the Head of the Department as required in terms of the above Circular. He submits that it also does not find mention of the recommendations of the Committee.
8. Placing reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar Sharma v. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2025:DHC:4466-DB, he submits that the Impugned Order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, the Screening/Reviewing Committee had considered the entire service record of the petitioner and found that on eighteen occasions he had been charge sheeted, which was sufficient to hold that the petitioner had doubtful integrity and did not deserve to be posted on a public post any longer in the larger public interest. He submits that petitioner was not only visited with a major penalty in the year 2000, but a departmental proceeding had also been initiated against him in the year 2015, which was pending at the time of him being compulsorily retired. He submits that taking the same into account, the Screening Committee found a fit case to be made out for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.
10. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 and Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Hari Kishan Verma, (2015) 13 SCC 156, he submits that the power to compulsorily retire a government servant in terms of the Service Rules, is absolute, provided the concerned Authority forms a bona fide opinion on the same in public interest.
11. He submits that mere grant of a promotion to the petitioner cannot be a ground to set aside the decision of the concerned Authority of the respondent to compulsorily retire such government servant, specially where such government servant has been subjected to another disciplinary proceeding and has already been visited with a major penalty on an earlier occasion. He submits that in the present case, the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was justified considering the various minor penalties imposed on the petitioner as also the major penalty imposed upon him in the year 2000, and the pending departmental proceeding. He submits that the opinion formed by the concerned Authority of the respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
13. In Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, having examined the law applicable to the cases of compulsory retirement under FR 56(j), has culled out the governing principles as under: “22.[5] The Takeaway From the above judgments, the following principles emerge, in the matter of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment:
(i) The scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory retirement, is fairly limited.
(ii) Compulsory retirement involves no penal consequences.
(iii) At the same time, if unlimited discretion is permitted to the administration in the matter of passing orders of compulsory retirement, it would be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonable, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal.
(iv) The exercise of power to compulsory retire an officer must be bona fide and to promote public interest.
(v) It is permissible to lift the veil in order to ascertain whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant and whether the order has been made bona fide without any oblique and extraneous purpose.
(vi) A bona fide order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion has not been informed, the decision is based on collateral factors or is arbitrary.
(vii) The court cannot sit in appeal over an order of compulsory retirement, but can interfere if it is satisfied that the order is passed mala fide, or is based on no evidence, or is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion in the given material.
(viii) The object of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment, aims at weeding out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service, and dispensing with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.
(ix) If the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the government servant or contains any statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, it would be treated as an order of punishment, attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. If, however, the order of compulsory retirement refers only to an assessment of his work and does not cast an aspersion on his conduct or character, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be treated as an order of punishment. The test would be the manner in which a reasonable person would read or understand the order of compulsory retirement.
(x) FR 56(j) does not require any opportunity to show cause to be provided before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.
(xi) Before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into account.
(xii) The gradings in the ACRs of the officer are relevant. The performance of the officer in later years, including the gradings granted in later years, would be of greater relevance than those in earlier years. Where the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as being “beyond doubt”, or grade him “outstanding” or “very good”, it is an important factor in favour of the officer, and would, in a given case, vitiate the order of compulsory retirement, unless it is shown that, between the last such entry and the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, there was sudden and unexplained deterioration in the performance of the officer.
(xiii) Uncommunicated adverse entries in the
(xiv) Grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record is a factor operating in favour of the officer. Promotion to a higher post notwithstanding adverse remarks result in the adverse remarks losing their sting.
(xv) The fact that the officer was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, or was granted promotion after the events which formed the basis of the order of compulsory retirement, is also a relevant consideration.
(xvi) The subjective satisfaction of the authority passing an order of compulsory retirement must be based on valid material.
(xvii) Compulsory retirement is not required to be by a speaking order.
14. In the present case, though it is not denied that the petitioner was visited with a major penalty in the year 2000, it also remains undisputed that he was later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), on an ad-hoc basis, by an Order dated 23.07.2009, and thereafter was also granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the year 2013 with effect from 01.07.2010. Further, his ACR gradings for the last five years were also either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and his integrity was reported as ‘Beyond Doubt’. The departmental proceeding relied upon by the respondent, was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2015, however, by an Order dated 27.08.2020, the petitioner has been exonerated in the same. Moreover, the Circular dated 25.07.2019 inter alia states that the decision to compulsorily retire an officer should not be a short cut to avoid disciplinary proceedings and should not be punitive in nature.
15. As held in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into consideration, including the grading in the ACRs. The performance of the officer in the later years is of greater relevance than reliance on old and historical punishments. Once the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as ‘Beyond Doubt’ and grade him as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Very Good’, the order of compulsory retirement, if based on events that occurred much prior to the decision, may stand vitiated. The grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record, is also a significant factor.
16. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Screening/Reviewing Committee had considered the entire service record of the petitioner and found that he had been charge sheeted on eighteen occasions, which fact was sufficient to hold that the petitioner had doubtful integrity and does not deserve to be posted in a public post in larger public interest, is concerned, the same does not impress us. The last penalty against the petitioner was of a Censure in the year 2005 and the only major penalty was imposed against him in 2000. Apart from a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in the year 2015, in which too he was later exonerated on 27.08.2020, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner for an extended period from 2005 to 2019. In fact, as noted hereinabove, in the said period the petitioner had been promoted; granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme; his ACRs were either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’; and his integrity was reported as ‘Beyond Doubt’. These factors should also have been considered by the Screening/Reviewing Authority before taking the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The proforma that has been placed on record before us, however, does not reflect any application of mind to the above factors. In fact, it does not even contain the recommendations of the Committee.
17. Given the above factors, we are unable to sustain the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, and equally are unable to sustain the Order dated 31.10.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, as also the Order dated 17.02.2020 rejecting the representation of the petitioner thereagainst.
18. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with immediate effect from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including deemed continuous service from the date of the order of compulsory retirement, fixation of pay, annual increments, promotional benefits (if any), and all other service benefits, that would have accrued to him. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of service.
19. The consequential orders for reinstatement and restoration of benefits shall be passed by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today, and the petitioner shall be allowed to resume duties within the same period.
20. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/Arya/SJ