Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Ms.Sanya Narula, Mr. Praveen Kaushik, Advs.
Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv. for MCD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated14.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.882/2020, titled Sushil Kumar Jain v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, whereina challenge was made to the Order dated 13.09.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, as also the Order dated 30.12.2019 rejecting his representation against the Order dated 13.09.2019.
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 13.09.2019, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. A representation filed against the same was also rejected by the Order dated 30.12.2019, 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 certain penalties was inflicted on the petitioner between 2005-2010, one of which has also been quashed by the learned Tribunal, however, thereafter the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by an Order dated 25.07.2012, and thereafter no penalty was imposed on the petitioner.
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 the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the penalties imposed upon him between 2005-2010, one of which has also been quashed by the learned Tribunal, however, the fact remains that post his promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 2012, his ACRs have been ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and integrity reported as ‘Beyond Doubt, which fact has been completely ignored by the Tribunal.
6. 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.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, the petitioner was visited with sevenpenaltiesbetween 2005 to 2010. 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.
8. 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 of the same in public interest.
9. 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 visited with several penalties on earlier occasions.He submits that the opinion formed by the concerned Authority of the respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
11. 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.
12. In the present case, though it is not denied that the petitioner was visited with sevenpenalties between 2005 to 2010, one of which has been quashed by the learned Tribunal, it also remains undisputed that he was later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by an Order dated 25.07.2012. Further, his ACR gradings for the period from 2008-09 to 2018-19 were also either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and his integrity was reported as ‘Beyond Doubt’.
13. 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 intoconsideration, 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.
14. What is most important in the present case is that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner for a period of about nineyears, that is, from 2010 to 2019. In fact, as noted hereinabove, in the said period he had been promoted; 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.
15. 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 13.09.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as also the Order dated 30.12.2019 rejecting the representation of the petitioner thereagainst.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/Arya/SJ