Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex Const Chand Prakash vs Delhi Police on 15 December, 2025
1
Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3147/2025
Reserved on: 04.12.2025
Pronounced on: 15.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Ex. Constable (Exe.) Chand Prakash
PIS No. 28900224
S/o Shri Late Shri Sheesh Ram
Aged about 56 years
R/o House No. 54, Madangir Village
New Delhi-110062
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Nilansh Gaur)
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi, Delhi 110001
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
7th Batallion, DAP
Malviya Nagar, Police Complex
New Delhi-110017 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Dr. Dharam Deshna)
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:28:23+05'30'
2
Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged order dated 30.05.2025 whereby the respondents have rejected his representation made against the order of premature retirement under FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Under challenge is also an order dated 21.10.2024 prematurely retiring the applicant by invoking the provisions of FR 56(J) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 quash and set aside the impugned order of pre-mature retirement dated 21.10.2024 at Annexure A-2.
8.2 quash and set aside the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the respondents conveying the decision of the Representation Committee rejecting the representation of the applicant at Annexure A-1.
8.3 declare the action of the respondents in pre-maturely retiring the applicant under FR 56 (j) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 as illegal and arbitrary the same being punitive in nature and passed as a shortcut to disciplinary proceedings amounting to double jeopardy and direct the respondents to re- instate the applicant in service from the date of pre-mature retirement i.e. 21.10.2024 and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant including seniority, continuity of service, pay and allowances etc. 8.4 any other relief that the Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. In response to notice, the respondents have filed counter reply wherein they have disputed and denied the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim. NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 3 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the pleadings on record.
5. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 11.05.1990. The applicant was involved in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 379/99 under section 323/509 IPC dated 17.07.1999 registered at PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. He was later on acquitted in the said case by the Hon'ble Court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant was awarded punishment departmentally. The applicant was involved in another FIR No. 439/2012 under section 308/452/323/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar dated 25.12.2012. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant on the same allegations as in the criminal case and the applicant was exonerated in the departmental inquiry. The criminal case is still pending trial in the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Saket, New Delhi. Subsequently, the applicant was served with the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 retiring him prematurely by invoking the provisions of Rule FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Being aggrieved by the said order of premature retirement, the applicant preferred a representation/appeal to the Representation Committee on 26.11.2024 followed by a reminder dated 16.04.2025. The Representation Committee rejected the representation of the applicant vide its order dated 30.05.2025, which is also under challenge in the present OA. NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 4 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite exoneration in the departmental inquiry on the same set of allegations as in the criminal case, which is still pending, the respondents have passed the order dated 21.10.2024 retiring the applicant prematurely on attaining the age of 55 years. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has not been retired in public interest which is the basic requirement as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha reported in 1571 SCR(1) 791. The impugned orders of premature retirement have been passed based on the involvement of the applicant in the criminal case pending trial and when he stands exonerated departmentally, thus, the impugned order retiring the applicant prematurely is punitive and bad in the eyes of law, learned counsel submits.
7. In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel places reliance on the following judgments:
(a) State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in 2001 (3) SCC 314
(b) Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 2 SCR 30
(c) order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. The Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., WP(C) No. 1823/2021, WP(C) No. 6590/2021 and CM Appl. 20657/2021 dated 28.05.2025 NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 5 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 which was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) No. 25954/2025 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.09.2025.
(d) order/judgment dated 17.09.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rohtas Kumar Saroha @ RK Saroha vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, WP(C) No. 12792/2021 & CM Appl. 40285/2021
8. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the service records, the applicant was found to have been awarded major punishments and involved in criminal case. Thus, the applicant does not have an unblemished and clean record. The decision regarding premature retirement of the applicant was recommended by the Screening Committee after observing all the codal formalities laid in the relevant rules and instructions. The Single Review Committee, after examination of all the facts, records, rules and guidelines approved and recommended the premature retirement of the applicant with a few other personnel. The representation committee after examining the representation of the applicant, recommendations of the Screening Committee and decision of the Single Review Committee of the PHQ level together with the provisions of FR 56(J) and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 found the applicant's representation devoid of merit and rejected the same vide the impugned memo dated 22.05.2025, learned NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 6 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 counsel submits. He further relies on the Standing Order No. Vig. & Pub. Tpt./06/2021 dated 29.12.2021.
9. Before we go into the Standing Order No. Vig. & Pub. Tpt./06/2021 dated 29.12.2021, referred and relied upon by the respondents and/or the judgments referred and relied on behalf of the applicant, we may record that vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2024, in view of the recommendations of the Single Review Committee, the applicant has been prematurely retired under FR 56(j) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (formerly Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972), with immediate effect. The applicant had preferred representations dated 04.11.2024 and 26.11.2024 seeking review of the impugned order dated 21.10.2024.
10. The observation of the Representation Committee has been noted in the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 and the same reads as under:
"he was ordered to retire under the provisions of FR- 56(J)/Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (formerly Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) vide order No.8147- 8227/Estt. Br. (D-1)/7th Bn., DAP, dated 21.10.2024. This was done on the recommendation of the Single Review Committee set up at PHQ level. Aggrieved by this order, he filed the instant representation dated 4.11.2024. In his representation, Ex-Const. (Exe.) Chand Prakash, has, inter alia, pleaded that the impugned order dated 21.10.2024 is in consequence of his implication and subsequent involvement in criminal case FIR No. 439/2012, dated 25.12.2012 u/s 308/452/323/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar, South East Distt., New Delhi, which is still pending trial and he has been retired prematurely vide the impugned order dated 21.10.2024. He has also pleaded that SI (Exe.) Ramesh Kumar, No. D/2466(PIS No. 16860083) and Const. (Exe.) Bachchu Singh, No.7185/PCR (PIS No. 2880486) who were involved in similar nature of offences and retired prematurely under FR-56 (J), have been re-instated in service by the Competent Authority.
NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 7 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 The Representation Committee has carefully examined the instant representation and the material placed on record. It has transpired that he was ordered to retire prematurely on the grounds that he was found involved in a family dispute case registered vide FIR No.439/2012, dated 25.12.2012 u/s 308/452/323/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar, South East Distt., New Delhi for beating the complainant and complainant's wife over the dispute of ancestral property. The said case is still pending trial in the Hon'ble Court. Further, he has been awarded a punishment of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effective vide order No.4519-38/HAP/Sec. (P-I), dated 29.6.2000 for not intimating about the case registered against him vide FIR No.379/99 u/s 323/509 IPC, dated 17.7.1999, PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi while he was posted at Main Security Lines.
Later on, he was acquitted in the said case by the Hon'ble Court. Another punishment of forfeiture of one year service temporarily vide order No. 7763-80/HAP-T(D-I), dated 22.8.2012 has also been awarded to him for consuming alcohol on duty and found in inebriated condition while posted in the Traffic Unit. Later-on, he was arrested and Kalandra was prepared against him.
The fact is that the representationist was involved in a family dispute case, registered on the allegations that the complainant Amit Mehałwal s/o Sh. Surender Singh R/o H.No. 59, Mehar Chand Buliding, Madangir Village, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi stated that on 21.12.2012, while he was installing an iron gate in one part of his house to protect it from thieves and animals, accused persons came and started beating the complainant and his wife Smt. Reena with iron rod and Danda. The complainant further deposed that all the accused persons had invaded them to grab the ancestral property which is in the possession of the complainant since last 50-60 years. He was also awarded major/minor punishments in other matters, which are very grave and serious in nature. The refracted involvement in criminal and behavior by police personnel is highly unwarranted. Such acts give a very bad name to the entire police force and, therefore, such deadwood should not be allowed to continue in the police force. He is likely to bring further disrepute to the force.
The plea taken by the representationist that in similar nature of offences (POC Act case and custodial death), two police personnel namely SI (Exe.) Ramesh Kumar and Const. (Exe.) Bachchu Singh have been re-instated in service from premature retirement, holds no ground as each and every case has its own merit/circumstances and is decided, accordingly.
The Representation Committee, after examining the representation of Ex-Const. (Exe.) Chand Prakash, No.5472/DAP (PIS No.28900224), recommendations of the Screening Committee and the decision of Single Review Committee of PHQ level, together with the provisions of FR-56 (J)/Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (formerly Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) and the criteria mentioned in S.O. No. Vig. & Pub. Tpt 06/2021, has found NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 8 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 that the pleas of the representationist are bereft of merit, and hence stand rejected."
11. From the aforesaid observation of the Representation Committee, it is apparent that the reasons for ordering premature retirement of the applicant have been (i) his involvement in a family dispute case registered vide FIR No. 439/2012, dated 25.12.2012 u/s 308/452/323/324/506/34 IPC, PS Ambedkar Nagar, for beating the complainant and complainant's wife over the dispute of ancestral property, the case which was still pending trial in the Court, (ii) the applicant had been awarded a punishment of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect vide order dated 29.06.2000 for not intimating about the case registered against him vide FIR No. 379/99 u/s 323/509 IPC dated 17.07.1999, PS Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and (iii) admittedly, punishment of forfeiture of one year service temporarily vide order dated 22.08.2012 for consuming alcohol on duty was imposed upon him and in which case, later on, he was arrested and Kalandra was prepared against him. 11.1. It is apparent from the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 that the impugned order of premature retirement has been passed on the ground of involvement of the applicant in these criminal cases and the allegations leveled against him in FIR No. 439/2012 dated 25.12.2012 and FIR No. 379/99 dated 17.07.1999 under reference and the departmental penalties inflicted upon him and referred to hereinabove. It is also evident that the plea of the applicant before the Representation/Review Committee has been to the effect that the two NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 9 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 police personnel have been reinstated in service from premature retirement, and such plea has been vaguely rejected on the ground that every case has its own merit and circumstances.
12. From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the impugned order of premature retirement has been passed as a sort of punishment for (i) the allegations leveled against the applicant in FIR No. 439/2012 still pending trial before the Learned Trial Court, (ii) allegations leveled against him in another case FIR No. 379/99 wherein he stood acquitted; and (iii) for being punished departmentally vide order dated 22.08.2012. On perusal of the observations and findings of the Representation Committee reproduced hereinabove, we find that as if the entire records of the applicant have not been considered, only the allegations or the penalties referred to hereinabove have been the basis for the impugned order(s) and not the applicant's performance, APARs/ACRs and other service records.
13. Now the issue arises as to whether the provisions of premature retirement can be resorted to as a matter of punishment and/or as a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry whereas such course is more desirable?
14. This issue is answered in the negative by the very Standing Order No. Vig. & Pub. Tpt./06/2021 referred and relied upon by the respondents. Paragraphs 1 to 8 of the same provide as under:
"I. INTRODUCTION Various instructions have been issued on the above subject of compulsory retirement of unsuitable police officers. The Supreme Court of India in State of Gujarat Vs Umed Bhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 has observed the following:-
NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 10 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer."
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weight age in passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure." 14.1. Further, the judgments referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and noted at paragraph 6 and 7 (a) & (b), i.e. in the case of Col. J.N. Sinha (supra), Umedbhai M. Patel (supra), Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra), we may not discuss in detail for the sake of brevity inasmuch as the same have been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the common order/judgment dated 28.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 1823/2021 titled Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. (supra) and WP(C) No. 6590/2021 titled S.K. Chauhan vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The common order/judgment dated 28.05.2025 in WP(C) No. 6590/2021 (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 25954/2025 and admittedly, the same stands dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2025. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ajay Kumar Sharma(supra) has ruled in paragraph 22.5 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:
NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 11 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
(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 ACRs of the officer can also be taken into account before passing an order of compulsory retirement.
NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 12 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025
(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.
(xviii)The principle of audi alteram partem has no application in the case of compulsory retirement. "
15. As apparent from the aforesaid standing order and from what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that premature retirement orders cannot be passed on any misconduct of the government servant nor the same can be awarded as a punishment inasmuch as the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and dispensing with the services of those, whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve the purity in the administration. However, on a perusal of the reasons for passing the orders impugned in the present OA, it is evident that the same have been passed by invoking relevant Rules i.e. FR 56(J) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, in view of the involvement of the applicant in the case FIR Nos. 439/2012 and 379/99, and two departmental punishments suffered by the applicant in the past but not taking into account the efficiency and initiative of the applicant in service or his integrity.
15.1. We further find that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) has further been referred and NEHA Digitally signed by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.12.16 15:28:23+05'30' 13 Court-2 OA No. 3147/2025 relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while allowing WP(C) No. 12792/2021 titled Rohtas Kumar Saroha@ RK Saroha vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation dated 17.09.2025.
16. In light of what has been discussed above, the OA is allowed with the following orders:
(i) impugned orders dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A-1) and 21.10.2024 (Annexure A-2) are set aside
(ii) the applicant shall be entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules, instructions and law on the subject
(iii) the aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/
NEHA Digitally signed by
NEHA SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.12.16
15:28:23+05'30'