Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Shrikant C Rahatgaonkar vs M/O Environment And Forests on 12 December, 2025
1 OA 200/1017/2019
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/1017/2019
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shrikant C. Rahatgaonkar, S/o. Shri Chandrasekhar Rahatgaonkar,
Aged about 56 Years, Occupation:-Retd. Senior Manager (Marketing),
Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Raipur; R/o
TH- 1, Forest Colony, Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) -492001.
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Manoj Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by
Ms. Anuja Sharma)
Versus
1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran
Bhawan, Prithvi Wing, 6th Floor, Jorbagh Road, Aliganj, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through its Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh) -492001.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)-492001.
Page 1 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16
KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30'
2 OA 200/1017/2019
4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, (Head of the Forest
Force), Aranya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 492001
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri S P Singh, Shri Anmol Dubey,
proxy counsel for Shri Ajay Ojha)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashment of the orders dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure A/1) and dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A/2) and further seeking direction to the respondents to reinstate him to his original position without any break with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant is a Member of Indian Forest Service, 1987 Batch of Chhattisgarh Cadre of IFS. Till 13.09.2019 he was working as Senior Manager (Marketing) in the Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Raipur (Chhattisgarh). A Review Committee was constituted under Rule 16(3) of the All India Service Rules, 1958 wherein the applicant has been compulsorily retired from service Page 2 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 3 OA 200/1017/2019 based upon the State Level Review Committee report headed by Respondent no. 2 with active inputs from Respondent no. 3 i.e. State of Chhattisgarh and Respondent no. 4 i.e. Head of Forest Affairs in the State of Chhattisgarh. The applicant has a meticulous record and most of his ACRs were either outstanding or Very Good. After the re-organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh in 2000, applicant opted for Chhattisgarh Cadre of IFS and on 27.12.2000, he was allotted the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year, 2003 a charge-sheet was issued to the Applicant, in which the respondent authorities took 12 years for completing the departmental enquiry and imposing the punishment. Vide order dated 31.03.2015, a punishment of reduction by one stage of increment for three years with non-cumulative effect was imposed upon Applicant. The applicant approached this Tribunal. He could not get relief from the Appellate Authority and he filed O.A. No. 159/2018 (Annexure A-
13). Another charge-sheet dated 20.08.2007 was issued to Applicant wherein the department again took 10 years for completing the departmental enquiry. Punishment order dated 11.10.2017 was imposed upon the applicant. However, on appeal Page 3 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 4 OA 200/1017/2019 before the appellate authority, the appellate authority vide order dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure A/14) set-aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter on 01.12.2018, State Government recalled the order of punishment. A copy of order dated 01.12.2018 is annexed as Annexure (A-15). In one another case, the Lokayukt Organization recommended registration of a Criminal Case against Applicant and recommended for initiating the departmental enquiry under Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules. A charge sheet was issued to applicant in the year 2011. The Applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh by way of W.A. No. 1192/2012 wherein the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10.01.2013 granted the interim protection to Applicant. Later on the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court became absolute. A copy of the order dated 20.02.2014 passed in W.A. No. 1192/2012 is filed as Annexure A-16.
DoPT has issued multiple instructions regarding the factors to be considered while passing an order under Rule 16 (3) of the Rules of 1958. The applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Page 4 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 5 OA 200/1017/2019 Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs Umed Bhai Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314 in his defense. A copy of the guidelines issued by the DoP&T dated 28.06.2012 is marked as Annexure A-18. The guidelines dated 28.06.2012 makes it absolutely clear that the powers under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958 are to be exercised only when the services of a Public Servant are no more useful for the General Administration and it has become necessary to chop off deadwood. For this purpose the entire service record of the Officer has to be looked into. However, the powers under Rule 16(3) cannot be misused and used as a tool to avoid departmental action wherein such a course is more desirable. The Review Committee without considering all these factors and the service record of the applicant, decided to impose the punishment under Rule 56(j) on the applicant considering him as a deadwood which is contrary to the guidelines on the subject. The Applicant was shocked to receive a copy of the impugned orders dated 19.07.2019 and 13.09.2019 under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1985. The applicant was retired in public interest with immediate effect as he had completed 30 years of service in IFS. The applicant vide his letters dated 03.10.2019 & Page 5 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 6 OA 200/1017/2019 15.10.2019 (Annexure A/19) requested for copies of recommendation and report sent by the State Govt. to Central Government wherein it was decided to retire him under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958. However, the State Govt. declined to provide a copy of the said recommendations/report on the plea that the case of other officers was under consideration (Annexure A/20). DoPT has communicated that they did not receive the requisite report from State Govt. of Chhattisgarh. A copy of the reply of DoPT dated 25.10.2019 is annexed as Annexure A/21. Therefore, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
"that the order dated 19.07.2019 and 30.09.2019 (Annexure A/1 & A/2) may be set aside and to reinstate the applicant to his original position in the cadre without and break with all consequential benefits. The applicant has also requested the Tribunal to call for the entire material on record pertaining to the instant controversy"
Subsequently, the applicant has given detailed written submissions in his defense. He has relied upon various case laws which inter-alia include the following:
Page 6 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 7 OA 200/1017/2019
(i) State of Gujrat Vs Umed Bhai Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314
(ii) State of Gujrat Vs Suryakant Chunnilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529
(iii) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India and another (2023) 11 SCC 466
(iv) Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and another vs Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others (2009) 15 SCC 221 In the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 11 has held as follows:
11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:
(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 Page 7 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 8 OA 200/1017/2019 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 weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated 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.
In the case of State of Gujrat Vs Suryakant Chunnilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that an employee with doubtful integrity cannot be considered efficient. No tangible material has been found against the respondent except that he was involved in two criminal cases. The review committee exceeded its jurisdiction in doubting the respondents' integrity on the Page 8 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 9 OA 200/1017/2019 basis of the pending criminal case when there was no indication of doubtful integrity in the confidential reports.
In the case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India and another (2023) 11 SCC 466 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the order of compulsory retirement was punitive in nature and was passed to short cut the disciplinary proceedings pending against him and ensure his immediate removal. Hence the impugned order does not pass the underlying test of serving public interest.
3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted that DOP&T vide their letter no. 25013/02/2005-AIS II dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure R/1) has issued Guidelines for intensive review of records for All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. It has been submitted that Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 amended on 31.01.2012 reads as follows:
"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 Page 9 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 10 OA 200/1017/2019 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
(ii) after the review when such Member completes 25 years of qualifying Service or attains the age of 50 years, as the case may be; or
(iii) if the review referred to in (i) or (ii) above has not been conducted, after the review at any other time as the Central Government deems fit in respect of such Member.
Explanation: - For the purposes of sub-rule (3), "review" means the review of the entire service record of the Member of the Service regarding suitability or otherwise of such Member for further retention in the Service, to be conducted regularly of each Member of such Service, firstly, after his completion of 15 years of qualifying Service, and secondly, after his completion of 25 years of qualifying Service or on his attaining the age of 50 years, as the case may be, or if the review referred to in clauses (i) or (ii) of this sub-rule has not been conducted in respect of such Member, such review may be conducted at any other time as the Central Government deems fit."
Page 10 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 11 OA 200/1017/2019 The Ministry vide letter no. 38017/01/2015-IFS-I dated 03.09.2015 requested the State Government to conduct a review of the entire service records of the officers who have completed 15/25 years of service or have attained the age of 50 years. It was further directed that the review along with the comments of the State Government may be forwarded to the Ministry (Respondent No.1) for further necessary action (Annexure R/2). The State Government of Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) vide letter No. F 1- 03/2014/10/IFS dated 05.05.2017 informed that the review meeting was held on 29.04.2017 under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary to review the service records of IFS officers for retirement in public interest as per rule 16 (3) of All India Services Rules, 1958. A copy of letter of Government of Chhattisgarh No. F 1- 03/2014/10/IFS dated 05.05.2017 is annexed herewith at Annexure-R-4. The State Government of Chhattisgarh in aforesaid letter informed that the Committee examined the records of the applicant and "recommended that his continuation in the service is not in the interest of administration and he be retired in public interest" Page 11 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 12 OA 200/1017/2019 After the receipt of the above recommendation from the State Government this Ministry considered the matter and requested some more documents from the Government of Chhattisgarh to examine the issue in detail vide letter. no 38017/01/2016-IFS-I (AGMUT) dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure R/5). The State Government of Chhattisgarh vide their letter no 01-03/2014/10-IFS dated 23/12/2017 provided additional information with documents to the Ministry (Annexure R/6). After the receipt of the recommendation from the State Government the Ministry considered the matter and referred the case of the applicant to Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for taking necessary action under Rule 16(3) vide letter no 38017/01/2016- IES-I dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure R/7). The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoP&T vide their letter no 9/14/2018-EO (SM. I) (1) dated 26.12.2018 (Annexure R/8) requested to send a revised proposal with views of the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change. In response to the aforesaid letter of DoP&T, Respondent no. 1 vide letter no. 38017/01/2016-IFS-II (Vol-I) dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure R/9) sent a revised proposal for premature Page 12 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 13 OA 200/1017/2019 retirement of the applicant to DOP&T for approval. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoPT vide their letter no 9/14/2018-EO (SM. I) (1) dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure R/10) requested for latest PAR status of the applicant. In response to the aforesaid letter of DoP&T, Respondent no. 1 vide letter no.
38017/01/2016-IFS-II (Vol-I) dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure R/11) furnished the latest APAR status of the applicant to DoP&T. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoPT vide their letter no 9/14/2018-EO (SM. I) (1) dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure R/12) informed that Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), has approved the proposal for premature retirement from Service of Shri S. C. Rahatgoankar, IFOS (CHH: 1987) in public interest under Rule 16(3) of AIS (DCRB) Rules 1958. After the approval of ACC, Ministry issued premature retirement order no. 38017/01/2016-IFS-1 (Vol-I) dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure A/1) to the applicant under rule 16(3) of All India Service (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. In furtherance of order issued by Respondent no. 1 the State Government of Chhattisgarh issued the order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A/2) regarding premature Page 13 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 14 OA 200/1017/2019 retirement of the applicant. Hence, the Respondent no. 1 has submitted that order no 38017/01/2016-IFS-I (Vol-I) dated 19.07.2019 regarding retirement of the applicant under rule 16(3) of All India Service (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 was issued by this Ministry in consultation with State Government and after approval of ACC under rule 16(3) of All India Service (Death- cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958.
The respondents have annexed a copy of the DoP&T guidelines dated 28.06.2012 on the subject. There are various parameters which have to be considered by Review Committee before taking a decision for premature retirement of an officer under Rule 16(3) of AIS (DCRB) Rules. The main objective is to weed out the officers of doubtful integrity. A total assessment of the performance of the members can be made which inter-alia includes ACR/APARs of the officers along with remarks relating to integrity.
The respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat vs Umedbhai Page 14 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 15 OA 200/1017/2019 M Patel (2001) 3 SCC 320 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the term 'Compulsory Retirement' has to be construed as premature retirement in public interest. The judgment states that the order of compulsory retirement should not be passed for extraneous reasons and the inquiry should be completed within a time bound manner and action based on allegations which have not been proved should be avoided. The principles have to be kept in mind in cases where the retirement is in public interest and the disciplinary proceedings are going on. Further, various factors have to be kept in mind while evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of an officer. Judicial pronouncements on the subject make it clear that the premature retirement is not a punishment that it does not involve a stain or stigma and it is only in public interest. It is with a view of assessing whether the expectations of the government are being fulfilled that a procedure for reviewing the performance of the government servant has been put in place who has rendered 15 years of qualifying service and thereafter has completed 25 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years. It is not sufficient if a government servant having reached Page 15 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 16 OA 200/1017/2019 the present level performs in a mediocre way. Although the entire service record of an officer has to be considered, greater emphasis has to be placed on his performance during the last five years prior to the review.
4. The applicant has filed two rejoinders to the reply filed by all the respondents wherein the applicant has reiterated his earlier stand and the facts narrated in the Original Application.
5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the written submissions, pleadings and documents annexed with the record. The case laws relied on by the counsel for both the parties during the course of arguments have been taken into consideration. Each and every case law relied upon by the counsels is not being discussed for the sake of brevity.
6. We take note of the fact that vide order sheet dated 10.02.2023, the respondents were directed to produce the record of departmental proceedings of the applicant in a sealed cover at the time of hearing. The original record was produced before this Tribunal. We have perused the records of the Review Committee. Page 16 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 17 OA 200/1017/2019 The Committee decided to examine the records of the officer in detail which inter alia included the following:
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.
In respect of the applicant specifically, the committee took note of the disciplinary proceedings/penalties imposed on the applicant. The Review Committee observed that "grave doubts were cast on the integrity of the officer and therefore committee recommended that his continuation in the service is not in the interest of administration and he be retired in public interest."
7. We observe that the entire service record has been taken into consideration before coming to a decision by Review Committee.
8. In a recent case, Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./2799/2019 decided on 16.01.2023 has relied on the various landmark judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Page 17 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30'
18 OA 200/1017/2019 Court on FR 56(j). The relevant paragraphs of the order (supra) are reproduced as under:
"21. We have looked into the fundamental principle governing FR 56(j) and the applicability of subjective satisfaction. It is worthwhile quoting some of the landmark judgments which have dealt with the aspects of principles of natural justice, subjective satisfaction and other aspects of applicability of FR 56(j).
(a) In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, the principles were summed up as under:
"(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order.Page 18 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 19 OA 200/1017/2019
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record 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."
(b) In Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha, 1970 (2) SCC 458, their Lordships held as under:
"9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire 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 Page 19 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30'
20 OA 200/1017/2019 not been formed 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 compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned rule 56(j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. - 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with, the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. ............................................It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the Page 20 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 21 OA 200/1017/2019 public. 'While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest."
(c) In Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India and Anr., the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court held as under:
"28. We are not in agreement with this contention canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the reason that compulsory retirement is absolutely an independent decision arrived at by the Review Committee keeping in mind the entire service record of the Petitioner and usefulness of the Petitioner into the services of the Respondents. In the 34 years span of his career, for 20 years, Petitioner has been busy in litigation with the Respondents. The conduct of the Petitioner has shaken the confidence of the Respondents to post him on public posts which involves public dealing.
xxx xxx xxx
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 observations made by the Page 21 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30'
22 OA 200/1017/2019 competent Courts in the litigation by the Petitioner against the Respondents.
32. Even if there are decisions in the matter of suspension, departmental inquiries and any challenge of grant of sanction for prosecution in favour of the Petitioner, that does not mean that the Petitioner cannot be compulsorily retired by the Respondents. The observations made in the orders while deciding the matter initiated by the Petitioner is one thing whereas, the order of compulsory retirement which is passed on the basis of entire service record of the Petitioner and the decision taken by Review Committee, is altogether another thing. If any employee of the Union of India has succeeded in litigation(s) that does not mean that looking to the overall service record of the Petitioner, after certain age as per rules, he cannot be retired by the Union of India. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is a subjective satisfaction which has been formed on the basis of the entire service record. It is not a punishment. Compulsory retirement may have some adverse effect upon the employee but if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public his services should be brought to an end by compulsory retirement after prescribed age on the basis of the entire record of service, such an employee has no right to continue into the services after a prescribed age, as per rules.
xxx xxx xxx Page 22 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 23 OA 200/1017/2019
35. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh (1998) 4 SCC 92 in paragraph - 11 as under:-
11. The facts in the present case are quite similar to that in Union of India v. V.P. Seth [1994 SCC (L&S) 1052 : (1994) 27 ATC 851 :
AIR 1994 SC 1261] . Here also the only ground on which the order prematurely retiring Gurdas Singh was set aside was that two adverse entries after his promotion from the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector to Sub-Inspector were not communicated to him 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) Page 23 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 24 OA 200/1017/2019
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 contended for the respondent that adverse entries for the two years referred to earlier and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant on the premises that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed. It is true that the government servant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to avail of the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and character roll. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, nevertheless it remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. The material question is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the government servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be Page 24 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 25 OA 200/1017/2019 ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits.
(emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx
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 is acquittal from the charges levelled against the employee for one or the other reasons, an overall decision can always be taken by the Review Committee looking to the entire Page 25 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 26 OA 200/1017/2019 service record and the performance of the Central Government employee for taking a decision of compulsory retirement. There is no ban or bar for the respondents that no compulsory retirement order can be passed whenever there is quashing of the charges in any litigation between an employee and the Central Government. What is to be seen is overall assessment of the performance of an employee and his usefulness into the services and not one or two matters and decisions in those matters. This opinion is a subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee. In the present case, there is no procedural error committed by the Review Committee while taking the decision under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. Even if there are observations about malice in law while deciding few matters between the Petitioner and Union of India, that does not mean that there is presence of malice when Review Committee has taken a decision under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules retiring compulsorily this Petitioner dated 10.06.2019. There is no personal malice alleged by the Petitioner upon the members of the Review Committee.
46. There is no arbitrariness on the part of the Review Committee while taking the decision of the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner, the decision is based upon the entire service record, performance of the Petitioner and the usefulness of the Petitioner into the service of the Union of India and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the Petitioner, subjective satisfaction has been arrived by the Review Committee. We are not sitting in appeal against the subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee. Page 26 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 27 OA 200/1017/2019
47. There is no perversity in the order of the Review Committee. Review Committee has seen the entire record of service of the Petitioner including the decision rendered in various litigations initiated by the Petitioner and Review Committee is of the opinion that the continuation of the services of the Petitioner is no longer required and he should be made compulsorily retired. xxx xxx xxxx xxx
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 question is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the government servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision.
We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. Page 27 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 28 OA 200/1017/2019 But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits. (emphasis supplied) From the above, it is evident that there is no grey area as far as application of FR 56(j) is concerned. In a catena of judgments, it has been held that retiring a Government servant under FR 56(j) is not a punishment and such an exercise can be undertaken at the subjective satisfaction of the employer. In the instant case, the applicant‟s entire service record has been perused by the Review Committee and thereafter by the Representation Committee. Having considered the entire service record, the Competent Authority decided to retire the applicant under FR 56(j).
9. Hence, the Principle Bench of this Tribunal in the O.A. (supra) has held that the impugned orders passed by the competent authority do not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. The object of such action is always in public interest. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court also that it is not for the Courts or Tribunals to see whether the decision of the Government to retire a government servant is justified or not Page 28 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 29 OA 200/1017/2019 but to ascertain that the government has considered the entire record of the service of the employee for taking a decision to retire under FR 56(j). Therefore, the said O.A. was dismissed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal being devoid of merits.
10. In the case of the applicant, we observe that the scrutiny committee decided to retire the applicant under FR 56(j) after scrutinizing his entire service record and the disciplinary action initiated against him along with the punishment imposed during the course of his service.
11. In light of the above discussions and the case laws on the subject and also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, we are of the considered view that retiring a government servant under FR 56(j) is not a punishment and an exercise can be taken up at the subjective satisfaction of the employer in terms of the guidelines of the DoP&T (supra).
12. Therefore the orders dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure A/1) and dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure A/2) do not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. Accordingly, in view of the observations Page 29 of 30 VISHAL 2025.12.16 KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30' 30 OA 200/1017/2019 made in the preceding paragraphs and the case laws on the subject, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant.
12. Therefore, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 30 of 30
VISHAL 2025.12.16
KUSHWAH 15:30:39+05'30'