Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
R K Bothra vs M/O Finance on 12 January, 2026
1 OA No.272/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No.272/2020
with
Misc. Application No.95/2023
Pronounced on : 12.01.2026
Reserved on : 13.11.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
R.K Bothra, S/o Late Shri Chintaman Dass Bothra, Aged about 54 years,
R/o- 4th floor, Prime Home, Plot No. 59, Near Shri Ram Excellency
Hotel, Residency Road, Sardarpur, Jodhpur-342003 (Office Address-
Worked as Income Tax Officer).
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S.P. Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur-
302007.
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar and Mr. Sunil Bhandari.
Digitally signed by RADHE
SHYAM SONGARA
RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247
SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47
2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=
Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=
B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15
5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048
SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE
SHYAM SONGARA
Reason: I am the author of this
document
ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0
2 OA No.272/2020
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J) Being aggrieved by order dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-A/2) retiring the applicant under clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, as also the order dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure-A/1) whereby appropriate authority while accepting the recommendation of the Representation Committee rejected the representation filed by the applicant against the order of compulsory retirement, the applicant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside the above orders with consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
2.1 The applicant was appointed as Inspector of Income Tax on 25.01.1989 and was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer on 22.10.2002. The Review Committee held the meeting to review the cases of compulsory retirement. The Review Committee was assisted by the Internal Committee. The Review Committee discussed the guidelines and considering various aspects of each of the officers, it was of the opinion that inter alia Rajendra Kumar Bothra is fit case for compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j). The Committee noted three charge sheets against the applicant issued on 04.08.2017, 05.09.2018 and 13.03.2019 respectively. In addition to it, the Committee also considered five additional facts as under:-
"a. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly issued notice u/s 148 without any basis in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y 2009-10 and 2010-11. b. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 271 for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd.Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA
RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 3 OA No.272/2020 c. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly wrongly levied penalty u/s 271 (1)(B) for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd. d. Shri R.K Bothra allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 142(1) in the case of Shree Lal Singh Rathore prop. of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12.
e. Shri R.K Bothra allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 271F, which has later modified to notice u/s 271 (1)(B) in the case of Shree Lal Singh Rathore prop. of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12 for failure to file return even though the assessee had already filed the return."
2.2 While considering the pending charges against the applicant and other circumstances, the Committee while taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [(2002) 3 SCC 641] and Shyam Lal vs. State of UP concluded that his conduct is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest and the services of applicant are no longer useful to general administration. His conduct is unbecoming to public interest and obstructs the efficiency in public services. Therefore, the Committee recommended that Shri R.K. Bothara be compulsorily retired in public interest under FR 56 (j). Notwithstanding the order of the compulsory retirement, the departmental inquiries otherwise will continue and as and when the charges proved in the departmental inquiries, the appropriate action may be taken by the disciplinary authority.
2.3 On the recommendations of the Review Committee, the impugned order No.B-1/2019 dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-A/2) was issued whereby Appointing Authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(j) Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, retired the applicant as Income Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 4 OA No.272/2020 Tax officer with effect from the forenoon of 26.11.2019 after he attained the age of 50 years. The applicant made representation dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-A/8) against the above order, which is being reproduced as under:-
"Sub: Representation against order F.R.56(j) dated 25.11.2019-reg.
Sir, Kindly refer to the subject mentioned above.
2. An order u\r 56(j) dated 25.11.2019 has been issued in my case, by the Pr CCIT, Rajasthan Jaipur. In the order no reasons have been given for passing the order nor has any reason been communicated otherwise. Therefore, the order passed without any reasons is null and void.
3. As per records my integrity is beyond doubt. My ACRs is alright and there is no allegation of ineffectiveness. In my case three charge sheets were issued on flimsy and baseless grounds, inquiry whereof has already been completed with the recommendations to drop the charges.
4. It is therefore requested kindly to review and cancel the order passed u/rule 56(J). Copy of the order is enclosed for ready reference."
The above representation was rejected by Appointing Authority (Appropriate Authority) vide order dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure-A/1). Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred this OA on the following grounds.
2.4 From 2009-2010 to 2019-2020, the ACRs/APARs grading of the applicant is very good and his integrity is beyond doubtful. There is no record of his ineffectiveness. No adverse remark has been communicated to him. The action of the respondents is influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations, arbitrariness and actuated by mala fides. There is no record of conducting any preliminary inquiry against the applicant in respect of details of the nature of doubt that Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 5 OA No.272/2020 arose regarding the integrity. The applicant has not afforded any opportunity to confront, if any. He has not been extended any opportunity to rectify defects, if any.
2.5 After more than 7 years of the incident of 2010-2011, the charge sheet issued in the year 2017 is nothing but a glaring example of arbitrariness. It is the case of the applicant that if any charge sheet is issued or any disciplinary case is pending, he cannot be retired prematurely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314 clearly passed the direction that "the order of Compulsory retirement shall not be passed as short cut to avoid departmental enquiry.". There is no record of ineffectiveness against the applicant. The respondents in the garb FR 56
(j), actually punished the applicant by passing a major punishment of compulsory retirement without complying with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The respondents without revealing reason issued the impugned order which is null and void. He has been retired only on account of a pending charge sheet. The Committee did not consider the complete service record including the very good ACRs. It appears that the respondents were prejudiced and pre-determined and with mala fide intentions to retire the applicant. The order of compulsory retirement was issued on the same day when the Review Committee held its meeting on 25.11.2019.
2.6 The representation filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 25.11.2019 has been decided after a period of more than six months without taking into consideration the substantial facts and circumstances mentioned in the representation. There is nothing on record to justify the order of premature retirement of the applicant. The Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 6 OA No.272/2020 impugned order of premature retirement is used as a short cut to disciplinary proceedings which virtually amounts to removal from service. The impugned order is stigmatic in nature. The charges under the charge sheet have nothing to do with misconduct, ineffectiveness. While working in the capacity of quasi judicial authority, his action taken in the interest of the department cannot be termed against public interest.
2.7 The applicant rendered unblemished service of more than 30 years with great zeal, enthusiasm, honesty, sincerity with utmost care and responsibility. The respondents did not follow the principles of natural justice. The applicant was not provided the copy of the documents relied upon by the respondents. Preceding 5 years of service record has not been taken into consideration. Issuing notice, surprise check, asking to show the record of properties and all works were done by the applicant in good faith. Mainly with the above ground, the applicant has assailed the order of his compulsory retirement.
3. As per the reply filed by the respondents, the Review Committee noted three charge sheets pending against the applicant. The Committee also further noted various complaints filed against the applicant. The Committee also considered the material on record, inter alia, the departmental charge sheets and also various complaints received against the applicant recommended his compulsory retirement. It is a well settled law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. Union of India, C.A. No.2365/2020 that the scope of judicial review is very limited in cases of compulsory retirement and is permissible on the limited grounds such as non-application of mind or mala fides. The respondents also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 7 OA No.272/2020 Supreme court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2020) 1 SCC 801, as also the observation of Principal Bench of CAT in the judgment of OA No.703/2020 decided on 09.12.2020. It is further averred that the Review Committee passed a reasoned order. The Review Committee took into consideration the entire service record of the officers which includes his ACRs/APARs, charge sheets and complaints against the applicant etc. and reached its conclusion to retire the applicant. Compulsory retirement does not in law constitute any penalty. The retired employee is entitled to all earned benefits. The applicant is qualified for full pension. The respondents have also referred to the judgment of Shyam Lal vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 1954 SC 369, as also the judgment in the matter of Union of India vs. M.E. Reddy & Anr, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 15 and Union of India vs. Colonel J.N. Sinha, reported in 1970 (2) SCC 548.
3.1 The Review Committee took note of the service jurisprudence. Public interest in relation to public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispensing with services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood, corrupt and dishonest as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCR 538. Premature retirement after the employee has put in sufficient number of years of service having qualified for pension is neither a punishment nor a stigma to attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. There is no requirement of giving opportunity to the applicant before taking action under FR 56(j). Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of premature retirement. The decision to retire the applicant Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 8 OA No.272/2020 prematurely under FR 56(j) was taken by the appropriate authority in public interest after considering the entire service record of the applicant. The order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.
4. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating his stand.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.P. Singh, that in the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-A/1) no reference of the Review Committee has been made. The order has been passed without any reason. The service career of the applicant is very good for the last 10 years. The ACRs/APARs of the applicant from the year 2009-2019 to 2018-2019 are very good and integrity is beyond doubt. At the time of retiring the applicant compulsorily, three charge sheets were pending against him. The respondents adopted a short cut method to retire the applicant on the grounds, which were subject matter of the charge sheets. Otherwise also, allegations in the charge sheets have no nexus with the misconduct. The applicant has been charge sheeted for issuing notices under the Income Tax Act. Issuing notice while functioning as a quasi judicial authority does not constitute misconduct. Some of the action taken by the applicant has been upheld by the Income Tax Tribunal also. The Review Committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the applicant arbitrarily without any basis. There is no basis to retire the Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 9 OA No.272/2020 applicant on the ground of doubtful integrity. Periodical review under FR 56 (j) has also not been conducted properly. 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the following judgments:
1. State of Gujrat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314.
2. Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Balasubrahmanayam, Civil Appeal No.3592/2020 decided on 04.03.2021.
3. State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Suryakant Chuni Lal Shah, 1999 1 SCC 529.
4. S.R. Venkatraman vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.2764/1977) decided on 03.12.1998.
5. U.A. Chandramouli vs. Union of India &Ors. (OA No.55/2017) decided by 08.11.2017 by the CAT Bangalore Bench.
6. Lal Singh Rathore vs. Income Tax Department, Jodhpur (Appeal No.83/2015-2016) decided on 28.02.2017 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur.
7 Rajkumar Bhatia, IRS vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.985/2016) decided on 10.04.2019 by the CAT Jabalapur bench.
8. Om Prakash Meena vs. Union of India & Ors (OA No.103/2020) decided on 16.02.2023 by the CAT Jaipur Bench.
9. Union of India & ors. vs. Om Prakash Meena (DB Civil Writ Petition No.12633/2023) decided on 22.08.2023 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.
10. Deepak M. Ganeyan vs. Union of India & Ors (OA No.514/2020) decided on 17.07.2023 by the CAT Bangaluru Bench.
11. D. Ashok vs. Union of India & ors (OA No.1288/2019) decided on 17.07.2023 by the CAT Bengalure Bench.
12. Gurjinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India (OA No.2440/2023) decided on 30.04.2024 by the Principal Bench of CAT.
13. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.6161/2022 decided on 03.03.2023.
14. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Sanjay Malhotra & Anr. (CP No.210/2024) decided on 05.08.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. Shobha Ram Raturi vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.11325/2011) decided on 09.12.2015.Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA
RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 10 OA No.272/2020
7. On the contrary, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Sr. CGSC, submits that the Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the matter of compulsory retirement shall take into consideration the entire service record including the complaints as also un-communicated complaints, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings etc. The respondents did not commit any error in taking into consideration the three charge sheets pending against the applicant at the time of compulsory retirement of the applicant under FR 56 (j). Apart from charge sheets, the Review Committee considered the various complaints against the applicant before recommending for compulsory retirement of the applicant. The Review Committee while recommending the applicant for retirement followed the well settled legal principles propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts in the country. It is not correct to say that the respondents adopted a short-cut method to avoid the disciplinary proceedings by proceeding under FR 56 (j). The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant were continued and during pendency of this OA, the same were completed. The applicant could assail the order of the disciplinary proceedings by filing an appeal. It is well settled that compulsory retirement is not a punishment under service jurisprudence. All service benefits are available to the applicant.
7.1 He further submits that judicial review of the order of compulsory retirement is restricted only to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness and passing the order with mala fide intention. In the present case, the applicant failed to establish any of the three points in favour of him. The process of compulsory retirement passes through various stages. The Review Committee assisted by the Internal Committee took into Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 11 OA No.272/2020 consideration the whole service record of the applicant. The report of the Review Committee was considered by the Appropriate Authority and passed the impugned order, against which the applicant was given opportunity to file representation. The representation filed by the applicant was considered and decided by the Appropriate Authority as per law. Nothing substantial was disclosed by the applicant to assail the decision. Principles of natural justice do not come into picture in the matter of compulsory retirement. It is not correct to say that the impugned order has been passed without any reasons. Elaborate reasons have been given by the Review Committee. It is not correct to say that the integrity of the applicant is beyond doubt. The applicant without any basis initiated various proceedings under the Income Tax Act against some persons/ business concerns. The fact of pendency of charge sheets is also part of service record, which cannot be ignored while considering the case of the applicant. In the matter of compulsory retirement provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are not applicable. Judicial review looks into the decision making and not the decision itself. The applicant failed to indicate any lapses in the decision making process. All procedures have been fulfilled before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. There is no question of mala fide also. The Review Committee and the other Committees consisted of various higher level authorities, against whom the applicant has not made any personal allegations. The Review Committee was also assisted by the Internal Committee. It is also not the case of legal malice since the applicant has not disclosed any act of not following the procedure provided in rules. Learned Sr. CGSC relied upon the following judgments:-Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA
RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 12 OA No.272/2020
1. Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 369.
2. Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha & Ors. (1970) 2 SCC 15.
3. Union of India & Ors. vs. M.E. Reddy and Ors. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424.
4. S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424.
5. Vinod Kumar vs. GNCTD & Ors, (OA No.3302/2019).
6. Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. AIR 2020 SC 1175.
7. Prabodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 630.
8. K. Kandaswamy vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 162.
9. Pyare Mohan lal vs. State of Jharkahnd & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3753. 10 Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. Union of India 7 ors. (CA No.2365/2020).
11. Ram Murti Yadav vs. Stage of Uttar Pradesh & ors. (2020) 1 SCC 801. 12 Baikunthnath Das & Ors. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & ors, (1992) 2 SCC 299.
13. Dalpat Abasheb Solunke & Ors, vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305.
14. Municipal Board, Bareilly vs. Bharat Oil Company & Ors, (1990) 1 SCC 311.
15 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. UOI & ors, WP (C) No.11177/2020.
16. Alok Kumar Mitra vs. UOI (OA No.332/450/2019)
17. Ajay Kumar Bassi vs. CBI (OA No.3107/2022).
18. B. Srinivasa Rao vs UOI (OA No.446/2020).
19. Ajoy Kumar Singh vs. UOI (OA No.3633/2019). 20 Umesh Kumar Goel vs. UOI (OA No.3163/2016).
21. Ravish K.N. Vs UOI (OA No.95/2024).
8. Similarly, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax, Mr. Sunil Bhandari, while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Union of India, submits that three disciplinary proceedings have not been stopped but have been subsequently conducted. He has also filed status of all three charge sheets initiated against the applicant. Copy of Minutes of the Review Committee has also been filed by the learned counsel for the Income Tax. It is Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 13 OA No.272/2020 contended by him that principles of natural justice are not applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j). The order dated 28.02.2017 in appeal No.83/2015-2015 is not related to the act, for which a charge sheet has been issued. It is related to the assessment year 2012-2013 whereas the charge sheet relates to different assessment years. The applicant has failed to indicate any violation of the provisions of FR 56 (j). The applicant has also not established the mala fide on the part of the respondents. The applicant has also failed to indicate any deficiency in the decision making process. It is not correct to say that in the impugned order no reasons have been given whereas, detailed reasons have been given in the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the applicant while deciding his representation. Learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax has relied upon the following judgment:-
1. Kumar Indu Bhushan vs. Union of India & Ors, (DB Civil Writ Petition No.14949 of 2020, decided on 27.04.2022 by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.
9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to refer to judicial law on the subject. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.D. Srivastava vs. State of MP & Ors, (1984) 2 SCC 8, in para 7 of the judgment observed as under:-
"But being reports relating to a remote period, they are not quite relevant for the purpose of determining whether he should be retired compulsorily or not in the year 1981, as it would be an act bordering on perversity to dig out old files to find out some material to make an order against an officer."
The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:
Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARARADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 14 OA No.272/2020
(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 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 Shyam Lal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal and, therefore, does not attract the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution or of rule 55 and that, therefore, the order of the President cannot be challenged on the ground that the appellant had not been afforded full opportunity of 'showing cause against the action sought to be taken in regard to him'. Both the questions under consideration must also be answered against the appellant."
In the matter of Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 15 OA No.272/2020 machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. It is true that a compulsory retirement is bound to have some adverse effect on the government servant who is compulsorily retired but then as the rule provides that such retirements can be made only after the officer attains the prescribed age. Further a compulsorily retired government servant does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement. Three months' notice is provided so as to enable him to find other suitable employment."
In the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs. M.E. Reddy & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.8 observed as under:-
"An analysis of this Rule clearly shows that the following essential ingredients or the Rule must be satisfied before an order compulsorily retiring a Government servant is passed:
1. That the member of the Service must have completed 30 years of qualifying service or the age of SO years (as modified by notification dated 16-7- 1969),
2. That the Government has an absolute right to retire the Government servant concerned because the word require" clearly confers an unqualified right on the Central Government;
3. That the order must be passed in public interest;
4. That three months' previous notice in writing shall be given to the Government servant concerned before the order is passed.
It may be noted here that the provision gives an absolute right to the Government and not merely a discretion, and, therefore, impliedly it excludes the rules of natural justice."
In the matter of S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.9 has observed as under:-
"9..... On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 16 OA No.272/2020 needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised Or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service."
In the matter of Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "the courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high-powered committee(s) of the High Court.".
In the matter of K. Kandaswamy vs. Union of India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that opinion of the Government that whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material on record; otherwise, it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.
In the matter of Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Singh Verma (D) vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1, which reads as under:-
"If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions."Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA
RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 17 OA No.272/2020 In the matter of Baikuntha Nath & Ors. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.32 observed as under as under:-
"32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(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."
9.1 Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various judgments, when we analyse the facts of the present case, we find that the applicant has failed to indicate that power exercised by the respondents in retiring him compulsorily is the result of mala fide or any extraneous consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to the effect that there is no complaint against the applicant is not correct. In the Minutes of the Review Committee, we find that the applicant has wrongly issued notice under Sections 148 and 271 F of the Income Tax, 1961 to some persons. Apart from this, at the time of taking decision to retire the applicant compulsorily, three charge sheets were pending against the applicant.
Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARARADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 18 OA No.272/2020 We do not agree to the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant that the fact of the pendency of the charge sheet could not be taken into consideration while considering the matter of retiring the applicant compulsorily under FR 56(j). We are of the opinion that the facts of pendency of charge sheets is also part of service record and the same cannot be excluded while forming the opinion under FR 56(j).
9.2 It is also not correct to say that respondents adopted a short-cut method by retiring the applicant compulsorily. During arguments, it has been disclosed that the charge sheets continued even after retiring the applicant wherein the applicant has been found guilty of the charges, against which the applicant is also seeking remedy of an appeal.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the order has been passed to avoid departmental inquiry. The decision of the Review Committee as also Appropriate Authority in recommending to retire the applicant compulsorily and the decision by the Appropriate Authority or Review Committee are subjective satisfaction of the respondents, which cannot be interfered with unless and until this tribunal is of the opinion that the order passed is mala fide or that is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary. In the absence of any arbitrariness, mala fide or passed on the basis of no evidence, we find no basis to interfere with the decision of the respondent authorities in retiring the applicant compulsorily.
9.3 So far as the question of lapses in the procedure adopted by the respondents in retiring the applicant compulsorily, we find no such lapses in the present matter. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant that no preliminary investigation was conducted is not tenable. The Review Committee was assisted by the Internal Committee, Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 19 OA No.272/2020 therefore, it cannot be considered that the case of compulsory retirement was recommended without preliminary investigation. So far as to the contention of learned counsel for the applicant in not providing any opportunity of hearing to the applicant is concerned, as observed earlier, there is no provision in the rules to hear the party before retiring him compulsorily under FR 56(j). After passing the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j), the person is given an opportunity to file a representation. In the present case also, the applicant has been given opportunity to file representation, which he availed by filing representation dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-A/8). In his representation, the applicant alleged that no reasons have been given for passing the order nor has any reason been communicated otherwise. The above submission raised by the applicant is not correct. The applicant has been retired in the public interest under FR 56 (j) based on the recommendations of the report of the Review Committee.
9.4 It is true that for the last 10 years remarks in his ACRs/APARs is very good, but having very goods ACRs/APARs does not mean that other adverse material gathered against him cannot be considered. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all service records while forming the opinion to decide a person retire compulsorily has to be seen. In his representation, the applicant also alleged that the charge sheets have been issued on flimsy and baseless grounds. In our opinion, at that relevant point of time without completing the inquiry the applicant was not correct to say that the charges were baseless. Thus, the applicant has failed to make out a case to assail the order of his compulsory retirement. At this juncture, as held by the Hon'ble Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0 20 OA No.272/2020 Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha & Ors. (supra), when minimum service is guaranteed to the government service, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsory retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. In the instant case, the applicant has served for sufficient time at the respondent department for about 30 years. The order passed against the applicant is not punitive in nature, the applicant will avail all his retiral benefits available to him. The respondents taking into consideration the whole service record of the applicant decided to invoke power under FR 56 (j). In the absence of any mala fide, arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, we see no ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents. It is the subjective satisfaction of the respondents against the decision of which this tribunal cannot sit over the Appellate Authority.
9.5 Keeping in mind the law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter, as discussed above, we find no merit in the case of the applicant and the OA is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. AMIT SAHAI) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rss Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARA RADHE DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c89247 SHYAM 6a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a47 2f369be, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA15 5836FA54CA986DB2EE7567048 SONG 8A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARA Reason: I am the author of this document ARA Location:
Date: 2026.01.13 13:35:42+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version:
2025.1.0