Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Address For Service Of Notices Is vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A.No.4129/2010 New Delhi, this the 6th day of September, 2011 Honble Mr. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Shri Bhagwan Singh s/o Shri Indraj Singh retired as M.V. Driver Grade-I in the Mail Motor Service New Delhi r/o House No.113 in Village & P.O. Balour Distt. Jhajjar Address for service of notices is C/o Shri Sant Lal Advocate CAT Bar Room New Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sant Lal) Versus Union of India Through the Secretary M/o Communication & I.T. Department of Posts Dak Bhawan New Delhi 110 001. The Director of Postal Services (MB) O/o the Chief Postmaster General Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi 110 001. The Sr. Manager Mail Motor Service Naraina New Delhi 110 028. .. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Amit Anand) O R D E R By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant, who retired as a Driver, Grade-I in the Mail Motor Service, New Delhi, has challenged the following orders of the respondents:
Order dated 6.11.2009, issued by the Director Postal Services (MB), Delhi Circle, New Delhi, regarding compulsorily retirement under FR 56(j) on attaining the age of 55 years.
Order dated 08.02.2010 issued by the A.D (Staff & Legal) of the O/o CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi.
Minutes of Representation Committee Meeting held on 09.02.2010 with subsequent meetings and orders.
Letter/Order dated 18.02.2010 issued by the Asstt. Director General (SPN) Postal Directorate regarding approval of the recommendations of the Representation Committee by the Secretary (Posts).
2. The brief facts of the case, as gathered from the pleadings, are that the cases of Grade `C and `D officials of Delhi Circle (including Mail Motor Service, New Delhi, including that of the applicant) who would be completing 55 years of age/30 years of service during the Quarter 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 were reviewed, for their retention in service under the provisions of FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, by the Circle Review Committee of the respondents on 30.09.2009. The applicant was not recommended for further retention in service. Accordingly, Director Postal Services (MB) issued the order dated 06.11.2009. Against this order, the applicant submitted a representation dated 1.12.2009 to the Representation Committee (SPB-II), Postal Directorate, New Delhi, which also upheld the recommendations of the Review Committee for premature retirement of the applicant. Thereafter, as no response had been received from the respondents to his representation, the applicant filed OA No.384/2010 which was disposed of on 2.03.2010, with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the said representation within a period of four weeks, giving him liberty to revive the OA on availability of the order. In compliance thereof, the respondents passed order dated 06.11.2009, which was challenged before this Tribunal by reviving OA No.384/2010. The OA was disposed of on 07.09.2010 with liberty to the applicant to challenge the order passed, rejecting his representation against pre-mature retirement, in original proceedings. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking the following relief:
to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 6.11.09, 08.02.2010, 09.02.2010 and 18.02.2010 (Annexure A-1 to A-4 respectively).
to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith and to grant all consequential benefits including backwages as if the impugned orders had not been issued.
3. The main grounds on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed are that the impugned notice and orders are arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. In this connection, it is submitted that the impugned notice and order dated 6.11.2009 had been issued by an authority who is not the competent authority to issue such notice, the competent authority being the Senior Manager, and, therefore, the impugned notice and order dated 6.11.2009 is void ab-initio. It is also submitted that the Sr. Manager had recommended retention of the applicant, along with nine others, vide his letter dated 18.07.2009 on the basis of service record and promotions granted but this has been over looked by both the Review Committee/Representation Committee.
that the Review Committee for reviewing the case of the applicant comprised of (1) Chief Postmaster General (Chairman), (2) Postmaster General (O) and (3) Director Postal Services (O) as Members, who are all senior to the competent authority and, therefore, its recommendation is not a recommendation but an order of the higher authorities, leaving no scope for any discretion to be exercised, and thus the recommendations/order needs to be set aside. In this connection, reliance is placed on the orders of this Tribunal in R.S.Kakkar v. Union of India & Others, [1991(1) ATJ 631 CAT ND] and Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1987 (4) SLJ-1002 CAT ND] Annexure A12.
that the applicant had been promoted several times/given ACP benefits and it is a well settled principle of law that in case of any promotion, crossing of Efficiency Bar or confirmation the adverse entries anterior to such promotion or crossing of EB or Confirmation etc. stand obliterated and, therefore, any alleged acts of misconduct, etc. prior to this should not have been taken into account while considering his case of premature retirement, but have been taken into account and the impugned orders need to be set aside on this ground also.
that the applicant had been victimized because of his Trade Union activities, being Secretary/President for a number of years, and that most of cases of misconduct etc. referred to by the Review Committees were a result of such victimization. Further, there is no case of any major penalty throughout his long service of more than 35 years and no alleged act of moral turpitude or lack of integrity involved and thus his premature retirement is bad in law.
that the representation Committee has not applied its judicial mind to the various grounds given by the applicant in his Statutory Representation dated 1.12.2009 and has rejected the representation arbitrarily, by just endorsing the opinion expressed by the Circle Review Committee.
that the Secretary (Posts) has also not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances and grounds adduced by the applicant in this case, and has merely put his initials on the office note instead of passing speaking orders on his representation. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on this ground also.
that the Review Committee and the Representation Committee have referred to the cases of `dies-non and observed that the applicant continues not to take his duties seriously and, therefore, had to be treated as dies-non for the concerned periods. Though he had been punished with `no work no pay for the periods of absence, yet dies-non does not constitute a punishment under Rules 11, 14 and 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and should not have been taken into account while reviewing his case.
4. The respondents in their reply have opposed the OA and have stated that the Circle Review Committee met on 30.09.2009 to consider the cases covered under FR-56(J) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of all the Units of Delhi Circle including Mail Motor Service, New Delhi. The case of the applicant was reviewed under FR 56 (J) on the basis of his entire service record which revealed that he had been chargesheeted 14 times and suspended twice in his career on account of various acts/misconducts which included, inter-alia, negligence in performing of duties, misbehaviour with fellow workers insubordination to seniors, intoxication while on duty, participation in illegal strikes and careless driving causing damage to Government vehicles. Apart from this, a period of 108 days had also been ordered to be treated as `dies-non as he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. On a review of these facts, the Review Committee recommended that the official should not be retained in service as per the provisions of FR 56 (J). Accordingly, Director Postal Services (MB) being the appointing authority issued notice of premature retirement vide order dated 06.11.2009. The applicant submitted representation dated 1.12.2009 against the order dated 6.11.2009 to the Representation Committee (SPB-II), Postal Directorate, New Delhi 110 001. The Representation Committee also upheld the recommendations of the Review Committee for premature retirement of the applicant and rejected the representation of the applicant and accordingly, the notice of premature retirement was delivered to him on 09.11.2009 and the applicant was retired on 09.02.2010 (FN). It is also stated that the Review Committee is not bound to act upon the advice of the Unit Head, and has to assess the entire service record independently and make recommendations accordingly. It is further stated that the case of the applicant was reviewed, after careful consideration of his entire service record and, on the basis of such review, was recommended for premature retirement and that there are no procedural lapses in considering the case of the applicant for retirement under FR 56 (J).
In his rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated the grounds taken in his OA.
5. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and have been through the pleadings on record.
6. It would be useful to refer at the outset to the legal position with regard to FR 56 (j), as enunciated in various judgments of the Honble Apex Court.
FR 56(j) is extracted below:
(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group `A or Group `B service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years. Thus, under FR 56(j) above, the competent authority is empowered to pass an order of retirement after an employee attains/completes the prescribed number of years of service/attaining a particular age, on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire the Government servant. No Government servant has a right, much less any fundamental right, to continue in service beyond the age at which he can be retired under FR 56(j), if the employer does not consider his retention in service to be in public interest.
In Baikuntha v. C.D.M.O., (1992) 2 SCC 299 it was held as under:
(i) compulsory retirement in the public interest carries no stigma under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 and the officer retains full pensionary benefits.
(ii) Loss of efficiency at the age prescribed is a ground of public interest. It is not a punishment. Hence article 311(2) is not attracted.
(iii) Even if adverse entries are not communicated, the order is valid if there are no mala fides.
Further, it has been held that compulsory retirement under Article 465A, Note 1 of the Civil Service Regulations would not attract Article 311(2) even if, in fact, the order is passed on grounds of misconduct, inefficiency or the like. The Government servant does not, in such a case, lose terminal benefits, and no penal consequences are involved. Such an order does not amount to dismissal or removal.
The Honble Apex Court has also held in Post and Telegraph Board v. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317, Paragraph 5, that even an adverse report for a single year may constitute sufficient material for the Government to come to a decision that the employees standard of work was not satisfactory, and that he should, therefore, be retired. The reason is that the nature of the delinquency, and whether it is of such a nature as to require compulsory retirement, is for the departmental authorities to decide. The court will not interfere with the exercise of that power except on the ground of mala fide, etc. In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv, AIR 1992 SC 1587 (Paragraphs 8 and 9), a 3 Judges Bench held that where an order of compulsory retirement has become final by an appellate order but the petitioner prays for reconsideration of that order, what is to be determined by the authority (or Tribunal) on such prayer, is not whether the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated on merits (as is done while hearing an appeal), but whether the conditions for reconsideration, according to the relevant Rules or circulars, were fulfilled.
7. The position that emerges from the above is the following:
I. Under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) 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, the most important one being 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.
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. 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.
II. The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision to retire a person under FR 56 (j).
The decision taken, i.e., the opinion formed to retire the person must be based on the material on record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.
III. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. 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 out other suitable employment.
(IV) 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 Tribunal/Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed mala fide or is totally arbitrary or perverse.
8. We proceed to examine the case of the applicant in this OA in the aforementioned background. The orders passed in the case of the applicant, dated 6.11.2009, 8.2.2010, 9.2.2010, 10.02.2010 (note to the Secretary Postal Page 21)and 18.02.2010, including the recommendations of the Review Committee dated 30.09.2009, are extracted below:
Recommendations of the Review Committee dated 30.09.2009:
The case of Sh. Bhagwan Singh I, Driver, was reviewed by the Committee alongwith other officials who are completing 55 years of age or 30 years of service in the Quarter from 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 under the provisions of FR-56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the basis of his entire service record. The official was appointed as Driver w.e.f. 23.12.74. The official completed his 30 years of service in the year 2004, however, his case was not reviewed under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 at the relevant time. As per records, the date of birth of the official is 11.01.1955; thus, he would be completing 55 years of age on 10.01.2010. As such, the case of Sh. Bhagwan Singh I has been reviewed under the provisions of FR 56(j).
The case of the official has been reviewed on the basis of ACRs, Service Book and Personal File of the official. The records revealed that the official has been chargesheeted as many as 14 times and suspended twice in his career on various departmental misconducts which inter alia includes negligence in performing of duties, misbehaviour and insubordination with fellow workers and seniors, intoxication while on duty, participation in illegal strikes and careless driving causing damage to official vehicles. The official has also been severely warned in writing for above lapses on different occasions. The details of punishments awarded in entire career and warnings issued is given in Annexure A. Apart from this, a period of 108 days has also been ordered to be treated as Dies Non.
The record shows that inspite of giving many opportunities, the official has failed to improve his conduct. In this view, the Committee is of the opinion that it would not be in public interest to allow Sh. Bhagwan Singh I to continue in Govt. service and recommends premature retirement of the official under FR 56(j). (Emphasis supplied) Order dated 6.11.2009:
Whereas the Director Postal Services (MB) is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the Director Postal Services (MB) hereby gives notice to Shri Bhagwan Singh-I, Driver, Grade-I, Mail Motor Services, New Delhi that he on attaining the age of fifty five years on the 10-1-2010 shall retire from service on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiry of three months computed from the following the date of service of this notice on him. Sd/-
Director Postal Services (MB) Order dated 8.2.2010:
Whereas, a notice was issued under provisions of Rule FR-56(j) to Shri Bhagwan Singh-I Driver, Grade-I, Mail Motor Services, New Delhi vide this office memo of even no. dated 6.11.2009 that he on attaining the age of 55 years on 10.1.2010 would retire from Govt. Service on the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of following the date of service on the said notice to him.
And whereas, the said notice dated 06.11.2009 was served upon Shri Bhagwan Singh-I, Driver, Grade-I on 09.11.2009.
Therefore, Shri Bhagwan Singh-I, Driver, Grade-I is hereby ordered to be retired from the service on the forenoon of 09.02.2010 under provisions of FR 56(j).
All Govt. dues must be recovered from the official, if any.
This has the approval of Competent Authority. Recommendations of the Representation Committee dated 9.02.2010:
3. Shri Bhagwan Singh-I in his representation has indicated that the notice issued to him is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as Senior Manager, MMS, is the appointing authority for Drivers. The contention of Shri Bhagwan Singh-I is not correct as the procedure for issuing the notice was scrupulously observed by the competent authority, and Director Postal Services and not Sr. Manager, MMS is the appointing authority for Grade I Drivers. The official had sought certain information under RTI Act which was duly supplied to him. Shri Bhagwan Singh-I in his representation has intimated that the decision to issue notice is mainly duy to the fact that he has been made a victim of trade union activities. From the record of service of Shri Bhagwan Singh-I, there is no doubt that notice has been issued to him because of his consistently poor performance for which was warned, suspended and even punished on a number of occasion. Therefore, the contention of Shri Bhagwan Singh I that he has been issued the notice to trade union activities is wrong.
4. Petition has in his representation pointed out that he has been charge sheeted and punished for minor mistakes and that he was not involved in any moral turpitude or lack of integrity cases. However, from the record available it is clear that Shri Bhagwan Singh_I has been a constant source of problem for his superiors. Amongst the reasons for he being warned/censured et. Some are very serious and involve filling up fictitious timings in the log sheet, use of the un-parliamentary language etc. Therefore, his contention is not true. In the rest of his representation Shri Bhagwan Singh_I has instead of showing any remorse or feeling sorry for the various lapses on his part has only tried to prove that all the actions against him in the last decade or so were malicious and not good in law. However, the facts from the records speak of a totally different situation.
5. Shri Bhagwan Singh-I was promoted to Driver Grade-I in the year 2006. However, he still did not show any improvement even after that and was again punished in 2007 with reduction of pay for the serious lapse of starting the Mail Motor Schedule late and even changing the Mail Motor scheduled route. He continues to not take his duties seriously and, therefore, had to be put on dies non i.e. no work no pay.
6. The ACRs of the petitioner have never shown any encouraging remarks from his superiors in the last 30 years of his service which clearly goes to prove that Shri Bhagwan Singh-I never made any effort to improve his behavior or performance as a government servant.
7. In view of the foregoing, the representation of the petitioner Shri Bhagwan Singh-I is rejected and the decision of the Reviewing Committee to pre maturely retire him from service under FR 56(j) is upheld. (Emphasis supplied) Note to the Secretary Postal (page 21) dated 10.02.2010:
This case relates to premature retirement of Shri Bhagwan Singh I, Driver Grade-I, Mail Motor Service, Delhi Circle.
The representation dated 01.12.2009 of Shri Bhagwan Singh I, Driver Grade-I, Mail Motor Service, Delhi Circle addressed to Representation Committee, Postal Directorate against the notice order dated 06.11.2009 of premature retirement under Clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules issued by the Director Postal Services (MB), Delhi Circle was examined vide pp.1-2/n and submitted to the Representation Committee of the Department comprising Member (P), DDG (P) and DDG (Vig) to consider the request of Shri Bhagwan Singh I. The Representation Committee have recommended to reject the representation of the official and the decision of the Review Committee to prematurely retire Shri Singh has been upheld.
Now, the recommendation of the Representation Committee may be submitted to Secretary (Posts) for kind consideration and approval please. Order dated 18.02.2010:
2. The Representation Committee has observed that the contention of Shri Bhagwan Singh-I that Senior Manager, MMS is the appointing authority for Drivers is not correct as the procedure for issuing the notice was scrupulously observed by the competent authority and Director Postal Services who is the appointing authority of Grade-I Drivers. Further, the contention of Shri Bhagwan Singh-I that the decision to issue notice is mainly due to trade union activities is wrong as the notice of premature retirement has been issued to him because of his consistenly poor performance for which he was warned, suspended and even punished on a number of occasions. The Representation Committee has also observed that Shri Bhagwan Singh-I has been a constant source of problem for his superiors and he was warned/censured etc. for filling up fictitious timings in the log sheet, use of the unparliamentarily language etc. Shri Bhagwan Singh-I did not show any improvement even after his promotion to Driver Grade I in the year 2006 and he was again punished in 2007 with reduction of pay for serious lapse of starting the Mail Motor schedule late and even changing the Mail Motor scheduled route and he continued not to take his duties seriously and, therefore, had to be put on dies non i.e. no work no pay. To precise the Representation Committee has observed that Shri Bhagwan Singh-I had been charge sheeted fourteen times, suspended twice and issued with a number of warnings and total of 108 days of his service in various spells has been treated to be as dies non. The Representation Committee has also observed that the ACRs of Shri Bhagwan Singh-I do not contain any encouraging remarks from his superiors in the last 30 years of his service which clearly goes to prove that he never made any effort to improve his behaviour or performance as a Government servant. In view of the foregoing, the Representation Committee has recommended to reject the representation of the official and to uphold the decision of the Reviewing Committee to premature retire Shri Bhagwan Singh-I.
3. Secretary (Posts) has approved the recommendations of the Representation Committee.
9. As already observed, under FR 56(j) the employee has a right to retire a Govt. Servant after the prescribed number of years of service/his attaining the requisite age, on formation of a opinion that it is in public interest not to retain him in service any longer. Such an opinion has necessarily to be that of the employer and no judicial interference is warranted unless the opinion is found to be totally arbitrary or perverse in the sense that no person of ordinary prudence would arrive at such an opinion on the basis of the service record of the Government servant concerned.
It is noticed from a perusal of the minutes of the Review Committee/Representation Committee that the matter of compulsory retirement of the applicant had been considered extensively by the said Committees based on the entire service record of the applicant, his ACRs and his personal file/service book and the orders to compulsorily retire him under FR 56(j) was taken thereafter. We have no hesitation in holding that the decision of the concerned Committees/authorities concerned are not arbitrary or perverse as contended by the applicant.
10. As regards the submission that the Representation Committee had not considered the contentions raised in the Statutory Representation dated 1.12.2009, we have perused the recommendations of the Representation Committee, the relevant portions of which were also referred to hereinbefore, and find that the contentions of the applicant made in his representation have been duly considered and have been rejected after due application of mind. Therefore, this contention of the applicant that the minutes/orders do not show judicial application of mind is also not tenable.
11. In this connection it is also pertinent to notice that the Review Committee and Representation Committee consisted of the following:
Review Committee:
1. CPMG, Delhi Circle - Chairman
2. DPS (O), Delhi Circle Member
3. PMG (O), Delhi Circle - Member Representation Committee:
1. Member (P) - Chairman
2. DDG (Vig.) Member
3. DDG (Personnel) - Member The assessment by such a broad-based body of very senior officials cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal unless there are cogent reasons for doing so, and there are none in the present case. Although the applicant has stated that the decision to retire him under FR 56(j) was taken by the concerned authorities as they had been wanting to victimize him on account of his `Trade Union activities, this is merely a bald assertion and nothing has been shown to substantiate this. Malafides have not only to be alleged but proved by specific instances. Further, we find that the recommendations of the Representation Committee had been placed before the Secretary (Posts) for consideration and approval vide note dated 10.02.2010 (Page 21 of the OA), and had been approved by him on 12.02.2010, we do not accept that his mere initial on the same shows non-application of mind.
12. It is noticed that the respondents in their reply have categorically stated that the Director Postal Services (MB) being the appointing authority of the Drivers Grade-I has rightly issued the notice dated 06.11.2009 and it is further stated that the Director Postal Services (MB) is the appointing authority in respect of Grade I Drivers. It is also noticed that the promotion orders dated 06.11.2001 and 16.09.2006 referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant were issued by the Sr. Manager states that these had been issued in pursuance of extent state of Postal Directorates letters dated 09.05.2001 and 13.09.2001. Thus, the contention of the applicant that the Sr. Manager is the competent authority and that the impugned orders have been issued by an authority not competent to do so is not tenable.
13. The Order of this Tribunal in R.S.Kakkar (supra) (wherein the case of Hoshiar Singh (supra) also was referred to), relied upon by the applicants counsel, would not help to the case of the applicant as the facts and circumstances of the said case are distinguishable from the case of the applicant. In R.S.Kakkars case, the Review Committee had not considered the overall performance of the applicant during the last five years nor had the totality of the service record been assessed and, therefore, the orders of premature retirement were set aside. That is not the case here. In Hoshiar Singhs case (supra) the order of the compulsory retirement was issued by a lower authority than the competent authority, but in the present case it is categorically stated by the respondents that the Department of Postal Authorities is the competent authority and he had issued the orders and the applicant has also not established that the DPS is a lower rank than Sr. Manager.
14. During arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant also sought support from the Judgement of the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in J.H.Athar v. Union of India, ATR 1987(1) CAT 372. This case, however, will not be of help to the applicant, as the facts and circumstances of both cases are different. In J.H.Athars case the Tribunal held that the rules require that the `Review should be done before the officers attain the age of 50 years or complete 30 years of service and also that the Review Committee was required to record reasons in their minutes but this had not been complied with by the respondents therein. The Review Committee in that case had met much after the completion of the age of 50 years (the prescribed age) and had considered adverse material appearing in the CRs subsequent to the applicants attaining the age of 50 years. In the present case, the Review Committee met on 30.09.2009 to review the cases of Group `C and `D officials of Delhi Circle who would be completing 55 years of age or 30 years of service during the quarter from 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010 for their retention in service under the provisions of FR-56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicants date of birth is 11.01.1955 and he was to attain the age 55 years on 10.01.2010 and the Review Committee met on 30.09.2009, viz., 01.01.2010 to 31.03.2010, six months before the quarter was to end. Also in the present case no ACR had been considered after the prescribed age (55 years) of the applicant.
15. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that there is no merit in the OA and no case for interference on the part of this Tribunal is made out, as the decision to retire the applicant under FR 56 (j) was taken after following due procedure and after formation of a considered opinion based on the applicants entire service record that it was not in the public interest to further retain him in service. The fact that some of the incidents for which the applicant was chargesheeted were not carried to their logical conclusion or that he was promoted by giving ACP benefits and allowed to cross EB would by themselves not render the decision to retire him under FR 56(j) arbitrary or in violation of principles of natural justice.
16. In view of the above discussion, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrsp/