Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
A B Prabhu Raj vs Msme on 25 February, 2026
(RESERVED ON 11.02.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on this the 25th day of February, 2026.
Original Application No.1424 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
A B Prabhu Raj S/o A. Bal Raj, aged about 57 years, General Manager-SG,
NTSC Howrah, R/o 226/253, Rani Mandi, Attar-Suiya, District-Prayagraj-
211003. ....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
VERSUS
1- Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Micro Small and Medium
Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2- Union of India through By The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial
Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.
3- Director (P&M), The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC
Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.
4- Director(Finance), The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC
Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.
5- Chief General Manager-SG, Work/Estate and Technology Departments,
The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla
Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.
6- General Manager-SG,CMD-SECRETARIAT, International Co-op And
Human Resources Departments, The National Small Industries Corporation
Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.
..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra and Shri S K Om
ORDER
By Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-
Heard ShriDharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant andShri Mahendra Prasad Mishra and Shri S K Om, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8(i) To issue an order, rule or direction for quashing and setting- aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2024 passed by the answering respondent/competent authority by illegal, unlawful and arbitrary manner (Annexure No.A-1 in compilation no.I to this original application).Page 1 of 11
VIVEK RAWAT
(ii) To issue an order rule or direction, to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits and pay the entire salary along with the interest.
(iii) To issue an order rule or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicant may be found entitled under law.
(iv) To award the cost of the original application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.
3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are thatWhile serving as General Manager (SG) at Hyderabad, the applicant was transferred to NTSC Howrah on 11.08.2023 and relieved on 18.08.2023; he challenged the transfer before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Telangana in OA No. 491/2023, which initially granted a stay on 21.08.2023 but later dismissed the OA on 29.09.2023. Due to serious illness of his mother, wife, and himself, he applied for medical leave from 03.10.2023; meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2023 and a charge sheet dated 09.02.2024 were issued, and though he participated in the enquiry, no final decision was taken. His APARs for the preceding five years were "Excellent" and "Very Good." After obtaining a fitness certificate, he joined NTSC Howrah on 28.10.2024, but charge was not handed over to him and he was instead posted to MINT Cell. Despite submitting representations for regularization of medical leave and salary release, his leave was not sanctioned. Subsequently, by order dated 20.11.2024, he was compulsorily retired under the CRS Scheme framed under FR 56(i) vide circular dated 10.04.2018, allegedly without adherence to the prescribed grounds of medical unfitness, inefficiency, or doubtful integrity, leading to the present Original Application challenging the impugned compulsory retirement order.Hence this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the applicant was transferred from NTSC Page 2 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT Hyderabad to NTSC Howrah on administrative exigencies as part of a chain transfer, and despite being duly relieved and repeatedly directed to join at Howrah, he failed to report for duty, citing medical grounds for himself and illness of his mother and wife and his leave applications were not supported initially by valid medical certificates and, subsequently, he submitted 12 medical certificates from different hospitals without continuity of medical history, none of which were approved by the competent authority. It is submitted further that upon verification, doubts arose regarding the genuineness and procedural propriety of the certificates issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and the applicant was referred to the Medical Board, which advised specific investigations and orthopedic opinion; however, he failed to comply and instead furnished further certificates from another hospital, wilfully avoiding medical examination and disobeying lawful instructions. He remained unauthorizedly absent for 435 days (19.08.2023 to 27.10.2024), adversely affecting the functioning of NTSC Howrah, necessitating interim charge arrangements. A charge sheet was issued, the Inquiry Officer proved the charges of unauthorized absence and wilful disobedience, and the constituted committee recommended compulsory retirement under Clause 2.1.1 of the NSIC Compulsory Retirement Scheme, 2018 read with FR 56(j). After due consideration and adherence to principles of natural justice, the competent authority passed the order dated 20.11.2024 retiring the applicant compulsorily. The respondents contend that the impugned orders are lawful, reasoned, and in accordance with rules and guidelines, and therefore the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT
5. The Applicant in his support has relied upon the following cases:
1. Smt. Shashi Bala Meena vs Punjab National bank reported in 2023/RJJP/010275 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7612/2015 by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur.
2. Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs UOI & Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165 passed in Civil appeal No.6161 of 2022; March 03,2023.
3. Ravindra Vittal Parmar vs UOI passed in OA No. 369/2018 by CAT Amhedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 16.04.2019.
6. In reply, the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit and submitted thatthe order dated 20.11.2024 imposing compulsory retirement is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and punitive in nature, passed under the guise of administrative action in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that compulsory retirement must not be a disguised punishment or based on arbitrary exercise of power. The respondents failed to follow procedural fairness and ignored that the applicant had sufficient leave credits (EL/HPL/CL/EOL) and had duly applied for medical leave supported by certificates issued by competent government doctors, yet his leave was not sanctioned without reference to the Medical Authority as mandated under Rule 20 and DoPT Notification dated 03.04.2018, whereas similarly placed officers were granted leave including EOL on a pick-and-choose basis, demonstrating discrimination and malafide intent. It is submitted further that the allegation of unauthorized absence is self-contradictory when the respondents admit receipt of medical certificates and written leave requests. The applicant further submits that his service record has been consistently excellent; he was promoted to Sr. General Manager Page 4 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT only after intervention of the Hon'ble Central SC/ST Commission and directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which establishes prior bias of the authorities against him. Being next in line for promotion to Chief General Manager, he was prematurely retired in a mala fide manner and thereafter his juniors were promoted, clearly indicating that the impugned action was motivated, punitive and intended to deprive him of further promotion. The transfer itself was issued in a conspiratorial manner despite his genuine medical and family hardships, and though he ultimately joined with a valid fitness certificate accepted by the respondents, the authorities, continuing their biased approach, imposed compulsory retirement without any conclusive Medical Board declaration of unfitness. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness, discrimination, procedural irregularity and malice in law, and is liable to be quashed.
7. Heard the learned counsels of both the side and perused the detailed submissions made by both the sides.
8. It is the case of the applicant that he was transferred to NTSC Howrah on 11.08.2023 and relieved on 18.08.2023; he challenged the transfer before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Telangana in OA No. 491/2023, which initially granted a stay on 21.08.2023 but later dismissed the OA on 29.09.2023. Due to serious illness of his mother, wife, and himself, he applied for medical leave from 03.10.2023; meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2023 and a charge sheet dated 09.02.2024 were issued, and though he participated in the enquiry, no final decision was taken. He got a fitness certificate on 28.10.24 and joined his duties. However, by order dated 20.11.2024, he was compulsorily retired under the CRS Scheme framed under FR Page 5 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT 56(j) vide circular dated 10.04.2018, allegedly without adherence to the prescribed grounds of medical unfitness, inefficiency, or doubtful integrity, leading to the present Original Application challenging the impugned compulsory retirement order.
9. As per the Respondents, the applicant was transferred from NTSC Hyderabad to NTSC Howrah on administrative exigencies as part of a chain transfer, and despite being duly relieved and repeatedly directed to join at Howrah, he failed to report for duty, citing medical grounds for himself and illness of his mother and wife. His leave was however, not sanctioned by the competent authority and he was repeatedly asked to join his place of duty. Theapplicant however, kept submitting medical certificates and was therefore asked to present himself before a medical board at Osmania General Hospital. While he did report for the medical board, he did not report again when asked to come for some investigations and kept submitting further medical certificates from different medical authorities each time asking for leave on medical grounds. For his continued unauthorised absence, he was given a chargesheet on 09.02.24. However, the Committee set up to look into the FR 56(j) cases, decided to compulsorily retire the applicant on medical grounds i.e on 2.1.1 of the scheme of compulsory retirement of NSIC vide letter dt 20.11.2024.
10. The question before us is whether in the circumstances stated above, the action of Respondents in not pursuing the disciplinary case and instead compulsorily retiring him under FR 56(j) was fair or not? FR 56( j) as it stands reads as :
"The Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the Page 6 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT 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 55 years."
11. The NSIC introduced the scheme of Compulsory retirement in the organisation vide Circular No 17/19 dt. 28.03.2018 which said that with the introduction of the above scheme, the provisions on the lines of FR 56(j) shall deem to have been incorporated in the existing NSIC Conduct, Control and Appeal (CCA) Rules. As per the scheme adopted in NSIC, whenever the services of am employee are no longer useful, the employee can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest, on grounds of medical unfitness, inefficiency and doubtful integrity. The Guidelines on medical unfitness read as under:
"2.0 GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL UNFITNESS 2.1 An employee may be considered for Compulsory retirement on grounds of medical unfitness as per following criteria.
2.1.1 An employee has been continuously absent on extra-ordinary leave (EOL) or absent without leave on medical grounds for a period of 120 days or more (including Sunday and Holidays) during last one year; OR 2.1.2 An employee has been intermittently absent on extra-ordinary leave (EOL) or absent without leave for reasons of sickness for a total period of 180 days or more (including Sunday and holidays) during last one year, OR 2.1.3 An employee has been attending office, but is found to be mentally deranged Page 7 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT 2.2 An employee who has been rendered medically unfit (permanent / partial disablement) on account of accident while on duty shall not be covered in 2.1 above. 2.3. In case of medical unfitness, the matter shall be referred to Medical Board of Government Hospital for thorough medical check-up by the committee (mentioned in para 5.3 below) and obtain / consider the report before making any recommendations to the Appointing Authority".
12. The position regarding FR 56(j) has been clarified in various cases. In State of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314, Hon'ble Court held that --
"The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystalized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized 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 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 un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure
13. So while there is no doubt that the right of the Government to compulsorily retire a government servant under the provisions of FR Page 8 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT 56(j) is absolute, certain principles have to be kept in mind. The present case is a case of unauthorised leave which the applicant has been asking for on medical grounds and the authorities have not granted. Since medical leave has been asked for after getting orders of transfer, the Respondents asked the applicant to appear before the Medical Board. The applicant appeared before the medical board once but did not report again for getting the tests conducted as asked for by the Medical Board and instead kept submitting medical certificates from different authorities. The Respondents rightly sent a show cause notice after which disciplinary proceedings were initiated, charge sheet was issued and inquiry was also initiated. However, no punishment was imposed on the applicant as a culmination of the disciplinary proceedings. Meanwhile, the applicant submitted his fitness certificate and joined his duties at the transferred station on 28.10.2024, which he was allowed to. However, on 20.11.2024, orders of compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) were issued to him.
14. As per the scheme of compulsory retirement in NSIC, an employee can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest on grounds of medical unfitness, inefficiency and doubtful integrity. While it does say that if an employee has been continuously absent on EOL or absent without leave on medical grounds for a period of 120 days or more during the last one year can be compulsorily retired, the direction at 2.3 also says that in case of medical unfitness, the matter shall be referred to Medical Board of Government Hospital for thorough medical check-up by the Committee and obtain/consider the report before making any recommendations to the Appointing authority. Page 9 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT
15. The direction of referring the case to the medical board and considering the report of the medical board before making any recommendation is presumably because if an employee is considered to be medically unfit by the Medical Board, his case can be considered for compulsory retirement by the Committee.
16. However, in this case, the final report of the Medical Board is nowhere available. In fact, paras 8, 9 and 10 of Article II of the chargesheet clearly show that the applicant was served a show cause for wilfully avoiding medical tests advised by the Medical Board of the Osmania General Hospital which means the final report of the medical board was not available before the committee to declare him a medically unfit case for compulsory retirement.
17. The case in hand is that of clear insubordination and being on unauthorised absence in spite of being informed time and again by the Respondents that leave asked for has not been granted and the applicant should come and join. The appointment carries the liability to serve in any part of India and refusal to obey orders again and again is a clear case of misconduct for which the management have rightly given a show cause and then a chargesheet to the applicant.
18. However, instead of taking the disciplinary proceedings initiated to its logical conclusion, the Respondents have taken a short-cut by compulsorily retiring him under the provisions of FR 56(j).
19. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs UOI and another (Civil appeal No.6161 of 2022;March 03,2023) has observed that -
"In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts Page 10 of 11 VIVEK RAWAT and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short- circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public."
20. Going by the Doctrine of proportionality also, if it is found that the punishment is disproportionate, then it remains open for the Court to interfere under its limited scope of judicial review. In Bhagat Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1983(2) SCC 442, the Apex Court held that " It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of article 14 of the Constitution"
21. The manner in which the case has been handled goes to clearly show that the disciplinary proceedings initiated have been short circuited by using the powers available under FR 56(j). Moreover, compulsorily retiring an employee on the grounds of medical unfitness without a complete report of the medical board is also not in the right spirit and smacks of short-cut taken.
22. In view of the above, original application is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside. The applicant is reinstated in service. Further, Respondents are directed to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant within a period of three months from the receipt of this order.
23. No order as to costs.
(Ms. Manju Pandey) (Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
vivek/
Page 11 of 11
VIVEK
RAWAT