Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Kaushal Kumar vs Department Of Telecommunication on 2 September, 2025
-1- OA/050/00512/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00512/2023
Reserved on : 23.07.2025
Pronounced on : 02.09.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Kaushal Kumar (ITS, Staff No. 20862), Son of Late Tarkeshwar Prasad
Jayaswal, Ex Director (ADMN & HR) at Director general Telecom
Headquarter, Ministry of Communications, Department of
Telecommunications, UIDAI Building, Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi-
110001, Resident of Sharda House, Atardah, Kachchi Pakki Road, PO-
Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur-842002 (Bihar).
...........Applicant.
- By Advocate: Shri M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar
Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Head of the Representation Committee related to periodical review
of Central Government Employees for strengthening of Administration
under 56(J) Cum Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary (Telecom)-Cum- Chairman Digital Communications
Commission, Ministry of Communications, Department of
Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Member (Services), Ministry of Communications, Department of
Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka
Road, New Delhi-110001.
5. The Deputy Director General (Personnel), Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar
Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001,
S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP
KABI
KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- OA/050/00512/2023
6. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
.......... Respondents
- By Advocate(s): Shri T.N. Thakur, Sr. Standing Counsel
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
" (i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the Order dated 26.12.2022 and 13.04.2023 as contained in Annexure A/1 & A/2 whereunder the Applicant has been ordered for premature retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to declare the recommendation of Internal Committee dated 31.10.2022 and Review Committee dated 13.12.2022 to 26.12.2022 as contained in Annexure-A/3 & A/3(b) as null, void ab-initio wrong and contrary to the parameters laid down in the Rules as contained in Annexure-A/8 Series.
(iii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to reinstate the applicant in service henceforth.
(iv) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to grant all consequential including arrears of salary in favour of the Applicant w.e.f. 26.12.2022 along with statutory interest.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the applicants, are as follows:-
(i) The applicant, selected against Indian Telecom Service (Group A) 1996 batch after recommendation of the UPSC, was appointed on 18.05.1998. His entire service record was found most satisfactory without any kind of punishment /show cause/.departmental proceeding and his APARs have been graded as Outstanding even in preceding ten year for the period 2010-11 to 2020-21 out of which 8 are Outstanding and two periods have been shown as No Report Certificate (NRC). His integrity as reflected in APARs is Beyond Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI Doubt. SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- OA/050/00512/2023
(ii) It is contended that while working as Dy. GM (CFA), BSNL, Muzaffarpur, applicant was falsely implicated in one trap case by the CBI based on the complaint dated 28.05.2010 submitted by one Shri Manoj Singh on the allegation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- for clearing the pending bills of the complainant which was registered as RC 13(A)/2010-
Patna. He was arrested by CBI on 02.06.2010 and accordingly he was placed under deemed suspension. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna and accordingly, suspension was revoked w.e.f. 26.08.2011. After revocation of suspension, the applicant was posted as DGM. BSNL, Durgapur.
(iii) After his repatriation from BSNL to DOT the applicant served in various capacities in the Department till his premature retirement.
(iv) Applicant has further submitted that he was under sanctioned EL from 26.12.2022.
(v) He was shocked to receive the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by DOT, communicating the decision of Appointing Authority, i.e. Hon'ble President of India retiring him prematurely on attaining the age of 50 years in exercise of powers conferred under Rule-56(j) of the FR which, according to the applicant, is stigmatic and contrary to settled law.
(vi) Since no reason was assigned for retiring him prematurely in public interest invoking Rule 56(j), the applicant submitted a request on 02.01.2023 (Annexure - A/4) for supply of relied upon materials/documents for submitting representation against the impugned order before the Representation Committee. Applicant submitted representation on 06.01.2023 by e-mail and speed post to the Chairman DCC cum Secretary (Telecom) cum Head of the Review Committee for supply of relied upto materials/documents already demanded by him (Annexure/4(a)].
(vii) Applicant submitted a representation on 16.01.2023 before the Representation Committee and when he did not get the demanded documents he sent RTI requests under RTI Act on 18.01.2023 and 19.01.2023, but in vain. Finally, CPIO sent incomplete materials/documents through RTI reply dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure A/7) received by the applicant on 16.02.2023. It is alleged by the applicant that the said document shows no ground to invoke Rule 56(j) against the applicant. Although CPIO has sent minutes of the Review Committee of the periodical review in which the Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- OA/050/00512/2023 Internal Committee Report has been referred but copy of the same has not been supplied.
(viii) The applicant again submitted a representation dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-A/9) questioning the very constitution of the Review Committee since para 2.9.1 of Vigilance Manual prohibits the CVO as member of the Review Committee. In the said representation the applicant has mentioned that there is nothing observed by the said committee against him except that the CBI case is under trial in the vigilance clearance report.
(ix) When the representations of the applicant filed before the Representation committee were rejected vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2023 instant OA has been preferred.
3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents in which referring to DoPT OM dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure R/1) it is submitted that since the applicant had completed 50 years of age on 29.07.2022 his records were reviewed by the Department of Telecommunications as per provisions laid down in Rule 56(j) of FR to ascertain whether the officer is to be retained or retired from service in public interest. From the vigilance report, it was observed that his Vigilance Clearance was withheld in view of the pending CBI case.
Referring to para 10 of the above DoPT OM dated 28.08.2020 the respondents have alleged that the applicant was put under the list of officers of doubtful integrity as he was apprehended by the CBI team at his office chamber while he was demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant. It is further submitted that doubtful integrity also includes the officers against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude. Since the applicant was in the list Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- OA/050/00512/2023 of doubtful integrity for the period 2015-22 and has not been exonerated in the CBI case, as per the said DoPT OM the service records of the applicant were first considered by the Internal Committee held on 31.10.2022 and a review committee was constituted with the Secretary as the Head of the Committee. After complete service records of the applicant were considered by the Review Committee on 13.12.2022 (Annexure-R/5), it was recommended by the said Committee to retire the applicant prematurely in public interest. It is further submitted that consequent to the approval of the competent authority the applicant was prematurely retired on the criteria of doubtful integrity vide DoT order dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure-R/6). The representations submitted by the applicant on 16.01.2023, 03.02.,2023 and 03.03.2023 requesting to recall the order of his premature retirement dated 26.12.2022 were forwarded to the representation committee constituted in terms of DoPT OM dated 22.09.2022. The representation committee considered the representations of the applicant in its meeting held on 06th, 10th, 11th & 29th March, 2023 and made the following observations:-
"(i) The Order under Rule 56(j) retiring the applicant has been issued with the approval of the Competent Authority.
(ii) Based on the Representation made and para-wise comments provided by the administrative Ministry and perusal of personal record, the Representation Committee examined the grounds and conditions leading to orders under Rule 56(j). The following points emerged based upon Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- OA/050/00512/2023 consideration of all facts and circumstances and material placed before the Representation Committee.
a. He was caught and a tainted amount of Rs. 5000 was recovered from him and a criminal case is under trial.
b. Committee observed that Shri Kaushal Kumar was on the ODI List from 2015-2022. Thus the criterion invoked for his premature retirement is in accordance with the CVC OM No. 005/CRD/7 dated 16.06.2005 (Annexure-R/2).
(iii) It is also now well settled by catena of judicial precedents that premature retirement after the employee has put in a sufficient number of years of service having qualified for full pension is neither a punishment nor a stigma so as to attract provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. In fact, after an employee has served for 25 to 30 years and is retired on full pensionary benefits, it cannot be said that he suffers any real prejudice. The object of the rule is to weed out the dead wood and persons of doubtful integrity/credentials in order to maintain a high standard of ethics, value, efficiency and initiative in the State Services.
(iv) Considering overall facts and circumstances involved in the case, the representation committee was of the view that action taken under Rule FR 56(j) is fully justified and the Committee does not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the Appropriate Authority to prematurely retire Sh. Kaushal Kumar in public interest."
The respondents have further averred that the above recommendation of the Representation Committee was approved by the competent authority and the decision was conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure-R/7). Stressing the fact that the order of premature retirement of the applicant is in accordance with Rule 56(j), Rules and guidelines of DopT OM dated 28.08.2020 the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA being devoid of merit.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABISURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-7- OA/050/00512/2023
4. Rejoinder to the above written statement and reply to the rejoinder have been filed by the respective parties.
5. In the rejoinder the applicant has denied the contentions of the respondents made in their written statement while reiterating the averments made in the OA. In the reply to the rejoinder the respondents have reiterated the averments as made in their written statement.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing submitted that the prosecution sanction dated 30.09.2011 is the only reason for his compulsory retirement although APARs of the applicant have been outstanding. He has further alleged that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the applicant and only vigilance clearance is denied on account of a pending CBI case which, according to him, was falsely implicated. Learned counsel further alleged that the department has applied short cut measure to oust the applicant from service by retiring him prematurely without initiating departmental proceeding after CBI case which is illegal in view of various rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has not taken pension under protest as he is awaiting the outcome of the CBI case.
Learned counsel for the respondents during the hearing mainly argued on theSURYAROOP basis of written statement and submitted that the Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-8- OA/050/00512/2023 department has taken consistent stand as no promotion was given to the applicant after his arrest.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material available before this tribunal, we have considered the matter in its entirety.
9. We observe that the power to prematurely retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The object of premature retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service. Generally speaking, Service Rules provide for premature retirement of a government servant on his completing a certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed age after his entire service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is taken whether he should be prematurely retired or continued further in service. This decision is taken on two counts: (a) Doubtful Integrity (b) Ineffectiveness In the instant case the applicant was arrested in his office chamber by CBI on 02.06.2010 while accepting the bribe amount and remained incarcerated till 02.07.2010 when he was enlarged on bail.
The case is still reported to be pending as under trial. The officer was also put in the list of officers with doubtful integrity.
10. It is clear from the perusal of Presidential Order that the premature retirement of the applicant issued on 26.12.2022 vide Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-9- OA/050/00512/2023 Annexure A/1 has been said to be issued in public interest. The only mention of pending criminal proceedings is for the purposes of withholding DCRG and CVP. Thus this order of premature retirement cannot be said to be casting a stigma on the Government servant. So it will not be proper for this tribunal to treat it as an order of punishment, attracting provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
11. Further, it appears that out of 677 officers under review 10 officers were finally recommended for premature retirement so it cannot be alleged that the applicant has been singled out. Moreover, the procedure for completion of every stage of the review has been complied with before ultimately issuing the impugned order. The consideration of representation by the applicant against the said order has also been made. So, neither any violation of the principle of natural justice nor any procedural flaw is being observed in the instant case.
12. There is no levelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanation from the government servant. While specific and clear charge of misconduct is the key factor that enters into the account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement by way of punishment, there is this difference that in the case of premature retirement, where overall service record regarding suitability or otherwise of such Member of service for further Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-10- OA/050/00512/2023 retention in the Service is examined and it is sufficient to furnish the background. A government servant who is prematurely retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, premature retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences.
13. In view of the above observation, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the respondents does not suffer from any such anomaly that will require the interference of this Tribunal and holds that this OA is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs [RAJVEER SINGH VERMA] [KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA] Judicial Member Administrative Member Srk.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABISURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.19 13:37:39+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0