Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs G.T. Rao on 31 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.19796/2023(CAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19463/2023(S CAT)
IN WP NO.19796/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (HOME),
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI 110 001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR/EST,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
Digitally signed by INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35,
NANJUNDACHARI SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
(NOW ADDITIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR)
SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001.
-2-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
6. THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR/ACR,
APAR CELL. INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HQRS, NO.35,
SARADAR PATEL MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI 110 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL
ALONGWITH SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR PETITIONERS)
AND:
G.T. RAO S/O. LATE G. MUNEIAH,
(PIS NO.124666), AGED 57 YEARS,
O/O DEPUTY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(DCIO),
SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WARD NO.25,
BLOCK NO.16, VIJAYANAGARA COLONY,
CANTONMENT AREA, BELLARY 583 104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMON ORDER DATED 20.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS OA NO.170/01125/2019 BY HOLDING THE
SAME TO BE ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC.
IN WP NO.19463/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (HOME),
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI 110 001.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR/EST,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
-3-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35,
SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR/EST,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35,
SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021.
5. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR,
SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL
ALONGWITH SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR PETITIONERS)
AND:
G.T. RAO S/O. LATE G. MUNEIAH,
(PIS NO.124666), AGED 57 YEARS,
O/O DEPUTY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(DCIO),
SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WARD NO.25,
BLOCK NO.16, VIJAYANAGARA COLONY,
CANTONMENT AREA, BELLARY 583 104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN SO
FAR AS OA. NO.170/00588/2021 AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), S.G. PANDIT J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-4-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The above writ petitions by the Union of India and its
Authorities are directed against common order dated
20.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru1, in OA No.170/01125/2019 and
OA No.170/00588/2021, whereunder the order of compulsory
retirement of the respondent dated 6.12.2021 and the
endorsements/orders dated 26.11.2018 and 16.09.2019
rejecting the respondent's request to expunge the adverse
remarks are set-aside.
2. The respondent herein approached the CAT in OA
No.170/01125/2019 with a prayer to set-aside APAR grading
for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to set-aside the order
rejecting his request to ignore the APAR grading. In OA
No.170/00588/2021, the respondent approached the CAT with
a prayer to set-aside the order dated 6.12.2021 at Annexure-
A11 retiring the respondent compulsorily in exercise of power
under Rule 56 (j)(i) of Fundamental Rules.
1
For short 'CAT'
-5-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent
joined the service in the Intelligence Bureau as Assistant
Central Intelligence Officer-II in July 1994 and thereafter, he
was promoted as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer in 2014.
In April, 2017, the respondent was posted to Ballari Unit. On
17.11.2017, the respondent was transferred to SBI
Headquarters, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the said transfer
order, the respondent was before the CAT in OA No.738/2017.
The said OA was disposed of recording the statement of the
petitioners that the respondent would be continued at Ballari.
Subsequently, APAR grading of the respondent for the period
2017-18 was communicated to the respondent under
communication dated 31.08.2018, against which the
respondent made representation on 22.09.2018 seeking
expunction of the said APAR grading. The said representation
was rejected by the petitioners under impugned endorsement
dated 26.11.2018. Thereafter, under communication dated
18.07.2019, APAR report for the period 2018-19 was
communicated to the respondent, against which the
respondent submitted representation dated 29.07.2019
seeking expunction of adverse APAR grading for the year
-6-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
2018-19. The said representation was also rejected by the
petitioners under order dated 18.09.2019. Aggrieved by the
rejection of representation seeking expunction of APAR
grading, the respondent approached the CAT in OA
No.1125/2019. During the pendency of above said OA, the
petitioners passed order dated 11.08.2020 compulsorily
retiring the respondent from service under FR 56(j). Being
aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the
CAT in OA No.400/2020. The said OA came to be disposed of
on 30.10.2020 reserving liberty to the respondent to submit
representation before the Representation Committee with a
direction to the Representation Committee to consider the
representation of the respondent on merits. It is stated that
before consideration of his representation by the
Representation Committee, one more notice dated 17.11.2020
for compulsory retirement was issued to the respondent,
against which the respondent approached the CAT in OA
No.521/2020. It is stated that the petitioners by order dated
9.12.2020 withdrew the said notification and in view of
withdrawal of the said notification of compulsory retirement,
OA No.521/2020 was disposed of as having rendered
-7-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioners passed one more
order dated 6.12.2021 compulsorily retiring the respondent
under FR 56(j)(i). Being aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2021,
the respondent filed OA No.588/2021. The Tribunal under
impugned order allowed the OAs filed by the respondent and
set-aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 6.12.2021
as well as orders/endorsements dated 26.11.2018 and
16.09.2019 rejecting the representations of the respondent
seeking expunction of adverse remarks. While allowing the
respondent's OAs, the CAT observed that merely on the
ground of insubordination with the seniors, the Committee
could not have come to a conclusion that the applicant was a
fit person to be retired from service and has come to the
conclusion that the order is punitive in nature having been
passed to ensure the immediate removal of the applicant with
some oblique or extraneous purpose rather than in the public
interest. The CAT also observed that it is necessary for the
Court to lift the veil to find out the genuineness of an order or
misconduct of the government servant concerned or to know
the bonafides. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the
-8-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
petitioners, who were the respondents before the CAT, are
before this Court in the above writ petitions.
4. Heard the learned ASG Sri. K. Aravind Kamath
along with Sri. B. Pramod, learned CGC for the petitioners and
learned counsel Sri. Abhishek Malipatil for Sri. P.S. Malipatil,
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire writ
petition papers as well as the records made available by the
petitioners during the course of hearing.
5. Learned ASG Sri. Aravind Kamat would submit that
the order of the CAT is wholly erroneous and is the result of
non-appreciation of legal position with regard to compulsory
retirement under FR 56 j(i). Learned ASG would submit that
the scope of interference in the matter of compulsory
retirement under FR 56 j(i) is very limited. He further submits
that if the Appointing Authority is satisfied that there is a
steady fall in performance of the concerned officer, it could
exercise its power under FR 56 j(i). Learned ASG would
further submit that the order of compulsory retirement under
FR 56 j(i) is not a punishment and it would also not attach any
stigma nor it would suggest any misconduct on the part of the
-9-
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
officer, who is under compulsory retirement under FR 56 j(i).
Learned ASG would submit that the Appointing Authority shall
exercise its power under FR 56(j) keeping in mind the public
interest and the appointing authority recording subjective
satisfaction, could pass the order of compulsory retirement.
Learned ASG would further submit that the government or
appointing authority shall have to consider the entire records
of the officer before passing order under FR 56(j). Learned
ASG places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and
also decision in the case of Posts & Telegraphs Board &
Others Vs. CSN Murthy3 to contend that the judicial review
and scope of the order of compulsory retirement is very
limited, unless it is found to be arbitrary or capricious,
malafide, overlooking or ignoring the relevant material, it is
not open for interference. Learned ASG would submit that the
finding of the CAT is not based on any material, whereas APAR
gradings against the respondent are based on material, which
the CAT failed to appreciate. Learned ASG would submit that
2
(2020) 1 SCC 801
3
(1992) 2 SCC 317
- 10 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
as directed by the CAT, the case of the respondent was
considered afresh by the Review Committee and thereafter,
the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated
6.12.2021 was passed. Thus, learned ASG would pray for
allowing the writ petitions.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Abhishek Malipatil
for the respondent would submit that the CAT after scrutiny of
the material on record has rightly quashed the order of
compulsory retirement as well as endorsements rejecting the
respondent's request for expunging the APAR grading for the
periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. Learned counsel would submit
that the petitioners were determined to compulsorily retire the
respondent and as such, the finding of the CAT that the order
of compulsory retirement is punitive is justified. Learned
counsel would submit that in pursuance of the direction of the
CAT for reconsideration of the order of compulsory retirement,
there was no new material for change of opinion and the order
of compulsory retirement was passed based on the material,
which was available earlier. Learned counsel would place
reliance on decisions of the Apex Court, which were cited
- 11 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
before the CAT, which are noted in the impugned order. Thus,
learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following
points would arise for our consideration in these petitions:
a) Whether the impugned order of compulsory
retirement dated 6.12.2021 warrants
interference? and
b) Whether the impugned order of the CAT
warrants interference at the hands of this
Court?
8. Answer to the above points would be in the
"negative" and "affirmative" respectively and interference with
the impugned order of the CAT is warranted.
9. It is well settled position of law that the
compulsory retirement in exercise of the power under FR 56
(j) by the Government or Appointing Authority is not a
punishment and this Court in its judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an appellate
- 12 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
authority to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order
of compulsory retirement in terms of FR 56 (j).
10. The Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath
Das Vs. District Medical Officer4 while considering a case of
compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j) has laid down certain
principles, which read as under:
"(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a
punishment. It implies no stigma nor any
suggestion of
misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the
Government on forming the opinion that it is in the
public interest to retire a Government servant
compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective
satisfaction of the Government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in
the context of an order of compulsory retirement.
This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is
excluded altogether. While the High Court or this
Court would not examine the matter as a
appellate court, they may interfere if they are
satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide 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 a
perverse order.
(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee,
as the case may be) shall have to consider the
entire record of service before taking a decision in
the matter of course attaching more importance
4
(1992) 2 SCC 299
- 13 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
to record of and performance during the
later years. The record to be so considered
would naturally include the entries in the
confidential records/character rolls,
both favourable and adverse. If a Government
servant is promoted to a higher post
notwithstanding the adverse remarks,
such remarks lose their sting, more so,
if the promotion is based upon merit (selection)
and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is
not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on
showing that, while passing it uncommunicated
adverse remarks were also taken into
consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot
be a basis for interference."
11. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of State
of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patil5, placing reliance on a
decision in Baikuntha Nath Das's case supra and other
decisions has reiterated the principles, which read as under:
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement
has now crystalised into a 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
office 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
5
(2001) 3 SCC 314
- 14 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
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."
12. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav
supra, relied upon by the learned ASG has held that a single
adverse entry is sufficient for compulsory retirement.
13. In the case of Posts & Telegraphs Board supra,
the facts of which were akin to the facts of the present case,
while considering the compulsory retirement in exercise of
power under FR 56 (j), the Apex Court at paragraphs-4 & 5
has held as under:
"4. In the present case, the service records of
the petitioner were reviewed by a high powered
committee. It is true that there was no material
adverse to the respondent upto the year 1969-70.
- 15 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
But there were adverse entries for the financial
years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The purport of the
confidential reports of these years has been placed
before this court and had also been referred to by
the High Court. These have been set out in letters
addressed to the respondent by his superiors on
29.4.1971 and 15.4.1972 respectively. A perusal
of these letters shows that they were objective
appraisals of the petitioner's work during the two
financial years in question. They point out that
certain aspects of the respondent's working were
quite satisfactory but they also emphasise that
certain deficiencies were found in his work during
these years for which he was duly cautioned. In
the first letter he was cautioned to take more
interest in Auto Manual Positions' functioning and
against indulging in disrespectful language towards
superiors. The petitioner's capacity for tact and
courtesy was described as not satisfactory. It was
also observed that he had not taken adequate
interest in his job, that his handling of staff has
also not been satisfactory leading to several
complaints, and that there were cases of delays,
bad relations and technical neglect, calling for
improvement. The letter dated 15.4.72, likewise,
after referring to the favourable remarks earned by
the respondent emphasised three aspects on which
the petitioner's conduct was unsatisfactory. He had
been warned for delay in disposal of complaint
cases, for delay in confirming a deceased official
and for not taking timely action for clearance of
jungle on "main line Cuddapah-Tadparti."
5. It will be clear from the extracts referred to
above, that though the respondent's conduct was
quite satisfactory till March 1970, his standard of
work had declined in the last two years under
review. In both these years, it was found that he
was not taking adequate interest in his work and
was responsible for delays of various kinds. As has
already been pointed out, an order of compulsory
retirement is not an order of punishment.
Fundamental Rule 56(j) authorises the
Government to review the working of its
employees at the end of their period of service
- 16 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
referred to therein and to require the servant to
retire from service if, in its opinion, public interest
calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the
employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is
primarily for the departmental authorities to
decide. The nature of the delinquency and whether
it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory
retirement of the employee are primarily for the
Government to decide upon. The courts will not
interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived
at bona fide and on the basis of material available
on the record. No mala fides have been urged in
the present case. The only suggestion of the High
Court is that the record discloses no material which
would justify the action taken against the
respondent. We are unable to agree. In our
opinion, there was material which showed that the
efficiency of the petitioner was slackening in the
last two years of the period under review and it is,
therefore, not possible for us to fault the
conclusion of the department as being mala fide,
perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. The Division
Bench seems to have thought that, since the
adverse remarks mentioned in the earlier letter of
29th April, 1971 were not repeated in the
subsequent letter, it should be taken that they had
been given up subsequently or that the respondent
had improved in the subsequent year. We do not
think that this is a legitimate inference, for the
report for 1971-72 only shows that the
respondents' propensity to delay matters persisted
despite the warning of the previous year. But,
even if one assumes that the High Court was
correct on this, the adverse remarks made against
the respondent in relation to the period 1971-72
standing by themselves, can constitute sufficient
material for the department to come to a
conclusion in the matter. It is true that the earlier
record of the respondent was good but if the
record showed that the standard of work of the
respondent had declined and was not satisfactory,
that was certainly material enabling the
department to come to a conclusion under
Fundamental Rule 56(j). We are of opinion that the
- 17 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
High Court erred in setting aside the order of
compulsory retirement on the basis that there was
no material at all on record justifying the action
against the respondent."
14. The Apex Court in the above decision has made it
clear that if the record showed that the standard of work of
the employee had declined and was not satisfactory, that was
certainly material enabling the department to come to a
conclusion under Fundamental Rule 56(j). In the instant case,
the overall APAR grading of the respondent for the past few
years is as under:
Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Grading 7.6 6 6 6 4 4.75 Time 4
Barred
The above would certainly indicate gradual decline in the
performance of the respondent.
15. The representation made to modify the APAR
grading for the year 2017-18 was rejected by the petitioners
vide order dated 26.11.2018 and for the period 2018-19 vide
order dated 16.9.2019. The Authorities while rejecting the
representation observed that the remarks of APAR are based
on the general assessment of officers' day-to-day work,
- 18 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
conduct and duties performed; except for the Reporting and
Reviewing Officer, none else can have much knowledge about
such performance, more so in an Intelligence Organization.
The said reasoning is well-founded that too as stated in an
Intelligence Organization.
16. Initially, the order dated 11.08.2020 for
compulsory retirement of the respondent was issued in
exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules.
Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the CAT in OA
No.400/2020, which was disposed of with liberty to the
respondent to file representation before the Representation
Committee. Thereafter, notification dated 17.11.2020 for
compulsory retirement of the respondent was issued, which
was the subject matter in OA No.521/2020. The said
notification dated 17.11.2020 to compulsorily retire the
respondent was subsequently withdrawn by order dated
9.12.2020. Thereafter, on reconsideration of the entire matter
by the Review Committee and the Representation Committee,
the impugned order dated 6.12.2021 retiring the respondent
compulsorily under FR 56 (j(i) was passed. Minutes of the
- 19 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
Standing Review Committee dated 31.08.2021 reads as
follows:
F.No.1/Adm(C)/2020(1)-SF[CF-3486431]
Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Review
Committee dated 31.8.2021 to review the case of Shri
G.T. Rao, DCIO/Exe, IB under FR- 56(j)/Rule 48 of
CCS (Pension) Rules
A meeting of Standing Review Committee was held on
31.8.2021 at 11 a.m. to consider the recommendation of the
Representation Committee for reviewing the case afresh of
Shri G.T. Rao, who had been served the notice of
compulsory retirement under FR-56(j). The following
members of the Standing Review Committee (SRC) were
present:-
(i) Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, Secretary (BM), M/o Home
Affairs
(ii) Shri R.K. Singh, Joint Secretary, D/o Industrial
Policy & Promotion
2. It was apprised to the Committee that IB's
Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) suggested for
compulsory retirement of Shri G.T. Rao, DCIO under FR-
56(j) on the grounds of (i) no worthwhile contribution to
public service, (ii) engagement in prolonged correspondence
on trivial matters, (iii) steady fall in performance and; (iv)
obstructs efficiency in public service. The suggestions of DSC
were placed before the SRC who in turn recommended
compulsory retirement of Shri G.T. Rao. Accordingly, he was
served order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 11.8.2020
under the provisions of FR-56(j). On the directions of
Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench, the representation of Shri
G.T. Rao against compulsory retirement notice dated
11.8.2020 was considered by the Representation Committee
(RC) in its meeting held on 4.12.2020. The RC
recommended that the case of Shri G.T. Rao needed to be
reviewed afresh by the Standing Review Committee. Also,
on the directions of the Tribunal, IB withdrew the relieving
order from duties under FR-56(j) of Shri G.T. Rao on
9.12.2020 and reinstated him in service.
- 20 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
3. The meeting of the SRC was held on 2.3.2021 and
5.7.2021 wherein certain additional information was sought
by the Committee. Subsequently, the meeting of the SRC
was again held on 31.8.2021.
4. The Standing Review Committee went through the
material on record including the recommendation of the
Representation Committee and considered the case of Shri
G.T. Rao afresh. Taking into account the facts of
incompetence and inefficiency in the work allotted to him
and his performance post Reinstatement from compulsory
retirement, the Committee found the case fit for compulsory
retirement of Shri G.T. Rao.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.K. Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Joint Secretary Secretary (BM)
D/o Industrial Policy & Promotion M/o Home Affairs
17. Minutes of the meeting of the Representation
Committee dated 22.10.2021 of which the relevant
paragraphs-4 and 5 read thus:
4. The Representation Committee went through the
material on record including the recommendation of the
Standing Review Committee and the report of the Head of
Bangalore unit in respect of Shri G.T. Rao on his
performance, post reinstatement. It was noted that as per
the report, since he resumed his duties, Shri G.T. Rao did
not furnish any report/findings on the tasks assigned to him
prior to serving of the notice under FR-56(j) or submit any
kind of proposal/plan of action for any new initiative. In
addition, it was also observed by the Committee that earlier
in 2019 too, Shri Rao was assigned specific task of sensitive
nature, in writing, by the Head of the SIB. However, Shri
Rao did not accord due priority to the task at hand and failed
to complete the task. He was given several advisories and
warning in this regard.
To cite specific instances:
i. On 11.9.2018, Shri G.T. Rao was warned for submitting a
perfunctory report, lacking even basic details, on a matter of
- 21 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
sensitive nature and for questioning the competence of his
supervising authority;
ii. On being tasked to undertake a study tour to prepare a
self-contained report on an issue of importance, Shri G.T.
Rao chose to ignore orders and acted in an insubordinate
manner and indulged in unnecessary correspondence with
Hqrs on trivial issues, which caused loss of time and
disturbed the peace at the place of employment. He was
issued an advisory in this matter on 17.9.2019;
iii. Shri Rao was tasked to submit a study report on 'Illegal
withdrawal of water from Tungabhadra river by tail end
farmers'. However, he did not complete it even after lapse of
18 months. He was advised in this matter on 17.9.2019.
5. Shri G.T. Rao wrongly claimed in self-assessment
column of his APARs submitted in 2021 that he had not been
given any task/work. His action of questioning the
competence of the Authority of his supervisory officer was
found to be unacceptable, particularly in a sensitive
organization. He has been consistently shirking
responsibilities, for which he was given a warning and two
advisories in this regard. It was also noted that APARs of
Shri G.T. Rao show a general decline in his performance.
Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the Representation
Committee was of the considered view that the case of Shri
G.T. Rao was a fit case for compulsory retirement under FR-
56(j).
18. The above proceedings of the Review Committee
as well as the Representation Committee amply make it clear
that the relevant materials were considered and taking into
consideration the sensitive nature of the department and
taking note of the fact that the respondent was consistently
shirking the responsibilities for which he was given warning
- 22 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
and advisory, it came to the conclusion that it is a fit case for
compulsory retirement of the respondent under FR 56(j).
19. On perusal of the APAR grading of the respondent
from the period 2014-15 onwards till 2021-22, the
performance of the respondent has declined. As noted earlier,
it is the subjective satisfaction of the Appointing Authority or
the government, which would be relevant for taking decision
to retire compulsorily under FR 56(j). Normally, the said
subjective satisfaction could not be the subject matter of the
judicial review unless it is shown that it is patently arbitrary or
vitiated by malafides. As observed earlier, in a judicial review,
this Court would not sit in judgment over the subjective
satisfaction of the authorities to compulsorily retire the
respondent from service under FR 56(j).
20. The CAT committed a grave error in coming to a
conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement under FR
56 (j) dated 6.12.2021 is punitive in nature. As observed
above, the CAT could not sit as an appellate authority to
examine the subjective satisfaction of the
government/appointing authority in coming to a conclusion to
- 23 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
compulsorily retire the respondent under FR 56(j). The CAT in
its judgment at paragraph-18 has noted certain instances to
arrive at a conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement
is punitive in nature. However, it is to be noticed that those
are instances and material on which the
Government/Appointing Authority as well as Review
Committee and Representation Committee have arrived at
subjective satisfaction and concluded that the respondent is to
be retired compulsorily under FR 56(j).
21. The CAT has observed that the change of opinion is
not based on any new material and absolutely there was no
changed circumstance in the case for subjective satisfaction
under FR 56 (j) to pass an order of compulsory retirement.
The entire service record of the employee shall have to be
examined and the appointing authority or the government
shall be satisfied that continuance of such employee in service
would be against public interest, apart from examining as to
whether there is decline in performance of the duty. In the
said circumstances, there need not be any new material or
changed circumstance to pass order of compulsory retirement
- 24 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
dated 6.12.2021 under FR 56(j). The CAT has also observed
that there is no evidence of drastic decline in integrity or work
quality of the respondent. It is not for the Courts or the
Tribunals to assess the work quality of the employee or
government servant. It is for the higher officers, reporting or
reviewing authority to assess the quality of work of the
employee.
22. The objective of writing APAR or ACR would be to
give an opportunity to the public servant to improve his work
or excellence. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of
India Vs. Kashinath Kher6 in the matter of writing
confidential report has held as follows:
"...The object of writing the confidential report is
twofold, i.e., to give an opportunity to the officer
to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline.
Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality
and excellence and efficiency of public service. This
Court in Delhi Transport Corpn. case (1991 Supp
(1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] pointed out
the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to
lack of objectives by the controlling officer.
Confidential and character reports should,
therefore, be written by superior officers higher
above the cadres. The officer should show
objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment
without any prejudices whatsoever with the
6
(1996) 8 SCC 762
- 25 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate
devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve
excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers
get demoralised which would be deleterious to the
efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore,
they should be written by a superior officer of high
rank. Who are such high rank officers is for the
appellants to decide. The appellants have to
prescribe the officer competent to write the
confidentials. There should be another higher
officer in rank above the officer who has written
confidential report to review such report. The
appointing authority or any equivalent officer
would be competent to approve the confidential
reports or character rolls. This procedure would be
fair and reasonable. The reports thus written would
form the basis for consideration for promotion. The
procedure presently adopted is clearly illegal,
unfair and unjust.
23. In yet another decision, the Apex Court in the case
of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra7 has held as
follows:
"7. It would, thus, be clear that the object of
writing the confidential reports and making entries
in the character rolis is to give an opportunity to a
public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-
A(j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to
constantly endeavour to prove excellence,
individually and collectively, as a member of the
group. Given an opportunity, the individual
employee strives to improve excellence and
thereby efficiency of administration would be
augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to
write confidential reports, has a public
responsibility and trust to write the confidential
reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while
giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of
7
1997 (4) SCC 7
- 26 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
facts on an overall assessment of the performance
of the subordinate officer. It should be founded
upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it
may not be part of the record, but the conduct,
reputation and character acquire public knowledge
or notoriety and may be within his knowledge.
Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the
reporting officers writing confidentials should share
the information which is not a part of the record
with the officer concerned, have the information
confronted by the officer and then make it part of
the record. This amounts to an opportunity given
to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of
the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or
conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given
such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the
duty, correct his conduct or improve himself,
necessarily the same may be recorded in the
confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to
the affected officer so that he will have an
opportunity to know the remarks made against
him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him
to have it corrected by appropriate representation
to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial
forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty. integrity,
good conduct and efficiency get improved in the
performance of public duties and standard of
excellence in services constantly rises to higher
levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage
the services with officers of integrity, honesty,
efficiency and devotion."
24. FR 56(j) confers power on the authority to
compulsorily retire government servants whose efficiency is on
a decline and to weed out the dead wood from service, on
examination of the entire service records, giving importance
or preference to recent service records or APARs. In the
instant case, the respondent was working in a sensitive
- 27 -
WP No.19796 of 2023
C/W WP No.19463 of 2023
department of Intelligence and his performance was on
decline apart from non-submission of report on the entrusted
work, which was the foundation for order under FR 56(j).
25. For the reasons recorded above, both writ petitions
deserve acceptance. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Both writ petitions are allowed;
b) The impugned common order dated 20.04.2023 passed in OA No. 170/01125/2019 & OA No. 170/00588/2021 by the CAT is hereby set-aside; and
c) The said Original Applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE JTR