Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Ravish K N vs Income Tax Department on 3 June, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00095/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 25.04.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 03.06.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Ravish K.N. S/o Shri K. Narayana Naik,
Aged about 57 years, R/o Shivakshetra Kepu,
Post Neerkaje - 574 243, Dakshin Kannada District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri T.C. Gupta)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through the Finance Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Aayakar Bhawan, Panaji - Goa - 403 001.
3. Amrapalli Das, the then PCIT, Panaji,
Now Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
NWR Region, Chandigarh - 160 017. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Hanu Bhasker for Respondent No.1
- through video conference and Shri N. Amaresh, Sr.
Panel Counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3.)
mikasha suneja
mikashaCAT Bangalore
2025.06.09
suneja 13:16:01
+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
1. This OA has been filed on 06.02.2024 for quashment of the compulsory retirement order dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure - A1) passed by Respondents under Section 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and the order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure - A4) passed upon Representation of the applicant.
2. The applicant Ravish K.N. joined the service as UDC on 09.10.1990 in the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, he was promoted as Income Tax Officer on 04.11.2008. His superannuation was due on 31.03.2027. But before superannuation, the respondents passed the order of compulsory retirement under Section 56(j) of Fundamental Rules on 21.10.2020 (Annexure - A1). The order is reproduced herein:-
"F.No. 56(j)/Pr. CIT/PNJ/2020-21 Dated: 21.10.2020 ORDER NO. 01/56(j)/2020 WHEREAS the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji 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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji hereby retires Sri. Ravish K.N., ITO, who has completed 50 years of age, with immediate effect from the afternoon of 22.10.2020 and he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE was supposed to be drawing then immediately before his retirement.
(AMRAPALLI DAS) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji - Goa"
3. Thereafter applicant filed OA No. 290/2021 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore against the aforesaid order Annexure - A1. In the aforesaid case, the respondents filed the reply and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the OA as per Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The respondents raised the objection that the applicant before approaching the Tribunal, must avail all remedies available to him under the relevant service rules. The applicant did not submit any representation against the aforesaid order. Thereafter, the Court considered the aforesaid objection in the light of case laws and on 17.07.2023, the following direction was given in para 14 of the aforesaid OA:-
"14. Hence, without going into the merits or case, we direct the applicant to submit a representation before the appropriate authority under FR 56 (jj) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if such representation is made, the Representation Committee shall consider the same on merits without going into the issue of limitation and shall decide the matter in accordance with law, in an expedite manner, in any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation."
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
4. After the aforesaid order of Tribunal, the applicant submitted the representation dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure - A3). Thereafter, the aforesaid representation was considered by the Representation Committee and the decision of the representation committee communicated by impugned order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure - A4) to the applicant.
5. The order Annexure - A4 has been passed in detail. It will be convenient to reproduce the aforesaid order for avoiding the repetition of facts. The aforesaid order says:-
"F.No.394(7)/Qtrly Review/KNR/2024 8th January 2024 ORDER Sub: Representation of Sri K.N. Ravish, ITO (compulsorily retired) against the order dated 21.10.2020 under Rule 56(j) passed by the Pr.CIT, Panaji - reg.
Ref: 1. Order dated 17.7.2023 of the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore in O.A.No.170/00290/2021.
2. Your letter dated 18.7.2023 addressed to the Chairman, Representation Committee for Rule 56(j) cases, New Delhi.
************ The Review Committee had met to recommend the cases in respect of Gr. B Officers who will be attaining the age of 50 years [FR 56(j)] or will be completing 30 years of service qualifying for pension [Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS Pension Rules] during the quarter October to December 2020 for compulsory retirement under FR 56(j). Based on the recommendations of the Pr.CIT, Mangalore and the Internal Committee the case of Shri. K.N. Ravish [for application of FR 56(j)] was duly recommended by Review Committee which found Shri. K.N. Ravish ineffective on various counts such as repeated absence without sanctioned mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE leave, dereliction of duty, not attending to time barring cases having direct impact on revenue, not heeding to directions issued by the higher authorities as regards his conduct etc. The recommendation of the Review committee was accepted by the Cadre Controlling Authority and Shri. K.N. Ravish was compulsorily retired by the Appropriate Authority viz. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji (PCIT, Panaji) vide order dated 21.10.2020.
2. Shri. Ravish KN, ITO (Retd.) filed OA No. 290/2021 before the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore Bench against the order u/r. 56(j) dated 21.10.2020. The Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore Bench, disposed of the said OA of the Applicant vide Order data 17.07.2023 with the direction as under:
"...14. Hence, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, w direct the applicant to submit a representation before the appropriate authority under FR 56(11) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order and if such representation is made, the Representation Committee shall consider the same on merits without going into the issue of limitation and shall decide the matter in accordance with law, in an expedite manner. In any event not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation."
3. Accordingly, Shri K.N. Ravish filed the representation dated 18.7.2023 which was duly forwarded to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi with a request to put up before the Representation Committee constituted for cases covered under FR 56(j).
4. The Representation Committee reconstituted by the DOPT vide OM No.25013/01/2013/Estt. A-IV dated 22.9.2022 consisting of the following Members, considered the representation of Sri K.N. Ravish:
1. Ms. Arti Ahuja, Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment -Chairperson
2. Sri Puneet Kansal, Addl. Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat - Member mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Sri S.K. Jha, Joint Secretary (Admn.), CBDT, Department of Revenue - Member
5. The Committee was informed that Shri K.N. Ravish had filed an O.A.No.170/00290/2021 before the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore challenging the Order of premature retirement and that the Hon'ble CAT, Bangalore vide order dated 17.7.2023 had disposed of the OA with the direction as above.
6. The Representation Committee met on 31.8.2023. Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (Admn), Bangalore represented the Department to assist the Committee. The Committee again met on 21.9.2023 and considered the reasons recorded by the Review Committee in the Minutes dated 9.10.2020, grounds made by Sri K.N. Ravish in the representation dated 18.7.2023, comments of the Department on the grounds of the representation and the records on the basis of which the decision to retire the Officer under FR 56(j) was taken.
7. The Representation Committee went through the following grounds considered by the Review Committee for retiring the applicant under FR 56(j):
a) Shri K.N. Ravish has been frequently absenting himself without sanction of leave since 2019.
b) Shri S. Nambirajan, the then Addl. CIT, Udupi, had recommended the case of the officer for action under FR 56(j) due to unauthorized absent without sufficient documentary evidence of illness and non-adherence to the directions of the higher authorities.
c) The then Addl. CIT, Udupi while reviewing the pendency of work of the Assessing Officer has found that Shri. K.N Ravish, ITO, Ward-1 had not carried out any work or disposed of any files till 13.09.2019. It was further observed that Shri Ravish had neither prepared case wise list of pending demand nor initiated any action for recovery in such cases.
d) On assessment front, apart from issuing initial notices u/s 142(1) during the first fortnight of July, 2019, Shri Ravish had not taken any subsequent follow up action.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE No list of assessees was prepared for monitoring Advance Tax payments.
e) In the Operation Clean Money (OCM) cases, Shri Ravish was directed to conduct enquiries like obtaining bank statements from respective banks, tracing of assessees etc. on urgent basis. However, Shri Ravish without informing his superiors filed a leave application dated 16.9.2019 оn medical ground from 16.9.2019 to 27.9.19 i.e. 12 days without any proper documentary evidence.
f) Shri Ravish was issued office memo dated 24.9.2019 that his leave cannot be sanctioned due to exigency of work. Shri Ravish without attending any of the OCM cases till September 2019, proceeded on leave abruptly by disobeying the directions of his superiors. Hence, he was directed to report for work immediately. He was asked to explain his conduct, failing which his leave application would not considered. However, the officer did not file any explanation but filed a leave application dated 30.9.2019 for extension of commuted leave from 28.09.2019 to 18.10.2019 for 21 days without any documentary evidence.
g) Hence, one more Office Memo was issued to him vide letter dated 4.10.2019 asking him to explain his indisciplined behavior. Shri Ravish was categorically informed that the leave applied by him on medical ground would not be granted unless he produces satisfactory documentary evidence in respect of medical condition from the competent authority. Without giving any explanation, the officer again filed one more leave application dated 18.10.2019 applying for Earned Leave for 84 days from 19.10.2019 to 10.01.2020.
h) The Addl.CIT vide letter dated 15.11.2019 has stated that the officer was quite irregular in attending office and remained absent without submitting formal application.
i) The officer had absented himself for 118 days in the year 2016-2017 and 162 days in the year 2018-19. Thereby the officer has shown utter disregard towards the rules and responsibilities.
j) Shri Ravish made an application dated 21.10.2019 for voluntary retirement. The CCA has stated that the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE officer had not mentioned the relevant rule under which he was opting for VRS hence officer was asked to apply afresh quoting specific rule. Shri Ravish vide letter dated 22.01.2020 stated that he has neither submitted any reply to the question raised about VRS application dated 21.10.2019 nor submitted any fresh VRS application.
k) Shri Ravish again applied for EL for 11 days from 10.02.2020 to 20.02.2020 on personal grounds. His EL application was kept in abeyance till he furnishes replies to all memos Issued earlier on various dates.
l) The Pr. CIT, Mangaluru had issued show cause notice under Rule 17 A of the Fundamental Rules. Shri Ravish was asked to furnish his reply on or before 06.02.2020. The Pr. CIT, Mangaluru did not find the reply convincing and therefore vide proceedings in F. No. Adm /Pr. CIT /MNG / 2019-20 dated 05.03.2020 has treated the period of absence from duty from 06.09.2019 to 15.01.2020 as Dies Non with break in service under FR 17A.
m) The overall APAR grading's of Shri Ravish were diminishing year after year. Further, the officer had not submitted his self-appraisal for the year 2017-18. The Review Committee noted that Shri Ravish's leave spells started from January 2018 till May 2018 and the reasons submitted for non-submission of the self- appraisal was insufficient.
n) The Review Committee concluded that the conduct of Shri Ravish, ITO is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to Public service and injurious to Public interest and that his services were no longer useful to the Department.
8. The Representation Committee took cognizance of the following points raised by Sri K.N.Ravish in his representation:
i. There was nothing adverse or blame worthy in the whole service record including APAR except one incidence of proceeding on leave on medical grounds from 16.9.2019 to 15.1.2020 without prior sanction of leave.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE ii. The three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice period was not paid along with the order of FR 56(j). Even some amount was deducted from the salary paid whereas, as per the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court decision dated 12.12.2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 12.12.1979 In case of Krishna Kamal Ghose Vs. UOI & Ors, the pay and allowances must be paid with the order of compulsory retirement. iii. He was issued vigilance clearance and granted grade pay of Rs.5,500/-.
9. The Committee took note of the Views of Administrative Ministry, which were as under:
i) The case under FR 56(j) are reviewed as per the provisions laid down in FR 56()) and consolidated guidelines issued vide DoPT's O.M. No.25013/03/2019-
EstLA- IV dated 28.08.2020. The case of Shri K.N. Ravish, ITO has been reviewed, accordingly.
ii) It is also now well settled by catena of judicial precedents that pre-mature 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 Central Services.
iii) The case of Shri. K.N. Ravish for application of FR 56(j) was duly recommended by Review Committee which found Shri. K.N. Ravish ineffective on various counts such as repeated absence without sanctioned leave, dereliction of duty, not attending to time barring cases having direct impact on revenue, not heeding to directions issued by the higher authorities as regards his conduct, etc.
iv) The recommendation of the Review committee was accepted by the Cadre Controlling Authority and Shri. mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE K.N. Ravish was compulsorily retired by the Appropriate Authority viz, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji (PCIT, Panaji) vide order dated 21.10.2020.
v) The Applicant did not submit his self-appraisal in spite of the applicant having two periods exceeding 90 days during the relevant reporting period even after the issuance of letter of Pr. CCIT's letter dated 05.08.2020.
vi) Shri K.N. Ravish had been evading work whenever he was posted to charges with relatively heavier workload.
vii) Shri K.N. Ravish resorted to applying for leave when assigned with a charge with heavier workload particularly when the time limitation for completing such work neared expiry on the pretext of being sick. The leave applied for in various years are as follows:
Year From To No. of days Remarks
2016-17 23.05.2016 08.07.2016 47
09.07.2016 18.07.2016 10
19.07.2016 02.09.2016 49
05.12.2016 16.12.2016 12
2017-18 10.01.2018 19.01.2018 10
23.01.2018 16.02.2018 25
17.02.2018 16.03.2018 28
17.03.2018 25.04.2018 40
2018-19 26.04.2018 18.05.2018 23
18.05.2018 15.06.2018 28
09.07.2018 03.08.2018 26
05.02.2019 15.02.2019 11
16.02.2019 22.03.2019 35
23.03.2019 05.04.2019 14
2019-20 16.09.2019 27.09.2019 12
28.09.2019 18.10.2019 21 Not
19.10.2019 10.01.2020 84 sanctioned
10.02.2020 20.02.2020 11
viii) The Addl. CIT vide his letter No. 55/Estt./560)/2019- 20 dated 15.11.2019 proposed the Applicant's case for compulsory retirement under 56(j). However, Addl.CIT recommended that the same may be kept in abeyance in view of the application for VRS dated 21.10.2019 submitted by Shri K.N. Ravish.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
ix) As Shri K.N. Ravish did not mention the relevant rule under which he was opting for VRS, he was informed to apply afresh. However, he failed to respond and reported back for duty stating that he had neither submitted any reply to the query nor filed any fresh VRS application.
x) The Pr.CIT, Mangaluru issued show Cause Notice vide F.No. Vat/PCIT/MNG/2019-201 dated 29.01.2020 under Rule 17A of the Fundamental Rules to Shri KN Ravish for 1 explaining as to why his period of unauthorized absence from 10.09.2010 to 15.01.2020 should not be treated as break in service/dies-non and as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated for his conduct in remaining absent from duty without any sanctioned/approved leave and also non-adhering to the directions of his Supervisory authority.
xi) Shri K.N. Ravish has submitted that since he was a diabetic patient since last 20 years, his sugar levels reached 481 and as he was mentally upset, he could not give proper explanation within time. He also submitted that he intended to submit fresh application of VRS by March, 2020. However, he did not submit any fresh VRS application.
xii) The Pr. CIT, Mangaluru vide Proceedings in F. NO.
Adm/Pr. CIT/MNG.2019-20 dated 05.03.2020 treated the period of absence from duty from 16.09.2019 to 15.01.2020 as Dies-Non under CCS (Leave) Rules read with FR 17A stating that the explanation and the medical test reports submitted by him were not convincing and that the reasons stated were not acceptable so as to treat it as a valid explanation. However, this order has been challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru in OA No. 170/471/2021.
xiii) The Pr. CIT, Mangaluru vide Proceedings in F.NO.
CR/Pr CIT/MNG.2019-20 dated 20.03.2020 warned Shri K N Ravish to maintain devotion to duty, absolute Integrity and abstain from any action unbecoming of a Government Servant.
xiv)Shri K.N Ravish has shown utter disregard towards the extant rules and responsibilities which a Government Servant is bound to follow. He failed to heed to the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE repetitive advices/cautions given by his supervisory officer as well as other higher authorities. His absence without sanctioned leave clearly amounts to unbecoming of a public servant',
xv) He has particularly availed leave during the periods when there has been exceptional workload and crucial in terms of the performance of the posts held by him. It can be deduced from the same that there has been an attempt to evade the work assigned to him. It is also seen that the Officer was applying for leave whenever there was more work before the time barring dates. xvi)It is seen from the Central Action Plan (CAP) reports for the months of June, 2019 he had completed only 2 cases of Scrutiny Assessment out of 147 cases and as seen from CAP for Sept. 2019 that he has disposed only 3 more cases.
xvii) The proceedings of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide proceedings in F.NO. Adm/Pr CIT/MNG 2019-20 dated 05.03.2020 under FR 17A has considered the period of absence from duty from 16.09.2019 to 15.01.2020 of Shri K.N. Ravish and vide a detailed speaking order after considering the explanation provided by him has treated the aforesaid period of absence as dies- non. She found the explanation and the medical test reports submitted by him were not convincing and that the reasons stated were not acceptable so as to treat it as a valid explanation.
xviii) The overall APAR gradings of Shri K.N. Ravish were diminishing year after year. the details of which are as under:
2013-14 8.82
2014-15 7.35
2015-16 6.94
2016-17 6.06
2017-18 Not submitted Self appraisal
2018-19 6.00
xix)The Appropriate Authority vide its order in F.No. 56(1)/Pr. CIT/PNJ/2020-21 dated 21.10.2021 while exercising the power under FR 56(1) to retire Shri K.N. Ravish, also ordered that a sum equivalent to 3 months mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE pay and allowances be dram immediately and paid to him in lieu of the notice period.
xx) The three months of pay and allowances as per the order u/r 56(1) have been credited into the Bank Account of the Applicant on 24.05.2021. The notice period salary payment was made fully and correctly. Even though there was a slight administrative delay, due to the change of the DDO and also due to prevailing Covid. 19 pandemic as offices were either under lockdown or were working with reduced manpower.
xxi)The case law relied upon by Shri K.N. Ravish 1.e. Calcutta High Court in the case of Krishna Kamal Ghosh is not relevant in the instant case since the notice period salary has been paid in full to the applicant
10. After taking into account, the grounds for retiring Sri K.N.Ravish under FR 56(j) and the views of the Administrative Ministry, the Representation Committee has observed as under:
i. The Order under FR 56(j) retiring Shri K.N. Ravish has been issued with the approval of the Competent Authority.
ii. The JCIT (Intl. Taxn.) vide letter dated 20.02.2018 has sought replacement of the Officer as he was not available for duties on a continuous basis and was not able to perform his duties as ITO(IT), Mangalore.
iii. The immediate supervisory authority i.e. the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udupi Range vide his letter No.55/Estt./56(j)/2019-20 dated 15.11.2019 have found Shri K.N.Ravish ineffective on various counts such as repeated absence without sanctioned leave, dereliction of duty, not attending to time barring cases having direct impact on revenue, no heeding to directions issued by the higher authorities as regards his conduct, etc. Similar observations have also been made by his successor in his letter dated 02.07.2020. iv. The Pr. CIT, Mangaluru warned Shri K.N.Ravish vide letter dated 20.03.2020 to maintain devotion to duty, absolute integrity and abstain from any action unbecoming of a Government Servant.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE v. Shri K.N.Ravish was evading work by applying for leaves.
vi. The performance of Shri K.N.Ravish has deteriorated over the years.
11. Taking all the issues into consideration, the Committee did not find any reason to interfere in the decision of the Appropriate Authority to prematurely retire Shri K.N.Ravish, Income Tax Officer in public interest.
12. Taking into account the factors leading to the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose of FR 56(j), Representation of Sri K.N.Ravish against compulsory retirement and the recommendation of the Representation Committee, I am of the view that action taken under FR 56(j) is fully justified.
(CHAITALI PANMEI, IRS.) Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnataka & Goa, Bengaluru"
6. By the aforesaid order, the representation committee also dismissed the representation of the applicant and found that the applicant was rightly compulsory retired by order dated 21.10.2020. Therefore, the applicant filed the present OA No. 95/2024 on 06.02.2024 and claimed the following reliefs in para 8 as under:-
"A} In view of the facts and grounds enumerated above, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondents may be directed to produce the relevant original records regarding leave matters and order u/s 56 (j) to know the truth of the matter. In earlier OA, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to produce the original records but the respondents never produced the records.
B} Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the OA may kindly be allowed and respondent mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE order dated 21.10.2020 Ann. A/1 and alleged PCCIT order dated 8.1.2024, Ann. A/4 may be quashed, with all consequential benefits alongwith interest. C} Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be issued in favour of the applicant."
7. The applicant challenged the aforesaid orders Annexures
- A1 and A4 in this petition. As per applicant in this case, "Principal Commission of Income Tax, Panaji" was the competent / appointing authority to decide the representation. Therefore, the order passed by "Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore" dated 08.01.2024 is not an order passed by competent / appointing authority and thus is non est. As per applicant, the order dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure - A1) is baseless, arbitrary, illegal and malafides and the order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure - A4) is without jurisdiction, non est, arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted by the applicant that neither three months' notice was given nor the pay and allowances of three months in lieu of such notice was given. Therefore, the conditions laid in FR 56 (j) were not fulfilled and thus the order of retirement under Section 56 (j) is illegal and void. It is again submitted that the three months' salary was paid after seven months of the order on 24.05.2021 and the office paid the salary from 01.11.2020 to 22.01.2021. Hence, the salary only for 83 days have been paid.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the integrity of applicant was never doubtful, his official record was clear, there was no any solid ground for taking the decision of compulsory retirement. Some rulings are also quoted in the petition and submitted that both orders are required to be quashed. It is also submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed only after completion of service of 07 months and 16 days only, because the previous service was already dies-non.
9. The respondents opposed the claim of applicant and filed the reply statement on 08.08.2024. It is submitted by the respondents that the competent authority passed the impugned order in public interest and the applicant has been retired in public interest. His representation has been duly considered by the representation committee and the representation committee came to the conclusion that the representation is liable to be rejected. Hence, the aforesaid decision of committee has been communicated to the applicant by the concerned authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order Annexure - A4 has not been passed by the competent authority. Looking to the entire record of the applicant, the decision has been taken. The details of absence from duties and other activities have been mentioned in detail in the reply statement and the respondents insisted that the orders have been passed in public interest which does not cast any stigma and the principles of natural justice are not attracted in the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE case of compulsory retirement. The respondents also filed several rulings which will be discussed in the later paras.
10. The applicant strongly argued upon the point that in lieu of three months' notice, the pay and allowances of three months should be given to the applicant on the same date of 21.10.2020 when the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It is submitted that if the amount is paid later-on, then the impugned order Annexure-A1 having no any force and will be void. On the other side, the respondents counsel submitted that it is not the requirement of Section 56 (j) that the amount should be paid at the time of passing the order. In this case, the order was passed and it was mentioned in Annexure - A1 that the "applicant shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was supposed to be drawing then immediately before his retirement". The counsel for respondents also submitted that the rulings relied by the applicant counsel are not applicable in the case of Section 56 (j) of Fundamental Rules because the aforesaid rulings are related to the provisions of other laws , which are not identical with the Section 56 (j) of Fundamental Rules.
11. As far as payment is concerned, the applicant himself filed Annexure - A5. It appears from the aforesaid documents that the full pay for the month of October, 2020 was given to the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant. While the applicant was compulsory retired in the afternoon of 22.10.2020. Therefore, he was not entitled for the pay of the period 23.10.2020 to 31.10.2020. The aforesaid amount was paid in excess. Thereafter, the salary for the period from 01.11.2020 to 22.01.2021 was paid to the applicant. It is also an admitted position that the salary for the period of 01.11.2020 to 22.01.2021 was paid to the applicant and in the month of October the full pay was paid. If we compare both documents then it appears that the complete three months' salary has been paid to the applicant. It is also true that the aforesaid amount was not paid on the date of 21.10.2020 when the order Annexure - A1 was passed. Therefore question arise -"Whether as per prevailing position of law, the sufficient compliance of Section 56 (j) of Fundamental Rules has been made or not?"
In this regard, we may peruse the position of law and the rulings submitted by both parties.
12(a). The learned counsel for applicant submitted a copy of judgment dated 06.12.1989 passed by D.B. of Gujarat High court at Ahmedabad in Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Idar & Anr. Vs. M.M. Saiyed (LPA no. 259 of 1989 with Civil application No. 1637 of 1989). This is not the copy of reported judgment in any law journal or the certified copy of judgment or the photo copy of certified copy. It is also appear that the copy is incomplete. Upon search it is found that the judgment is not mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE uploaded in official website of Gujarat high court. But it is found that in another judgment passed by Gujarat High court passed on 17.10.2012 in Civil Appeal No.133 of 1995 the aforesaid case is referred in following words:-
"In the case of Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Idar & Anr. Vs. M.M. Saiyed, reported in 31(1)GLR 495, the issue was whether the service of temporary Government servant can be terminated without issuance of a notice. In that case, termination of service of temporary employee was not by afflux of time under the last appointment order of 29 days but prior thereto, appointment was so terminated."
12(b). In spite the above situation, if we see the aforesaid case, than it appear that in the aforesaid case of M.M. Saiyed (supra) the petitioner was employed as a clerk-cum-tracer. He was given various appointment orders of 29 days each. First such order was of July 3, 1984. Series of orders in succession followed and there was a continuous link in these orders till the last order for 29 days which was given from 29-9-1985 and up to 21-10-1985. Before that 29 days order could run out and could get exhausted by efflux of time, services of the respondent were terminated by order of termination dated 14-10-1985. Service stood terminated not by efflux of time by way of termination before time. This order was challenged and single judge took the view that the impugned termination was void and contrary to Rule 33 (1)(b) of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to get reinstatement with the full back wages. Thereafter mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE aforesaid order was challenged in the appeal before D.B. The D.B. referred the rule 33:-
"33 (1)(a). The service of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time, by a notice in writing given to him by the appointing authority.
(b) Where the temporary Government servants has put in service for a period exceeding one year the period of such notice shall be one month and where such Government servant has put in service for one year or any period less than one year the period of such notice shall be one week.
Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing pay and allowances immediately before the termination of his service, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of the notice period."
12(c). In para 5 of the aforesaid case the D.B. said that the "Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959" is identical with "Rule 5 (1)(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Ruls 1965", therefore the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India. AIR 1975, SC 536 will be applicable wherein an identical Rule 5 (1)(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules. 1965 came to be interpreted. The court said that payment was a condition of the termination of service forthwith and once it is not done, the order would get voided. Court observed in para 5:-
"5. However, Mr. Dave placed strong reliance on the proviso to the said Rule. He submitted that at the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE highest, respondent would be entitled to two day's salary or for that matter, full one month's salary if such notice was not given. But the impugned order cannot get voided. It is not possible to agree with this contention in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India. AIR 1975, SC 536, wherein an identical Rule 5 (1)(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules. 1965 came to be interpreted by the Court proviso therein was similarly worded and it was provided that services of any such Govt. servant may be terminated forthwith by payment. Interpreting these words employed in the proviso, the Supreme Court held that this showed that the payment was a condition of the termination of service forthwith and once it is not done, the order would get voided. In the facts of the present case, a similar situation has arisen. Necessary payment of notice period pay has not been made to the respondent simultaneously, with the impugned order. Therefore, the order gets vitiated in law. ............"
13(a). In the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 458 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 1 : 1974 SCC OnLine SC 304 = AIR 1975 SC 536 [07.10.1974] [referred in M.M. Saiyed (supra) case] the applicant was appointed as Airport Ticket Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India on August 14, 1967. On June 15, 1971 his services were terminated "forthwith" and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which the order was served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him. But the pay and allowances were not paid to him at the same mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE time as the service of the order of termination of his services. His appeal against the termination as well as representations having failed, he filed a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and thereafter appeal was filed in pursuance of a certificate granted by the High Court because of the decision of this Court in R.M.S. v. K.V. Gopinath [(1973) 3 SCC 867 = 869 :
1973 SCC (L&S) 277 = (1972) 3 SCR 530] . The Court said that in the case of K.V. Gopinath (supra) it was held:-
"Rule 5(1)(a) gives the Government as well as the employee a right to put an end to the service by a notice in writing. Under Rule 1(b) the period prescribed for such notice is one month. The proviso to the sub-rule
(b) however gives the Government an option not to retain the employee in service till the expiry of the period of the notice; but to be effective, the termination of service has to be simultaneous with the payment to the employee of whatever is due to him. The operative words of the proviso are 'the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment showing that the payment is a condition of the termination of service forthwith.
Since the words used are plain and unambiguous they must be construed in their ordinary sense without any considerations of policy.
There will always be some time during which the authority deliberates over the matter and makes up his mind, and within that time, directions can be given that the pay and allowances of the Government servant should be calculated so that they could be offered to the employee at the time when the order of termination is served on him. There is no difficulty in the calculation because the payment is to be made at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services. Therefore, there mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE is no merit in the contention that it would be impossible for the authorities to give effect to the proviso if payment was to be made simultaneously with the service on the employee of the order of termination." 13(b). The court observed that the "decision had not been rendered when the High Court dealt with this matter and it is obvious from the fact that the High Court has granted the certificate purely because of the subsequent decision of this Court". The court said that admittedly the pay and allowances were not paid to the appellant at the same time as the notice of termination of his services was served on the appellant. Court again said that matter squarely falls within the aforesaid decision of Apex Court. In the above situation the court allowed the appeal and said:-
"The only point taken on behalf of the respondents at the time when the appellant applied for grant of the certificate was that before making the final payment it had to be ensured that no Government dues were outstanding against the appellant and he was, therefore, called upon by a letter dated June 26, 1971 to collect his dues after surrendering his identity card, identity batch, C.G.H.S. token card and all items of uniform. As the order of termination of services is dated June 3 and this letter is said to have been written on June 26 it is in no sense an explanation as to why appellant's salary etc. were not paid to him on the date of termination of his services. The matter squarely falls within the decision of this Court earlier referred to. The appeal will have, therefore, to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated June 3, 1971 is quashed."
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
14. In another case (in which applicant name was also Rajkumar) Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 198 : 1975 SCC OnLine SC 124 [19.03.1975], the appellant was appointed as Airport Ticket Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India on August 14, 1967. On June 15, 1971, his services were terminated "forthwith" and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which the order was served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him. But the pay and allowances were not paid to him at the same time as the service of the order of termination of his services. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition in limine and appeal was filed in pursuance of a certificate granted by the High Court because of the decision of this Court in R.M.S. v. K.V. Gopinath [(1973) 3 SCC 867 = 1973 SCC (L&S) 277 = (1972) 3 SCR 530] of which that Court was not aware when it dismissed the petitioner's petition. Court quoted the amended provision as:-
"5. Termination of temporary service.--(1)(a) The services of temporary government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant;
(b) The period of such notice shall be one month:
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Provided that the services of any such government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination the government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."
Thereafter Supreme Court said that the sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, had been amended with retrospective effect from May 1, 1965. The effect of this amendment is that on May 1, 1965, as also on June 15, 1971, the date on which the appellant's services were terminated forthwith it was not obligatory to pay to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice. Court also said that the effect of amendment is that the decision of supreme court Gopinath case [(1973) 3 SCC 867 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 277 : (1972) 3 SCR 530] is no longer good law.
15. Therefore looking the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 198 : 1975 SCC OnLine SC 124 [19.03.1975], applicant in not entitled of any benefit from the judgment of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Idar & Anr. Vs. M.M. Saiyed (LPA no. 259 of 1989 with Civil application No. 1637 of 1989) and Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 458 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 1 : 1974 SCC OnLine mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 26 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE SC 304 = AIR 1975 SC 536 [07.10.1974]. In addition, the present case is related to provision of Fundamental Rule 56(j). The provision of Fundamental Rule 56(j) reads as under:-
"FR 56(j) :- 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 55 years."
The aforesaid provision "Fundamental Rule 56(j)" is not identical with "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965" or "Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959". "forthwith by payment"
words have not been used in in Fundamental Rule 56(j). Even in the amended "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965" the words "shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances" have been used in place of " forthwith by payment". Therefore as per present position of law it is not mandatory that the amount of pay and allowance should be paid on the date of order of compulsory retirement. Only entitlement has been given, therefore only order of entitlement of payment is mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 27 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE necessary alongwith order of compulsory retirement and actual payment can be made on subsequent date.
16(a). Applicant also submitted on 17.04.2025, a simple copy of order dated 12.12.1979 passed by Calcutta High court in Krishana Kamal Ghosh vs. Union of India (Page 184 -185 of O.A.). This is also not the copy of reported judgment in any law journal or the certified copy of judgment or the photo copy of certified copy. The counsel written by pen "W.A. No. 831/1978". In Para 5 (h), 5 (i) and 5 (j) of this O.A., the applicant mentioned:-
"5(h). The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in decision dated 12.12.1979 in the case of Krishna Kamal Gosh v. Union of India & Ors has held that three months' pay and allowances must be paid with the order of compulsory retirement. Even when the payment made was short by Rs. 300/-, the Court held that the Rule 56(j) was patently violated.
5(i). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision dated 12.12.1979 in the case of Krishna Kamal Gosh v. Union of India & Ors has held that three months' pay and allowances must be paid with the order of compulsory retirement.
5(j). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in decision dated 12.12.1979 in the case of Krishna Kamal Gosh v. Union of India & Ors has held that three months' pay and allowances must be paid with the order of compulsory retirement."
It appears that the applicant mentioned the same parties name and date of judgment in all three paras but the name of courts are different as Calcutta High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court and Rajasthan High Court. Upon search by court it is mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 28 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE found that the judgment was passed by Calcutta high court and reported as "Krishna Kamal Ghosh v. Union of India, 1979 SCC OnLine Cal 222 : (1980) 1 CHN 227 : (1980) 1 SLR 531 : 1980 SLJ 182 [12.12.1979] . In para 6 it is mentioned:-
"This question came up for consideration by this Court in FMA 94 of 1975 (State of West Bengal v. N.N. Banerjee) on the 4th November, 1976 by the Division Bench of this Court where their lordships were considering the same question arising out of Rule 77(aa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I. After considering their lordships held as follows:--
"Apart from this, it appears from the record that the full allowances and the pay were not tendered to the respondent with the order of compulsory retirement. The learned Judge has noted that is more or less an admitted position and nothing has been shown to us that this conclusion of the learned Judge is ???"
Therefore it appears that the above case was decided by following the DB judgment based on "Rule 77(aa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I" which is also not identical with "Fundamental Rule 56(j)". Therefore aforesaid case is not applicable in this case.
16(b). At page 186 to 187 of O.A. applicant also filed a simple copy of judgment dated 10.07.2014 passed by Rajasthan High court in "Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shri Nathu Singh and another". This is also not the copy of reported judgment in any law journal or the certified copy of mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 29 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE judgment or the photo copy of certified copy. The counsel written by pen "SB CWP No. 2290/1998". Upon search by court it is found that the judgment was passed by Calcutta high court and reported as "Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shri Nathu Singh and Another, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 3319 [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2290/1998] [10.07.2014]". It appears that the aforesaid case was related to workmen under provisions of "Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act". "Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Dispute Act" is not identical with "Fundamental Rule 56(j)" . Therefore aforesaid case is also not applicable in this case.
17(a). The counsel for respondents submitted the copies of the following judgments:-
• Shyam Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 1954 SC 369;
• Union of India v. J.N. Sinha & Others reported in (1970) 2 SCC 458;
• Union of India and Others v. M.E. Reddy & Others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 15;
• S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa reported in (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424;
• Vinod Kumar v. GNCTD & Others in OA No.3302/2019= MANU/CA/0051/2020 mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 30 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE • Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 1175;
• Parbodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 630= AIR 2000 SC 1684 • K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 162; • Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 3753;
• Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Others in C.A. No.2365 of 2020;
• Ram Murti Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2020) 1 SCC 801;
• Baikunthanath Das & Others v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299; • Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305;
• Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. UOI & Others in [WP(C) No. 11177/2020];
• Alok Kumar Mitra v. UOI in OA No.332/450/2019; and • Ajay Kumar Bassi v. CBI in OA No.3107/2022. 17(b). Aforesaid all cases were cited before the D.B. of Karnataka High Court in Union of India, by its Revenue Secretary Vs. Shri B. Arulappa, [W.P.No. 25744 of 2023 (S-CAT) decided on 27.06.2024] and after perusal of all cases the court observed:-
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 31 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "12......... The said decisions are the authority on the point the compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) is an absolute right conferred on the Government to retire a Government Servant, if it bonafide formed an opinion that it is in public interest to do so. Since the termination of service is not stigmatic and does not visit the Government servant with civil consequences, the principles of natural justice which are sine qua has for stigmatic termination of service are not attracted in a case of premature retirement. All that is required therefore is that there must be a bonafide exercise of the power taking into account the entire service of the employee. From a dispassionate consideration the authority empowered must come to the conclusion that it is in public interest that the employee no longer remains in service. It is also held that the constitutional Courts exercising the power of judicial review cannot substitute their judgment for that of the appropriate Government.
13. However, it is also evident from the decisions relied on by the petitioners' counsel that judicial review of the decision taken to compulsorily retire a Government employee is not precluded and the constitutional Courts can indeed consider whether the power is properly exercised after taking note of the entire service of the employee and whether the decision is arrived at after following a due procedure and without being tainted by malafides or extraneous consideration."
17(c). S.L.P.(Civil) Diary No(s).58164/2024, arising out of aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, dismissed by Supreme Court on 02.01.2025. The Court said - "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the question of law, if any, involved is kept open".
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 32 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. Three Judges bench of Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649 [3 Judges -19.02.1992] considered various decisions and formulated the principles regarding exercise of power under FR 56(j) as follows:-
"34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary -- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be 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 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.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 33 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above."
19. Again in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 474 = 2001[3] SLJ 285 [27.02.2001] the Supreme court said that law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized. The court said in para 11:-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised 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 uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 34 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(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."
20. As per applicant in this case, the "Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji" was the competent / appointing authority to decide the representation while the order dated 08.01.2024 has been passed by "Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore". The aforesaid Principal CCIT, Bangalore was not the competent authority.
20(a). The aforesaid objection is base less, because it appears from the perusal of order Annexure - A4, that the "representation committee" was re-constituted vide order dated 22.09.2022 in which 03 members were included. The details are mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order Annexure - A4. "The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka & Goa, Bangalore" only communicated the decision of "representation committee" to the applicant. Initially, the representation has not been decided by the aforesaid authority. As per Rules, the representation should be decided by the "representation committee" and in this case, the representation is rightly decided by the constituted representation committee. The Officer who communicated the decision to the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 35 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicant is not the deciding authority. Hence, the objection raised by the applicant having no any force of law.
21. The position of law is already clear from the earlier paras and the case laws decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court / High Courts. The compulsory retirement is not stigmatic and does not visit the government servant with civil consequences and the principles of natural justice are not attracted. The interference by the Court is limited. If prima facie it is found that the order has been passed without any sufficient material then the Court may interfere in the order.
22. In the light of aforesaid settled law, if we examine the case then it appears that the Review committee took the decision under FR 56 (j). The representation committee considered the various grounds which are already mentioned in para 7 of the impugned order Annexure - A4. The applicant himself raised various points in his representation and the aforesaid points are also mentioned in para 8 of the impugned order Annexure - A4. In para 9, the details are also mentioned in which the committee took the note of views of Ministry. The total period of absence from the service and the position of leave, position of grading in the character roll, are also mentioned in details. After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case, in para 10 of Annexure - A4, the representation committee mentioned their observations and mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 36 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE thereafter in para 11, the committee mentioned that there is not any ground for interference in the decision of appropriate authority to premature retirement of applicant.
23. The applicant counsel also argued that the applicant was not having the sufficient period of service. Therefore, the order passed on completion of service of 07 months and 16 days only, is not according to the law.
24. It is an admitted position that the appropriate authority issued an order of dies non for the period of 16.09.2019 to 15.01.2020 and the aforesaid order was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No. 471/2021. The Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid OA on 06.06.2024 by holding that the order of dies non is fully justified. In para 31 of the aforesaid order, the Tribunal mentioned as under:-
"31. In view of the facts of the case as well as the rule position, there is no doubt that all possible opportunity has been afforded to the applicant to furnish the required documents to justify the medical leave sought by him. There is failure on his part to furnish supporting medical documents. He has also claimed 'medical grounds' for EL, whereas the application shows it to be on 'personal grounds'. The competence of the controlling officer for sanctioning leave up to a month or asking for clarification and documents before forwarding his application is not at all in question in the present matter. On the work front, pendency is shown to have been accumulated by the applicant and it was communicated to him by his controlling officer. Thus, the order of dies non is fully justified. However, in the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 37 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE light of the order of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava and of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.Ibrahimkutty supra, since separate proceedings were not initiated, we are inclined to grant the relief to the effect that the order of dies non will not lead to forfeiture of his past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits."
25. Section 56 (j) is already quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. As per aforesaid provision, if the government servant has entered in the service before attaining the age of 35 years, the order may be passed after he attains the age of 50 years. For other case, the age of 55 years is mentioned. Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid provision and the order Annexure - A1, that the applicant has been retired upon the basis of his age i.e. 50 years. He had completed 50 years of age; therefore, the aforesaid decision has been taken upon the basis of entire record of the applicant. Hence, the aforesaid arguments of the applicant also having no any force.
26. Therefore, it appears from the aforesaid discussion that as per law it was not necessary that the amount in lieu of three months' notice should be paid on the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 21.10.2020. The entitlement was ordered in Annexure-A1. Thereafter, the payment was also made after some time. The respondents also explained the position about delayed payment. The pay of October, 2020 was given to the applicant in mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 38 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE which the excess amount for the period of 23.10.2020 to 31.10.2020 was given. The remaining amount was also paid after some time. In para 2.1 of the reply statement, the respondents mentioned the position in sub-paras (c) & (d). Sufficient explanation has been given in the aforesaid para. It will be useful to quote the aforesaid sub-paras as it is:-
"(c) Besides, the delay in payment of notice pay in accordance with the order dated 21.10.2020 was due to change of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (herein after referred to as DDO) and also due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic as offices were either under lockdown or were working with reduced manpower. The DDO took substantive charge of the office only on forenoon of 02.11.2020. The DDO was also holding other multiple charges and his performance was hampered by various time constraints. It is also to be noted that due to reorganization of the Department consequent to the implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, some charges did not have full time incumbents. Lastly, it is submitted that 56(j) proceedings are very rare and the supplementary bill for the notice period had to be prepared in Public Financial Management System (PFMS). It is requested that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly consider that the delay in payment of three months' salary and allowances was not willful, as the applicant is trying to present, but due to peculiar circumstances of the case which was complicated further by prevailing Covid 19 Pandemic.
(d) The delay is also attributable to the failure on the part of the applicant as he failed to hand over the charge properly with a handing over note on the time barring matters and other statutory obligations. This had also put his successor i.e. the Income Tax Officer, who later officiated as the Drawing and Disbursal Officer to unnecessary hardship. The applicant cannot be allowed to take advantage of the situation which mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 39 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE arose due to his own negligence in handing over/relinquishment of the charge properly. The principle that those who come to equity must come with clean hands, applies in this case. Moreover, the applicant initially did not give any particulars of his bank Account, undertaking to the Bank, exercise option for Commutation of pension (Form-I), undertaking for drawal of GPF (From 10-A), undertaking to avail FMA/CGHS facility and family details/nominee etc. It is verified from the Karnataka Income Tax Department Credit Co-operative Society-
Limited that the Applicant had dues amounting to Rs. 7,09,580/- to the Karnataka Income Tax Department Credit Co-operative Society Limited which had also to be considered before the drawal of the salary for the last three months."
27. The material available on record and mentioned in the impugned order Annexure-A4 shows that the sufficient grounds were available to remove the dead wood of the Department. Looking to the conduct and entire record of the applicant, appropriate decision has been taken by Annexure-A1 which requires no any interference.
28. Hence, the OA is dismissed. All pending MA(s), if any shall be treated as disposed of. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
29. The original records were called from the respondents department which was submitted by the respondents in a sealed cover before the Registry. The records were also perused by the applicant counsel before the Court on 05.03.2025. Therefore, the mikasha suneja mikashaCAT Bangalore 2025.06.09 suneja 13:16:01 +05'30' 40 OA.No.170/00095/2024/CAT/BANGALORE original records to be sent back to the concerned department through their counsel in sealed cover.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ms/
mikasha suneja
mikashaCAT Bangalore
2025.06.09
suneja 13:16:01
+05'30'