Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
R P Meena vs M/O Railways on 28 March, 2025
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022
Page 1 of 44
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
O.A. No. 206/2020 with O.A. No. 163/2022 &
O.A. No. 584/2022
Order reserved on : 27.02.2025
Date of order: 28.03.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
OA No. 206/2020
R.P. Meena S/o Shri S.L. Meena by caste Meena, aged about 52
Years R/o A-21, Ashish Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
302017 presently Compulsorily retired from IRTS/Dy CSO/Traffic,
North Western Railway, Jaipur (Raj.) (IRTS Gr 'A' Service) Mobile:
9509296965.
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001
...Respondent.
(By Adv: Shri K.S. Yadav through V.C.)
OA No. 163/2022
R.P. Meena S/o Shri S.L. Meena by caste Meena, aged about 52
Years R/o A-21, Ashish Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
retired from IRTS/Dy 302017 presently Compulsorily CSO/Traffic,
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022
Page 2 of 44
North Western Railway, Jaipur (Raj.) (IRTS Gr 'A' Service)
Mobile:9509296965.
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. V.K. Yadav Ex Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi 110001 through Secretary Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
3. S.K. Mishra Ex Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001 through Secretary Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. H. Maharana JS ( E) Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
5. Pramila H. Bhargav Ex JS ( C) Now PCPO Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
6. Sushil Kumar Singh Ex US Estt. (S) Now Deputy Secretary,
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Ministry of Railways, Rail Delhi-
110001.
7. General Manager (P) North Western Railway, HQ Office,
Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur-302017
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri K.S. Yadav through V.C. & Shri V.D. Sharma)
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022
Page 3 of 44
OA No. 584/2022
R.P. Meena S/o Shri S.L. Meena by caste Meena, aged about 54
Years R/o A-21, Ashish Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
302017 presently Compulsorily retired from IRTS/Dy CSO/Traffic,
North Western Railway, Jaipur (Raj.) (IRTS Gr 'A' Service) Mobile:
9509296965.
Email:[email protected]
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. V.K.Tripathi, Chairman and CEO, Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001
3. S. K. Mahanti, Member (O & BD), Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. Rajesh Argal, Ex Addl. Member (Planning) Railway Board,
through Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001
5. Satpati Anoop Kumar, IRTS, DRM, Waltair Division, P7FX +
QP2, Waltair Station Approach Road, Dondaparthy,
Mahaarajupeta, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530004.
6. Vijai Singh Meena, IRSSE, CSE, NF Railway Hqrs Office,
5P53+HRX, Maligaon Shuttle Gate Road, East, Maligaon,
Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam-781011.
7. Udai Shankar Jha, IRTS, CPTM, Western Railway, Hqrs
Office, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
8. Kumar Sanjay, IRTS, Ex CFTM, EC Railway, through General
Manager, East Central Railway, Hqrs Office, Hajipur District,
Vaishali (Bihar)-844101.
9. General Manager (P) North Western Railway; HQ Office.
Near/Jawahar Circle, Jaipur-302
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri K.S. Yadav through V.C. & Shri Amit Mathur)
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022
Page 4 of 44
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
At the outset, it had been noted that the Applicant in the present O.A. No. 206/2020 filed on 09.06.2020, had also subsequently filed two other applications inter alia, the O.A. No. 163/2022 filed on 29.04.2022 ; and O.A. No. 584/2022 filed on 20.12.2022 - all these O.A.s had been filed mainly originating from and in challenge to the compulsory retirement of the Applicant, by the President, initially communicated vide Order dated 03.12.2019 of the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways. The matters raised in these three applications had been also raised/considered at the various Benches of this Tribunal, viz. Jodhpur Bench, Principal Bench at different points in time ; however all these matters had at present reached this Bench of the Tribunal vide the aforesaid three O.A.s. It is also noted that the matter of justification for filing of separate O.A.s for a dispute centered mainly on the same fact of compulsory retirement of the Applicant had come up to be examined, inter alia vide the MA No.47/2022 preferred in O.A. No.206/2020 that was listed on 01.02.2023 before this Tribunal. While considering the submissions made by both the parties, this Tribunal had inter alia observed that the OAs filed by the Applicant revolved around the basic Order dated 03.12.2019 by which the Applicant had been compulsory retired and were interlinked. Therefore, vide order dated 01.02.2023, it had been ordered in the interest of justice, to hear these O.A.s together. Hence, the three OAs No. 206/2020, 163/2022 and 584/2022 are taken up together hereby.
2. It was seen that the relief sought vide the main/first O.A. No. 206/2020 were as follows :
"8.1 That by a suitable order or the direction, impugned order dated
03.12.2019 and 04.05.2020 vide Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2 may kindly be quashed and set aside by reinstating the Applicant in the IRTS O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 5 of 44 with all consequential benefits including pay and arrears with an interest of 20% w.e.f. the date of his compulsory retirement. 8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may please direct the Respondent to treat the name of the Applicant in the Secret list and Agreed list as infructuous/deleted as nothing adverse was found in the particular years rather his integrity certified as Beyond doubt in the ACRS /APARS. 8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal is also prayed for directions of stiff action against the Officers/ Officials victimized the Applicant on collateral grounds with deliberate, prejudice and malafide intents without considering the impeccable integrity certified in the APARs and excellent remarks there in including the remarks of utmost professional integrity in 2018 itself.
8.4 That the Hon'ble Tribunal is prayed to direct the Respondents to keep a post of DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) vacant for the Applicant till the final outcome of the OA by ignoring the criteria of age of 52 years which the Applicant would attain on 06.07.2020 and consider him for DRM post accordingly as per the outcome of the O.A." It was also seen that the substantive reliefs sought vide the second O.A. No.163/2022, were as follows :
"1. That it is most humbly prayed before the Hon'ble Tribunal to please quash and set aside the Minutes of the Internal and Review Committees along with its relied upon documents SN-2 & SN-7 (Annexure A/1) which are prima facie false, fabricated and incorrect and utter violation of the statutory provisions, procedure and policy.
2. The formation of the review committee itself is illegal and prayed before the Hon'ble Tribunal to declare it null and void.
3. It is prayed to summon the Respondents to examine them on oath for appropriate action as to under what circumstances they have played all the way mischief with the career of the Applicant by preparing either incorrect rather false and fabricated documents or concealing the facts which cannot be inadvertent or bonafide judgement of error or lost sight of rather actuated by malice. Accordingly Respondent No.1 may please be directed to ensure service of the notices to the Respondents retired from service being their addresses are very well available with him and not with the Applicant. Any other relief this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted for equity and justice in the changed scenario of the case."
Further, it was also seen that the substantive reliefs sought vide O.A. No. 584/2022 were as follows :
"8.1. This Hon'ble Tribunal is most humbly prayed to please quash and set aside the impugned order(s) (Annexure A/1) with all consequential benefits to the Applicant.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 6 of 44 8.2. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the formation and minutes of the subsequent representation committee (Annexure A/2) constituted illegally & arbitrarily by declaring it null and void being not only its formation itself is illegal, perverse and unconstitutional but also no bonafide opinion has been formed nor any reason have been recorded in the file by the appropriate authority that has parroted the extraneous material fetched by the subsequent representation committee.
8.3 This Hon'ble tribunal may be pleased to summon and examine the Respondent No. R- 2 to R-4 on oath for stern action who have victimized the Applicant by targeting him against the public interest on the name of agreed and secret lists.
8.4 This Hon'ble Tribunal is prayed to please call for the original records of the private Respondents to whom Respondents have retained in the IRTS / reinstated in the IRSSE vis-à-vis the case file of the Applicant for at par justice."
It is noted that the prayer of the Applicant herein was for quashing the Order dated 14.06.2022 conveying the decision of the President exercised through the Railway Minister (Competent Authority, hereafter) for rejecting The Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 on the recommendation of the related Representation Committee, inter alia on the ground that although he did make such a representation, the Respondents ought not to have considered the same as per the Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - which prescribed that no appeal or representation in relation to an O.A. admitted by the Tribunal shall be entertained.
3. It emerged thus that vide these three OAs, the Applicant had sought several reliefs - with apparent repetition or overlap amongst the reliefs sought as well as plurality of reliefs. Nonetheless, in the hearing on the matter on 27.02.2025, the Applicant had appeared in person and stated that he did not want to press for the reliefs sought at No.8.3 and No.8.4 in O.A.206/2020. Whereas the relief vide No.8.3 of O.A. No.206/2020 was found to pertain to action sought to be taken against the officials who had allegedly victimized the Applicant with deliberate prejudice and malafide intentions, it O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 7 of 44 was further noted that the Applicant had prayed for similar relief vide No.8.3 of O.A. No.163/2022 for summoning the Respondents and examining them on oath for appropriate action on account of playing with the career of the Applicant actuated by malice ; and vide No.8.3 in O.A.No.584/2022 for summoning and examining the Respondents on oath for stern action for victimizing the Applicant etc. The Respondents had in this regard contended that the Applicant can come before this Tribunal only in respect of 'his service matters', which have been defined in Section 2(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - and aforesaid prayers did not relate to conditions of his service defined thereunder. For the present, we did not deem it necessary to examine the moot point whether such a relief was open to be pursued before this Tribunal, since in respect of such reliefs prayed for in the various O.A.s, the Applicant had either stated that he did not want to press those ; or were seen to be essentially similar as such.
Further, another relief vide No.8.4 of O.A. No.206/2020 was found to be for keeping a post of D.R.M. vacant for the Applicant till the final outcome of the O.A. For the present, the moot point whether the same was of substantive or interim nature was immaterial, as the Applicant did not want to press for it. Moreover, it was also seen that the relief prayed for vide No.8.4 in OA No.584/2022 for calling for the original records of the private Respondents who were retained/reinstated in the IRTS/IRSSE vis-à- vis the case file of the Applicant for at par justice apart from being generic and non-specific as well as impractical and unfeasible, also did not make out a case under the applicable rules/guidelines and the locus standi of the Applicant for calling for the records of 117 private Respondents for such a comparative evaluation/re-evaluation at his behest. Moreover, it was also noted in this regard that a similar plea of the Applicant for a comparative determination of his O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 8 of 44 case of compulsory retirement had been dealt with and disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 24.02.2023 in O.A. No.88/2023 by rejecting the O.A. in limine while imposing cost. Therefore, this relief was also not found fit to be taken up hereby.
4. Apart from the purported substantive reliefs as foregoing from the O.A.s No.206/2020, No.163/2022 and No.584/2022, the Applicant had also prayed for various interim reliefs vide the aforesaid O.A.s. At first, vide the O.A. No. 206/2020, the Applicant had sought the following interim reliefs :
"9.1 That the humble Applicant prays to kindly stay the impugned order dated 03.12.19 (Annexure A//1) and 04.05.2020 (Annexure A/2) in view of the fact that Applicant's case was already reviewed in the first Review Committee and he was retained to continue in service hence scope of second Review Committee becomes infructuous, also Agreed list of 2018 becomes infructuous in view of M.H.A. Memorandum dated 05.5.66 and, facts and circumstances of his undue victimization with prejudice, malafide and deliberate intents by the Respondents without any base or certifying his integrity from the ACRS/APARS. 9.2 That the humble Applicant prays to kindly direct the Respondents to not to post any of the Juniors to the Applicant in SAG or as DRM till the Applicant is considered for the same because act of the Respondents is full with malice. 9.3 That Hon'ble Tribunal is prayed to hear the case on top priority in view of bright career and life, reputation and sudden stigma to the Applicant else he will cross the age of 52 on 6.7.2020 and he is filing the OA despite Corona epidemic and leading his life in great stress due to this unforeseen incident in his career which he has achieved after a day night hard work in a remote village background."
Also, vide the O.A. No. 163/2022, the Applicant had sought the following interim relief:
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 9 of 44 "The humble Applicant in the facts and circumstances & new grounds emerged very recently most humbly with due respect pray before the Hon'ble Tribunal to please grant interim relief by staying the Memorandum dated 09.12.2019 along with order dated 03.12.2019 served upon the Applicant on 09.12.2019 which was the outcome of the aforesaid minutes of the Review Committee. Accordingly Respondents may please be directed to permit the Applicant to remain continue on the post which he was holding before issuance of the Memorandum dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure A/2)."
Moreover, vide the O.A. No. 584/2022, the Applicant had also sought the following interim relief :
"This Hon'ble Tribunal is most humbly prayed to grant interim relief to the Applicant at least at this juncture by staying the order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure A/3) in the facts and circumstances that Applicant has been victimized on the name of agreed / secret lists which are not the criteria to retire an officer in view of the facts that private Respondents are enjoying in service despite their names figured in these lists and Applicant have been shown the doors on selected / extraneous material by ignoring the rosy picture of his career/ APARs."
5. In regard to the aforesaid interim reliefs prayed for, it is noted that this Tribunal while considering those at its various Benches, on different points in time, had not considered granting any interim relief. In the DB CWP No. 11325/2022 in the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur - against the order of C.A.T. Jaipur Bench on 12.07.2022 by which the application for grant of interim relief by the Applicant had been rejected - it had been held vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2022 that :
"We find that the learned Tribunal has rejected the application for grant of interim relief by recording a reason that directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service by way of interim relief would amount to allowing the original application at the interim stage.
Apart from anything else, in our considered opinion, the reason which has prevailed with the Tribunal to reject the application for interim relief O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 10 of 44 cannot be said to be contrary to the settled principles of law in the matter of grant of interim relief. Admittedly, the petitioner stands compulsory retired in the public interest and it is not a case of penalty as such.
Whether service records of the petitioner on a holistic consideration justifies the order of compulsory retirement, essentially would be a matter of consideration at the stage of final hearing and not at interim stage. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference of the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus petitioner-in-person would argue that despite repeated opportunities, Respondents have not filed any reply before the Tribunal. Considering the totality of circumstances, though, we are not inclined to interfere with the order rejecting application for interim relief, we consider it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose off the original application of the petitioner within a period of six months. We make it clear that if the department does not file reply despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal may proceed to draw adverse inference and in addition, it may also direct the production of original records at the time of hearing to satisfy itself with regard to the correctness and validity of the order of compulsory retirement.
Subject to the above observations, the petition is accordingly dismissed."
Further, it is seen from the order dated 18.08.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5511 of 2022 - challenging the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB WC No. 484/2020 of not entertaining Contempt Petition preferred by the Applicant and closing the same - the Hon'ble Supreme Court had inter alia observed that :
"It appears that by order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the Respondents, the appellant was prematurely retired from service. Said order of retiring him prematurely is independently subject matter of challenge in Original Application No. 206 of 2020 before the Tribunal.
The substratum of the Contempt Petition filed by the appellant which has given rise to the instant appeal was that:
(a) Despite clear directions issued by the Tribunal that the penalty of "Censure" was set aside which view was accepted by the High Court, the Respondents failed to carry out the directions so issued.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 11 of 44
(b) Apart from the fact that he was "Censured" at some point of time, there was nothing on record or/in "Secret/Agreed List" which could in any way justify passing an order of Compulsory Retirement.
Both the sides are thus ad idem that the penalty of censure stood effaced from the record and the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement ought to be seen without being influenced by the fact that the appellant was Censured at some point in time and that if there by any other material on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement could be sustained or justified, the correctness of such decision shall certainly be gone into by the Tribunal in the pending challenge. We, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent indicated above leaving the parties to their remedies before the Tribunal. Since the matter has been pending for a fairly long time, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the pending challenge as early as possible and preferably within six months from receipt of the copy of this order."
Therefore, it was found that while the Applicant had also pressed for grant of interim relief or for invoking contempt jurisdiction in superior Courts also, the same did not find favour, but the superior Courts had directed for disposal of the concerned O.A.s in respect of substantive reliefs - which had been proceeded into as hereafter.
6. The parties had rendered very voluminous pleadings on record through the aforementioned three O.A.s. In the interest of clarity on the issues involved in the matter - that were presented through such pleadings ; and that were also dispersed/cross- referenced across the three different O.A.s - the parties had also presented their respective cases in totality in their arguments as well as by submitting their respective written briefs. Based on the pleading of the parties and the related written briefs as well as the documents available on record, the relevant matrix of facts in the matter had emerged to be as follows briefly. The Applicant had joined the India Railway Traffic Service (IRTS) on 05.09.1994, based on the Civil Services Examination-1992. After completion of training, he had joined as ACM/Goods in Bhusawal Division in Central Railway O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 12 of 44 on 13.03.1996. In course of his said posting, the Applicant was served a charge-memo dated 07.09.1998 consequent to which, a punishment of reduction in pay by one stage in same time scale for one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the Applicant vide order dated 14.11.2000. That punishment was modified to censure, as per advice of UPSC dated 31.07.2002 ; and even further, the Hon'ble CAT Jodhpur Bench had set aside and quashed the punishment of Censure against the Applicant vide its order dated 31.05.2004. The Respondents WP No.4421/04 in Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur came to be dismissed vide the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2017. Further, another charge- memo dated 31.07.2011 had also been issued to the Applicant consequent to which, a punishment of reduction of two stages in time scale with future effect (i.e. which will have the effect on postponing his future increments of pay) was imposed upon the Applicant on 03.09.2007. The Applicant had challenged the same vide O.A. No.385/2008 in CAT Jaipur, which was dismissed vide Order dated 09.11.2011 ; but the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur had vide the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2017 in DB CWP 597/2012 reduced the penalty from two increments to one increment with future effect.
7. Meanwhile, the Applicant was promoted to Senior Scale on 20.10.2005 ; and was further promoted to Junior Administrative Grade (J.A.G.) on 03.12.2009, that was confirmed by Railway Board on 29.04.2011 ; and moreover placed in Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Eventually, a periodical review of the performance and service record of 118 officers, including the Applicant, was taken up through the Review Committee constituted, which had vide its meeting dated 14.11.2019 recommended to retire three officers, inter alia the Applicant, prematurely as per provisions contained under Rule, 1802(a), 1803(a), 1804(a) of IREC Vol.II, 1989 which are para matera to the provisions contained in FR 56(j). Consequent to the approval dated 29.11.2019 of the Competent Authority, the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 13 of 44 Applicant was compulsory retired from the service vide impugned order dated 03.12.2019 - while allowing three months salary in lieu of notice and also providing an opportunity to him to represent against such decision. The Applicant had thereupon at first filed the O.A. No.756/2019 before this Tribunal, Jaipur Bench which was disposed of vide Order dated 18.12.2019, as follows :
" After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the Applicant wishes to withdraw the present Original Application with liberty to pursue his remedy of filing a representation before the Respondents in terms of order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure-A/1). If such a representation is submitted within the period as stipulated in the said order, the same shall be considered by the competent authority and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed over the same as per the policy.
Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid."
Thereafter, the Applicant submitted his representation dated 23.12.2019 to the Respondents, while stating that he reserved his right to make additional representation after receiving further material relevant for him to make his representation - viz. the recommendations of the Review Committee and its supporting documents, if any - that had not been provided to him despite his asking for it vide his letter dated 10.12.2019. Eventually, the said representation dated 23.12.2019 had been considered while taking into account all the facts and circumstances relevant to the case including the submissions of the Applicant ; and got decided with approval by the Competent Authority. Thereupon, it had been conveyed to the Applicant vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 - that his representation dated 23.12.2019 had been decided by the President ; and the request of the Applicant to be reinstated in Railway service was rejected, in public interest.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed the present OA No.206/2020 on 09.06.2020 before the Tribunal praying for quashing and setting aside of the Railway Board Order dated O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 14 of 44 03.12.2019 for compulsorily retiring him and Order dated 04.05.2020, rejecting his representation dated 23.12.2019 against the said Order dated 03.12.2019 for reinstating him in IRTS service ; and for treating his being placed on the Agreed List/Secret List as infructuous/deleted. While the said O.A. 206/2020 had been pending for disposal, the Applicant had also continued pursuing the related matters separately with the Respondents. Firstly, the Applicant had inter alia through RTI obtained purportedly new facts relating to his performance and vigilance status. Based on those, the Applicant had made another representation dated 19.06.2021 against the Railway Board Orders dated 03.12.2019 and 04.05.2020 for his compulsory retirement. The said representation dated 19.06.2021 had been considered by the constituted Representation Committee at its meeting dated 02.06.2022. The recommendations of the said Committee were approved by the Competent Authority on 13.06.2022. Subsequently vide communications dated 14.06.2022 of the Railway Board and that 28.06.2022 of the General Manager (P) NWR, Jaipur (Respondent No.9), the order of the President for not reinstating the Applicant in service had been conveyed. Secondly, the Applicant had inter alia through RTI obtained the notings/minutes and supporting documents of the proceedings of the Internal Committee dated 30.09.2019 ; and those of the Review Committee meeting dated 14.11.2019 that were eventually approved by the President on 29.11.2019 and had resulted in the Railway Board Order dated 03.12.2019 for the compulsory retirement of the Applicant. Based on those, he had filed a related second O.A. No.163/2022 on 29.04.2022 - vide which he had prayed for quashing and setting aside the minutes dated 30.09.2019 of the Internal Committee and the minutes dated 19.11.2019 of the Review Committee, along with the relied upon documents ; as well as prayed for declaring the formation of the Review Committee itself O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 15 of 44 as null and void, claiming it to be illegally constituted. This second O.A. No.163/2022 is also presently before us.
Thirdly, the said Order dated 14.06.2022 as conveyed vide Letter dated 28.06.2022 had been impugned vide a related third O.A. No.584/2022 filed in this Tribunal on 20.12.2022 by the Applicant. It had been prayed thereby to quash and set aside the Order dated 14.06.2022 conveying the decision of the Competent Authority for rejecting The Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 on the recommendation of the related Representation Committee ; as well as the minutes of the Representation Committee meeting dated 02.06.2022 - inter alia on the ground that although he did make such a representation, the Respondents were barred from considering it as per Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which prescribed that no appeal or representation in relation to an O.A. admitted by the Tribunal shall be entertained. This third O.A. No.584/2022 is also presently before us.
9. It would thus appear that the main/first O.A. No. 206/2020 which was against the compulsory retirement Order dated 03.12.2019, had been supplemented/overtaken by further pursuance of remedies by the Applicant through RTI applications and representation dated 19.06.2021 to the Respondents. Consequently, the order for compulsory retirement had been confirmed vide communication dated 28.06.2022 which itself had been challenged vide O.A. No. 584/2022 by the Applicant. However, in light of the directions of the superior courts, inter alia the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court's directions in the DB CWP No. 11325/2022 on 12.07.2022 (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions vide Order dated 18.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No.5511 of 2022 (supra), we are bound to focus on the main controversy, i.e. the compulsory retirement of the Applicant, that had initially been conveyed by the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 16 of 44 Railway Board through Order dated 03.12.2019 impugned in the present OA and matters directly related thereto.
10. Before proceeding to examine the case of the Applicant vide the aforesaid three O.A.s - No.206/2020, No.163/2022 and No.584/2022 - that were under consideration together, we deem it apposite to understand the scope of the examination of the compulsory retirement matters by Courts and Tribunals, as per the law laid down in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs Chief Medical Officer Baripada & Anr. [(1992) 2 SCC 299] had discussed this at length in light of several other Judgements in several other cases and laid down the principles regarding compulsory retirement that emerged from those, inter alia 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 misbehavior.
(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 O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 17 of 44 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 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.
35. ... ... We are concerned mainly with the question whether a facet of principle of natural justice - audi alteram partem - is attracted in the case of compulsory retirement. In other words, the question is whether acting upon undisclosed material is a ground for quashing the order of compulsory retirement. Since we have held that the nature of the function is not quasi-judicial in nature and because the action has to be taken on the subjective satisfaction of the government, there is no room for importing the said facet of natural justice in such a case, more particularly when an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it involve any stigma." (Emphasis provided)
11. Apart from laying down the law as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also considered the specific appeals before it and dismissed those, while holding as follows :
"36. So far as the appeals before us are concerned, the High Court which has looked into the relevant record and confidential records has opined that the order of compulsory retirement was based not merely upon the said adverse remarks but other material as well. Secondly, it has also found that the material placed before them does not justify the conclusion that the said remarks were not recorded duly or properly. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from mala fides or that is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary.
37. For the above reason, both the appeals are dismissed but in circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs."
Thus, it was found that the ambit of judicial scrutiny of decision/Order for compulsory retirement is limited ; and while the examination of the matter as an Appellate Court is precluded, the Courts 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) O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 18 of 44 that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material.
12. With due sensitization regarding the limited remit of the Tribunals/Courts in compulsory retirement matters as per the law laid down as aforesaid, these O.A.s - viz. O.A. No. 206/2020, 163/2022 and 584/2022 - had been taken up by us. These came up on various dates for hearings that were conducted both in physical presence mode as well as over Video Conference. We also went through the pleadings of the parties in the case and the related documents, inter alia the authority of the Judgments and Orders of the superior Courts that had been cited. We also heard the arguments by the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondents on various dates.
It was found inter alia through these that while challenging the impugned actions, decisions and Orders of the Respondents vide these O.A.s, the Applicant had also presented material to challenge the entries in his APARs or highlighted his achievements as reported in the local media, or for his promotion/batch etc. or otherwise - in effect seeking a remedy to other service issues or for upgraded/improved appreciation of these by the Tribunal while forming an assessment regarding his compulsory retirement or continuance in IRTS. We hold that such a recourse was not open either to the Applicant or even to the Tribunal, as it cannot act as an Appellate forum to the concerned/competent administrative authorities as per the law laid down in respect of matters relating to compulsory retirement ; moreover, separate and precedent remedies that were available in the extant administrative rules/guidelines/procedures related to other service issues had to be suitably exercised at the relevant time and were not possible to be considered at this stage as part of the compulsory retirement related matters vide the O.A.s before the Tribunal.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 19 of 44
13. The relevant facts in the case that had not been disputed between the parties were inter alia - that the periodical review of the performance and service record of 118 officers in all including the Applicant was done to ascertain whether they were fit to be retained in further service or prematurely retired in public interest ; that the Internal Committee had collated and screened the relevant records of the officers involved and conveyed the same to the Review Committee on 30.09.2019 ; that the Review Committee after its meeting dated 14.11.2019 had recommended that 3 officers, inter alia the Applicant, were not fit to be continued in service and be retired prematurely ; that the recommendation in respect of the Applicant was duly approved by the Competent Authority - consequently he had been compulsorily retired on 03.12.2019, while paying him three months salary in lieu of notice and while also providing him an opportunity to represent against such decision. Further, it had also not been disputed inter alia - that the Applicant had submitted his representation dated 23.12.2019 to the Respondents, while stating that he reserved his right to make additional representation after receiving further material relevant for him to make his representation ; that the said representation dated 23.12.2019 had been considered and approved by the Competent Authority on 17.03.2020 ; that the Speaking Order dated 04.05.2020 was conveyed to the Applicant thereafter conveying the decision of the President rejecting in public interest the request of the Applicant to be reinstated in Railway service ; that aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed the present OA No.206/2020 on 09.06.2020 before the Tribunal.
Moreover, it was also not disputed inter alia - that while the said O.A. 206/2020 had been pending for disposal, the Applicant had also continued pursuing the related matters separately with the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 20 of 44 Respondents ; that based on purportedly new facts relating to his performance and vigilance status, the Applicant had made another representation dated 19.06.2021 against the Railway Board Orders dated 03.12.2019 and 04.05.2020 for his compulsory retirement ; that the said representation dated 19.06.2021 had been considered by the constituted Representation Committee at its meeting dated 02.06.2022 ; that the recommendations of the said Committee were approved by the Competent Authority on 13.06.2022 ; and that the subsequent order of the President for not reinstating the Applicant in service was conveyed vide communication dated 28.06.2022.
14. However, apart from the challenge of the Applicant to the Order dated 03.1.2019 for his compulsory retirement and to the Order dated 04.05.2020 for rejecting his representation dated 23.12.2019 vide the first O.A. No.206/2020, several other matters related to the compulsory retirement of the Applicant were disputed between the parties. These inter alia included the Applicant's contentions - that the supporting documents of the proceedings of the Internal Committee dated 30.09.2019 and those at the Review Committee meeting dated 14.11.2019 related to his performance, integrity and vigilance status were inaccurate ; that consequently the minutes dated 30.09.2019 of the Internal Committee and the minutes dated 19.11.2019 of the Review Committee were false, fabricated and incorrect ; that the formation of the Review Committee itself was illegal. Pursuantly, the Applicant had filed a related second O.A. No.163/2022 on 29.04.2022.
Moreover, it had also been contended by the Applicant that the Order dated 28.06.2022 conveying the decision of the Competent Authority for rejecting The Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 on the recommendation of the related Representation Committee was illegal - inter alia on the ground that although he did make such a representation, the Respondents ought not to have O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 21 of 44 considered the same as per the Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Applicant's third O.A. No.584/2022, impugning the Order dated 28.06.2022 and the formation of the Representation Committee and its minutes dated 03.06.2022 was also presently before us.
15. In course of the hearings of these matters, it had been earlier been recorded vide Order Sheet dated 31.07.2023 in the O.A. No.206/2020 and 13 related M.A.s inter alia as follows :
"Heard the applicant in person as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in OA No.206/2020, OA No.163/2022 and OA No.584/2022 with associated MAs.
......
3. Upon the assurance of the applicant who would express his bona fide intent to deposit such costs, and, as prayed for, this Tribunal would hereafter proceed to hear OA No.206/2020, OA No.163/2022 and OA No.584/2022 in which the applicant has, inter alia, primarily challenged the orders of his compulsory retirement dated 03.12.2019.
4. The applicant submits that he would essentially challenge orders of his compulsory retirement on the following grounds:-
i) That, although so provided in para 4 of Railway Board's letter No.E(P&A)1-77/RT-53 dated 15.11.1979, which mandated the opinion of the Hon'ble Minister of Railways that it was necessary to retire the applicant in pursuance of Rules under consideration, no such opinion had been recorded on the Review committee's recommendation dated 19.11.2019 as annexed at Annexure A/119 to MA No.115/2022.
ii) That, the Review committee has not analyzed the service records of the applicant during deliberation of its proceedings dated 14.11.2019.
iii) That, the Review committee, while reflecting the details of SN-2, has presented an incorrect picture on his APARs and particularly with respect to the subject of integrity as recorded therein.
iv) That, while deliberating on the submissions of SN/7(4), the fact that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, have been set aside in judicial fora, was not appropriately reflected in such statements.
v) That the respondents have violated their own policy guidelines and taken a decision against the applicant in an arbitrary manner.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 22 of 44
5. The respondents are therefore directed to respond to the issues raised by the applicant during hearing on the next date of listing along with necessary documents in support."
16. Per contra, it had been presented and argued on behalf of the Respondents that the related Review Process in 2019 was conducted in the prescribed stages, to ascertain if the officers under review were fit to be retained in further services or prematurely retired in public interest, keeping in view the Government policy of improving efficiency. It had included 117 officers, including the Applicant, at the stage of the first collation and screening, that was concluded on 30.09.2019 by the duly constituted Internal Committee - thereby compiling individual officer-wise summarized Personal Data & Performance Cards and the Vigilance History Cards also, inter alia other relevant records and information. At the next stage, 118 officers including the Applicant, were taken up for Review - which had been concluded on 14.11.2019 through the Review Committee duly constituted to assist the Competent Authority. Specifically regarding the Applicant, it had been submitted that the remarks in his various confidential reports since 1997 up to the just previous year before taking the impugned decision dated 03.12.2019. Those had showed for the Applicant inter alia - 'Good' or 'Average' gradings overall or against individual columns in the APARs ; inflation of his achievements while performing in routine, inefficient and ineffective manner for assigned work ; indifferent attitude and not visiting important and accident sites for inspections ; timeliness, quality and relevance of output for railways ; lack of experience and of suitability for critical administrative posts as ADRM and DRM ; etc. Further, those also showed inter alia - lack of ability to coordinate, work in teams and guide and motivate subordinate staff ; undesirable approach towards seniors ; communication/behavioral deficiencies including short-temper and lack of inter-personal skills ; etc. Moreover, displeasure had been O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 23 of 44 communicated to him in writing for delayed inspections and efforts to conceal that and orally/on file for handling his office properly. It was also contended that his overall gradings during the recent years were not of the level expected of Class-I officer. Resultantly, the Applicant had not been promoted on time along with his batch- mates, rather all his promotions were delayed ; and eventually while he got only three promotions, i.e. Senior Scale, JAG and Selection Grade, his batch-mates had travelled up to Non-Functionl HAG (NFHAG), i.e. two stage higher than him - which showed that his services were not available to the organization suitably. The learned Counsel for the Respondents presented that the confidential reports also brought out inter alia that - the integrity certification for the Applicant on various occasions was as doubtful or had been qualified with remarks other than being 'beyond doubt"
; he had been involved in two vigilance cases - out of which in the first charge sheet, the penalty stood effaced from the record in view of order of the Hon'ble CAT as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court ; but in the second charge-sheet for major penalty, the punishment imposed although reduced from two increments for two years to one increment, with cumulative effect by the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur vide its order dated 12.07.2017, still remained a major penalty that was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the name of the Applicant has been reflected in the Secret list from 1999 to 2010 and also in the Agreed list of 2018, depriving the Railway Administration from utilizing his services effectively/in sensitive posts for 12 years out of the entire service career of 25 years.
17. Additionally, it had been contended on part of the Respondents
- firstly, that the Applicant was a compulsive litigant who had filed nearly 50 cases against the administration, including two FIRs alleging offences against his superiors and other officials - and all these cases had been fought by him in person, cutting short the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 24 of 44 precious duty hours. Further, it was contended that his applications had been dismissed several times, including those with imposition of costs on the Applicant - in substantiation of which, the dismissal of O.A. No.673/2001 on 14.06.2004 by Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur with a cost of Rs.5000/- ; dismissal of O.A. No.285/2020 by this Tribunal vide Order dated 24.08.2021 with a cost of Rs.25,000/- ; dismissal of O.A. No.88/2023, vide Order dated 24.02.2023 by this Tribunal with cost of Rs.10000/- etc. were cited.
Secondly, that by recording remarks in his ACR for the year 2013- 14, the Applicant had been noted to be too interfering in working of junior level staff, particularly woman employees. He had also been complained against for harassment of subordinate lady employees - and in one such case enquired into by the Committee of Sexual Harassment at Workplace, vide its report on 07.02.2014, the Applicant was found to be guilty of sexual harassment of a lady employee and of undignified/unbecoming behavior and conduct etc. and was punished with the penalty of censure. Moreover, it was contended that he had used representations/complaints/RTI applications etc. to settle scores - for which he had been counseled on number of occasions for his misdeeds of misusing official position and confidential letters not addressed to him. Due to being in the habit of making false complaints, he was even declared to be unreliable complainant by Railway Board.
18. In light of the foregoing, the contention on behalf of the Respondents was that after scrutinizing all the confidential rolls of the Applicant, factum of his inclusion in Secret or Agreed lists for 12 years out of entire service of about 25 years, and other facts and circumstances of the cases, the Review Committee had correctly formed the subjective opinion and recommended to the Competent Authority that the Applicant should be retired compulsorily by exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 25 of 44 statute/in IREM. It was presented thus, that the decision taken by the Competent Authority and consequential order dated 03.12.2019 did not require any interference.
To support the aforesaid contentions, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had also presented the overall matrix of the decisions laying down the law related to the matter of compulsory retirement, as follows inter alia - that it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarak Singh Vs Jyoti Basu [(2005)1 SCC 201] that was also reiterated in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Lal Lamror & Ors in Civil Appeal No.7697 of 2014 decided vide order dated 24.08.2021 that even a solitary remark of lack and breach of integrity is sufficient to pass the order of compulsory retirement ; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs J.N. Sinha [1970 (2) SCC 458] had held that order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually the prerogative of the Government and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government ; that in UOI Vs Shri Dulal Dutt [1993 (2) SCC 179] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no order of compulsory retirement is required to be speaking order ; that in R.L.Butail Vs UOI & Ors, the five judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the principle in the case of Col J.N. Sinha's case had held that the question as to the correctness of such a decision by the appropriate authority, provided it is bona fide, would not be gone into by this Court ; and that by relying upon its decision in Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in the case of UOI Vs V.R. Seth [AIR 1994 SC 1261] and in the case of State of Punjab Vs Gurdas Singh [1998 (4) SCC 92] that un- communicated ACRs were also relevant and can be made basis for passing the order of compulsory retirement.
It was also submitted that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohammed Naseem Ali Vs State of U.P. had held that the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 26 of 44 decision of compulsory retiring an employee on finding the employee to be indolent, quarrelsome, disturber of peace, religious bigot, harasser of females, should not be interfered ; and that the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal had held that the order of compulsory retirement was derived from the "Doctrine of Pleasure" and there was no vested right in the employee to continue in the employment.
19. Before examining the case further based on the respective extremely detailed, voluminous and wide-ranging contentions of the parties - both the Applicant and the Respondents - it is deemed appropriate/worthwhile to quickly recapitulate the facts of relevance that had emerged on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and that could help to determine the matter. In the related Review Process conducted in 2019, at the stage of screening by the Internal Committee, records of 117 officers had been collated and were put up on 30.09.2019 - with the prima facie assessment that 108 of those officers appeared to be fit for continuance in service, while 09 others were due to be so considered - to the Review Committee that was constituted to assist the Competent Authority as the deciding Competent Authority. The said Review Committee, after including one more officer recommended for review by the PED/Vigilance, had reviewed 118 officers, the Applicant inter alia, keeping in view the Report of the Internal Committee and the entire service records of the officers - including the Performance of each officer as reflected in the APARs in the entire career for which his entire APAR dossier was scrutinized with special attention to the performance in last five years up to APAR year 2017-18 ; Vigilance History of the officer ; Integrity as reflected in the APARs and as per the assessment of PED/Vigilance ; and Integrity and general reputation as ascertained from the officers worked with/under during service career. The Review Committee had concluded vide its recommendation dated 14.11.2019 to the Competent Authority that 03 of them, inter alia O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 27 of 44 the Applicant, had been found fit to be retired prematurely/compulsorily in public interest, in keeping with the Government's policy of improving efficiency by dispensing with public servants who were no longer found useful to the administration. The Competent Authority duly approved the said recommendation by affixing his signature dated 29.11.2019. Consequently, the Order dated 03.12.2019 was conveyed to the Applicant whereby he was compulsorily retired from the services by paying three months salary in lieu of notice ; and also while providing an opportunity to represent against such decision. Thereafter, the representation dated 23.12.2019 came to be made by the Applicant, which was considered up to the level of the Competent Authority, who had accepted on 17.03.2020 the recommendation of the Representation Committee that there were no grounds for revisiting the decision taken for premature retirement of the Applicant in public interest. That decision had been conveyed to the Applicant vide order dated 04.05.2020.
20. Consequently, the Applicant preferred the second O.A. No. 206/2020, seeking inter alia that the Order dated 03.12.2019 and Order dated 04.05.2020 be quashed and he be reinstated in the IRTS/railway service. Moreover, after obtaining additional material including copies of the note sheets related to preparations and proceedings of the Review process, the Applicant had filed a second O.A. No.163/2022 - thereby seeking inter alia that the minutes of the meeting of the Internal Committee dated 30.09.2019 and the Review Committee dated 14.11.2019 be quashed and the formation of Review Committee be declared null and void.
Meanwhile the Applicant had also made the representation dated 19.06.2021 to the President, stating that his updated vigilance history and the details of the integrity column of his APARs were not considered correctly in the Review process, further seeking for a O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 28 of 44 review of his case to be reinstated in IRTS. The same was taken up by the constituted Representation Committee at its meeting dated 02.06.2022 and after considering the points raised by the Applicant, it recommended that the Applicant be not reinstated in service. The same was approved by the Competent Authority on 03.06.2022 ; consequently the rejection of the representation dated 19.06.2021 was conveyed to the Applicant vide Order dated 28.06.2022 of the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur. The Applicant had preferred the third O.A. No.584/2022 seeking inter alia to challenge the formation of the Representation Committee itself, consideration of his representation dated 19.06.2021 by it and also seeking to quash the minutes of the Representation Committee's meeting dated 02.06.2022 ; as well as its approval by the Competent Authority on 03.06.2022 and the consequent Order dated 28.06.2022 conveying the decision to not reinstate him in service after considering his representation dated 19.06.2021 among others.
21. In the context of the facts as foregoing, we had at the outset taken note of certain grounds on which the Applicant had challenged the decision to retire him compulsorily vide Order dated 03.12.2019. The first such ground was essentially that no opinion of the Competent Authority had been recorded on the Review committee's recommendation dated 19.11.2019 and thus the views of the Committee which undertook the preliminary screening had merely been parroted by the Competent Authority. It is noted that the preliminary collation of relevant inputs and screening etc. was done through the Internal Committee constituted duly ; and the formation of opinion regarding compulsory retirement and the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority/government was a distinct stage of the decision-making process in which the Review Committee had assisted. Also, from the minutes dated 30.09.2019 of the Internal Committee, it emerged clearly that it had kept in view the relevant aspects - viz. APAR gradings of the officers for last O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 29 of 44 five years (up to 2017-18) ; vigilance history of the officers ; remarks including those uncommunicated, if any, in the APAR dossiers ; integrity as mentioned in APARs etc. - and out of 117 officers considered by it, had opined prima facie that 108 officers were fit for continuance in service and had short-listed 09 officers for further review and opinion formation/decision by the Review Committee regarding continuance or compulsory retirement. The Review Committee in its turn had considered 118 officers, also including one more officer on the recommendation of PED/Vigilance on ground of questionable integrity, even though the services of that officer were reviewed earlier as well. The Review Committee had kept in view the relevant aspects - viz. Performance of the officers as reflected in the APAR in the entire career, by scrutinizing the entire APAR dossiers with special attention to performance during the last five years (up to 2017-18) ; vigilance history of the officers ; integrity as mentioned in APARs and as per the assessment of PED/Vigilance ; integrity and general reputation as ascertained from the officers worked with/under during the entire service period etc. - and out of 118 officers considered by it, had recommended that 03 officers were fit to be retired prematurely/compulsorily in public interest, in keeping with the Government's policy of improving efficiency by dispensing with public servants who were no longer found useful to the administration ; and the other 115 officers were not identified for compulsory retirement by it. The approval of the Competent Authority had been accorded to the same by the Competent Authority by affixing the signature dated 29.11.2019, which was tantamount to the concurrence to the recommendation placed. It could thus not be said that the Review Committee assisted decision of the Competent Authority (i.e. the Competent Authority) was without any opinion being formed or it had merely parroted the opinions of the screening Internal Committee in this case.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 30 of 44 Another ground for challenge by the Applicant was that the Review committee had not analyzed the service records of the Applicant during deliberation / its proceedings dated 14.11.2019. It is noted in this regard that vide the minutes dated 19.11.2019 of the Review Committee meeting, the records that had been kept in view while undertaking the review had specifically been listed out. These were stated therein to be as follows :
"3. While undertaking the review, the report of the Internal Committee and the entire service records of the officers including the following aspects have been kept in view :
a) Performance : Performance of the officer as reflected in the APARs in the entire career. Entire APAR dossiers were scrutinized. Special attention was given to the performance during the last 5 years (i.e. up to APAR year 2017-18).
b) Vigilance history of the officers.
c) Integrity as reflected in the APARs and as per the assessment of PED/Vigilance.
d) Integrity and general reputation as ascertained from the officers he has worked with/under during his entire service period."
22. At this stage, it is reiterated that the challenge by the Applicant to the Order dated 03.12.2019 for his compulsory retirement was bound to be taken up only in accordance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the matters of compulsory retirement in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs Chief Medical Officer Baripada & Anr. [(1992) 2 SCC 299] (supra). The remit so allowed to this Tribunal is to adjudge if the findings of the proceedings for compulsory retirement of the Applicant were mala fide or that those were based on no evidence or that those were arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material. On the basis of the material brought before us, we hereafter examine the matter of the Applicant's compulsory retirement within the framework of the law laid down in this regard (supra).
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 31 of 44 Regarding the aspect of whether the orders of compulsory retirement were passed malafide - It is a fact that the APAR and Vigilance record of the Applicant had covered a period of well more than twenty years, during which he had served at various locations/offices in different work fields/assignments and with/under numerous officers. In is also relevant that in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs Chief Medical Officer Baripada & Anr. [(1992)2 SCC 299] (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed in this regard inter alia as follows :
"31. Another factor to be borne in mind is this : most often, the authority which made the adverse remarks and the authority competent to retire him compulsorily are not the same. There is no reason to presume that the authority competent to retire him will not act bona fide or will not consider the entire record dispassionately. As the decided cases show, very often, a Review Committee consisting of more than one responsible official is constituted to examine the cases and make their recommendations to the government. The Review Committee, or the government, would not naturally be swayed by one or two remarks, favourable or adverse. They would form an opinion on a totality of consideration of the entire record - including representations, if any, made by the government servant against the above remarks - of course attaching more importance to later period of service. Another circumstance to be borne in mind is the unlikelihood of succession of officers making unfounded remarks against a government servant."
In this specific case - apart from that the performance of the Applicant had been assessed across many unconnected working locations/situations and by different authorities as presented on record which would itself be a counter to any alleged mala fide by individual officers - it is noted that in the hearing on the matter on 27.02.2025, the Applicant had appeared in person and stated that he did not want to press for the reliefs sought at No.8.3 and No.8.4 in O.A. No.206/2020. The relief vide No.8.3 of O.A. No.206/2020 was found to pertain to action sought to be taken against the officials who had allegedly victimized the Applicant with deliberate prejudice and malafide intentions. Thus, leaving aside the moot O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 32 of 44 point whether such a relief was open to be pursued as per the administrative rules applicable and before this Tribunal, it was noted that the Applicant himself had also not pressed mala fide action - against individual officials/authorities.
Even more pertinently, no malafide had been specifically alleged or shown on part of the Review Committee or the Competent Authority, while forming the opinion and arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the government to retire the Applicant compulsorily. Therefore, the decision as such that was first conveyed to him vide Order dated 03.12.2019 could not be deemed to suffer from mala fide.
23. Regarding the aspect of whether the orders of compulsory retirement were passed without evidence - It emerged from the material presented before the Tribunal, inter alia the minutes of the meetings of the Internal Committee dated 26.09.2019 and the Review Committee dated 14.11.2019 - that the decision was based on various material/inputs viz. the APARs, vigilance history as well as other inputs that were available to those Committees, even without relying on any additional inputs outside that. It was brought out that the APARs of the Applicant right from his entry into service showed gradings being average/below expected gradings for Group- A officers, either overall or on various counts inter alia the Applicant being rash and quarrelsome having behavioral problems in inter- personal relations and in motivating subordinates or working in a team ; not being fit for holding the critical administrative posts of ADRM and DRM etc. It had also factual that the Applicant's promotions in IRTS/Railway service were marred by delay, as a result of which he had worked in posts that were well below those of other officers of similar service length his entry batch in IRTS. Also, apart from the specific assessments regarding his integrity other than "beyond doubt", the officer had also been punished in a O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 33 of 44 disciplinary proceeding wherein the charge sheet had been issued for negating the orders of his superior officers about waiver of demurrage charges with ulterior motives vide charge memorandum dated 31.07.2001. Although his penalty had been reduced from two stage for two years with cumulative effect to one stage (one increment) with cumulative effect by the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur vide its order dated 12.07.2017, still remained as major penalty that was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Due to the same, he was liable to be retained on the Secret List. In any case his name had figured on the Agreed List for the year 2018 and on the Secret List for the years 1999 to 2010. As such out of the entire service career of 25 years, the Applicant had worked for 12 years on a non- sensitive post. Thus he had lost the opportunity of working and gaining work experience in sensitive cadre posts, which is crucial for career progression in the Railway system. It also emerged from the minutes of the Review Committee dated 19.11.2019 that it had gone into the Performance records/APARs, Vigilance Records, Integrity as reflected in APARs/PED Vigilance assessments and also the Integrity and General reputation ascertained from officers that the Applicant had worked with/under during his service career.
Thus, the Review Committee and with its assistance the Competent Authority were found to have formed the opinion that it was in public interest to retire to Applicant compulsorily ; and on the subjective satisfaction as such, the decision to retire him compulsorily had been conveyed. Therefore, the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 could not be deemed to have been based on no evidence.
24. Regarding the aspect of whether the orders of compulsory retirement were arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material - It is pertinent to mention that the material available had showed multiple instances of the performance of the Applicant to be average on O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 34 of 44 various counts ; his behavioral problems to work and lead teams ; his not being found fit to be promoted in time along with other officers of his service length/IRTS Recruitment batch ; his lack of experience and unfitness to handle critical higher administrative responsibilities and functions as ADRM or DRM ; etc. The material available had showed recording of his integrity in terms other than 'beyond doubt' and included a punishment in a matter having a bearing on his integrity ; retention of his name on Agreed List and Secret List ; instance of interference and sexual harassment of lady subordinates and , inter alia other information as foregoing. Therefore, in the circumstances, the decision to retire the Applicant compulsorily , which in any case was not deemable as a punishment, did not emerge as one that would be an arbitrary or perverse decision such that no reasonable person would form such opinion on the basis of given material.
25. In the light of the foregoing, it is found that the formation of the opinion by the Review Committee and the Competent Authority
- that it was in public interest to retire the Applicant compulsorily - and the passing of the Order dated 03.12.2019 for his compulsory retirement on the subjective satisfaction of the government consequently, was not fraught with the conditions of mala fide or of no evidence or of arbitrariness. Hence, the Order dated 03.12.2019 did not call for interference by this Tribunal.
Therefore, the main relief prayed for vide O.A. No.206/2020 for quashing and setting-aside the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 for compulsory retirement of the Applicant ; and the impugned Order dated 04.05.2020 passed for rejection of his representation dated 23.12.2019 against the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 was not found tenable. The reliefs for reinstating of the Applicant in the IRTS with all consequential benefits including pay and arrears O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 35 of 44 with an interest of 20% w.e.f. the date of his compulsory retirement would also thus not be admissible.
26. The Applicant had also prayed for several other reliefs which were being pursued by him vide the three O.A.s before us - viz. No.206/2020, No.163/2022 and No.584/2022. It is deemed apt to consider those as well - in addition to the aforesaid in respect of the main relief vide O.A. No.206/2020 - as hereafter.
Firstly, the relief prayed for vide O.A. No.206/2020 - inter alia that the name of the Applicant being placed on the Secret List during (1999-2010) and Agreed List for 2018 be treated as infructuous/deleted since nothing adverse was found in the particular years rather his integrity certified as Beyond doubt in the ACRs/APARs. In this regard, it is to be noted that the purpose for maintaining the Secret List and the Agreed List was to maintain watch on the activities of public servants of doubtful integrity. The related process is duly prescribed to be undertaken confidentially in consultation with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Departmental Vigilance authorities ; and the inputs to be considered while retaining the names of officers on the Secret List and Agreed List were not restricted to those recorded in the ACRs/APARs of the respective officers. It is found from the extant instructions placed on record, inter alia the Railway Board's instructions dated 02.12.2005 that the Secret List of officers of doubtful integrity included inter alia
- officers convicted in a court of law on a charge of lack of integrity or for an offence involving moral turpitude ; officers awarded departmentally a major penalty on charge of lack of integrity or on charges of gross dereliction of duty although corrupt motive may not be capable of proof ; officers against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude ; or officers who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical grounds, yet there remained a reasonable O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 36 of 44 suspicion against their integrity. The Agreed List is prepared to include names of officers whose integrity and honesty is under a cloud. Such officers are also required to be posted to non-sensitive posts as per the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission. The prayer of the Applicant was made much later in the light of his compulsory retirement ex-post facto ; and was for nullifying/voiding the placement of his name on the Secret List during (1999 to 2010) and Agreed List during 2018 - with total erasure with retrospective effect, for which no substantive rule provisions were presented. Also, it was clear that maintenance of Secret List/Agreed List was a function directly within the domain of concerned administrative/vigilance/CBI authorities, which also required specialized knowledge and expertise. It is prima facie found that the placement of Applicant's name on Secret List/Agreed List was not in situation of no evidence at all. It would thus not be open to the Tribunal to enter into an exercise of appellate nature for re- appreciation of evidence/inputs available to designated authorities confidentially. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, the relief as prayed for by the Applicant for declaring the placing of his name on Secret List/Agreed List was found to be not tenable.
27. Secondly, Vide O.A. No. 163/2022, it had also been sought that the formation of the Review Committee itself be declared as null and void as it was claimed to be illegal. In this regard, the extant RBE No.130/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued for reiteration of salient points regarding strengthening of administration by periodic review under Rule 1802(a) / 1803(a) / 1804(a) upon reference showed the relevant provisions to be as follows :
"5. ......
(d) Composition of the Review Committee will be as under :
(i) For ACC Appointees and non-ACC Appointees (i.e. all Group-A Gazetted officers including those of RBSS, RBSSS and Miscellaneous/ex-cadres) :
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 37 of 44 The Committee will be headed by CRB and would compose of the functional Board Member of the Department (to which the officer whose service is being reviewed)and Member Staff. In case, the officer belongs to Personnel Department or RBSS/RBSSS or IRMS, Member (Traction) would be the other Member.
Internal Committee to assist the Review Committee will be headed by Secretary , Railway Board and would comprise JS(Confidential) and JS(Establishment). ED/Vigilance (or Director/Vigilance in case of no ED is available) shall be associated." In the present case, the Internal Committee was chaired by the Secretary, Railway Board and had included JS(C) and JS(E) as its other Members - which had conformed to the prescribed constitution of the Internal Committee ; and the Review Committee was found to be headed by the CRB/CEO and had included Member (Traffic) and Member (Staff) as its other Members - which again had conformed to the prescribed constitution of the Review Committee. It is also seen that the same Internal and Review Committees had functioned for undertaking the screening and review process, for all the 117/118 officers respectively that had been considered for review in 2019, for the purpose of determining whether the officers were fit to be retired prematurely/compulsorily in public interest, in keeping with the Government's policy of improving efficiency by dispensing with pubic servants who were found no longer useful to the administration. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, it was found that the presentation of the Applicant regarding the illegality in constitution of the Review Committee was not found to be borne out. Hence, the relief for declaring the formation of the Review Committee to be null and void was not found to be tenable.
28. Thirdly, the other reliefs still being pressed for by the Applicant
- viz. that vide O.A. No.163/2022 for seeking the quashing and setting aside of the Minutes of the Internal and Review Committees along with the relied upon documents SN-2 & SN-7 on the grounds O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 38 of 44 of these being false, fabricated and incorrect etc. ; and vide the O.A. No.584/2022 for quashing and setting aside the impugned Orders dated 14.06.2022 and 28.06.2022 conveying the decision of the Competent Authority after considering the Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 not to reinstate him in service ; and for quashing and setting aside the formation and minutes of the subsequent Representation Committee itself and declaring it null and void as having been constituted illegally and no bonafide opinion having been formed by the Competent Authority.
These were taken up together, since these had been made in an interlinked background/fact-matrix - essentially as follows. When the Applicant had been conveyed that he had been compulsorily retired vide the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019, it was inter alia stated that if he so desired, he may represent in writing within three weeks from the date of service of that order upon him. The Applicant had made a representation dated 23.12.2019, whereupon, it had eventually been conveyed to the Applicant vide the impugned Order dated 04.05.2020 - that the representation dated 23.12.2019 of the Applicant had been decided by the President ; and the request of the Applicant to be reinstated in Railway service was rejected, in public interest. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant had filed the OA No.206/2020 before the Tribunal ; but while the said O.A. 206/2020 had been pending for disposal, the Applicant had also continued pursuing the related matters separately with the Respondents. Based on purportedly new facts relating to his performance and vigilance status inter alia obtained through RTI, the Applicant had made another representation dated 19.06.2021 against the impugned Orders dated 03.12.2019 and 04.05.2020 for his compulsory retirement. The said representation dated 19.06.2021 had been eventually been considered by the constituted Representation Committee at its meeting dated 02.06.2022. The minutes/recommendations dated 03.06.2022 of the said O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 39 of 44 Representation Committee meeting were approved by the Competent Authority on 13.06.2022. Subsequently, vide communication dated 14.06.2022 of the Railway Board and the follow-up communication dated 28.06.2022 of the General Manager, NWR, Jaipur (Respondent No.9 in O.A. No.584/2022), it had been conveyed that after considering the Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 and other similar representations, the President had decided not to reinstate the Applicant in service.
29. The Applicant had impugned the said Orders vide communication dated 14.06.2022 of the Railway Board and the follow-up communication dated 28.06.2022 of the Respondent No.9 through the O.A. No.584/2022. The grounds taken by the Applicant statedly and in arguments included - that the Review Committee meeting dated 14.11.2019 had been presented an incorrect picture of his APARs and particularly with respect to the subject of integrity as recorded therein ; that the facts of the outcome of one of the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant having been set aside and the facts of the punishment as the outcome of another disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant having been reduced in judicial fora were not appropriately reflected in the relevant statement placed before the said Review Committee meeting ; and that although the Applicant had submitted representation dated 19.06.2021 inter alia even after filing the O.A. No.206/2020, the Respondents were not allowed to consider the same through the Representation Committee eventually vide its meeting on 02.06.2022 and dispose of the same vide Orders dated 14.06.2022/28.06.2022 as the Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 would debar the same. Upon reference, the Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 was shown to state that -
"(4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-
section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 40 of 44 redressal of grievances in relation to the subject matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules."
In this regard, while the learned Counsel for the Respondents had not disputed the errors of facts of the outcomes of the two disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant as pointed out in the relevant statement placed before the Review Committee meeting dated 14.11.2019, it had been reiterated by him that in the disciplinary proceedings cited secondly, the reduced punishment had still remained to be a major penalty. Notwithstanding, the learned Counsel had also drawn attention to the representation dated 23.12.2019 of the Applicant, whereby it had been specifically averred at the outset with emphasis that - "Therefore I reserve my rights to make additional representation after receiving the detailed grounds, recommendations of the Reviewing Committee and its supporting reports if any as despite demanding the same vide my representation dtd 10.12.2019 as nothing has been provided so far." Hence, he argued that the representation dated 19.06.2021 had been deemed/considered in continuation to that dated 23.12.2019 made by the Applicant - and the Representation Committee had given its recommendations to the Competent Authority based on the rectified vigilance statement/report after correction of the errors pointed out vide the said representation dated 19.06.2021. Additionally, the learned Counsel had argued that since the Applicant himself had filed additional O.A.s to the O.A. No.206/2020 regarding the matter of his compulsory retirement, purportedly to update his case on basis of facts that had emerged subsequently, his denial of the consideration by the Respondents of those very purported new facts, brought to notice by the Applicant himself vide representation dated 19.06.2021, were logically self-contradictory and not sustainable.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 41 of 44 Moreover, the learned Counsel had sought to rely upon the Judgment and Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Deepak Mali [(2010) 2 SCC 222] whereby statedly such argument had been turned down by confirming the view taken by Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court, who had held that in the absence of any stay, the Respondent Department authorities were not precluded to decide any appeal/revision/review or representation filed by the Applicant during the pendency of the O.A. on the subject. It was argued that in view of the afore-quoted law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, it was clear that the argument advanced by the Applicant to challenge the minutes of the Representation Committee dated 03.06.2022 and consequent Order dated 14.06.2022 deserved to be turned down for the reason that in the absence of any stay, the bar provided under section 19(4) was not invited ; and thus, the Respondent authorities/Representation Committee were not precluded to consider and decide the representation dated 19.06.2021 submitted by the Applicant.
30. Regarding this issue itself, we had gone through the facts presented and heard the arguments of the parties. It is found that the related facts - that the outcome of one of the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had been set aside and the punishment as outcome of another disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant had been reduced in judicial fora were not appropriately reflected in the relevant statement placed before the said Review Committee meeting - were not per se disputed between the parties, although the learned Counsel for the Respondents had reiterated that in the second disciplinary proceedings cited, the reduced punishment had still remained to be a major penalty. However, the parties had thereafter disputed whether the Applicant's representation dated 19.06.2021 ought to have been considered in light of the corrected statement of related facts pointed out thereby to the Representation Committee and the O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 42 of 44 Competent Authority ; and whether the outcomes of such consideration - inter alia seen in the form of recommendations dated 03.06.2022 of the Representation Committee ; the approval by the Competent Authority by affixing signature dated 13.06.2022 ; the communication of the decision vide impugned communications dated 14.06.2022 and dated 28.06.2022 etc. - were sustainable. At this stage, we deem it apposite to reiterate that the main issue to be determined remained to be whether the Applicant had been compulsorily retired duly or otherwise. It would be incumbent upon this Tribunal to focus upon the same without letting it be obfuscated by multiple litigations, plethora of arguments and plurality of reliefs being sought. Hence, without further expanding this particular issue, it is noted that the challenge to the decision taken by the Competent Authority with the assistance of the Review Committee - for compulsory retirement of the Applicant that had been conveyed vide impugned Order 03.12.2019 ; and to the rejection of his representation dated 23.12.2019 against the same vide Order dated 04.05.2020 - had to be decided in terms of the law laid down in regard to compulsory retirement matters, specifically by looking at whether the decision was arrived at in situations of mala fide, no evidence or arbitrariness on part of the Respondents. On the basis of the material placed on record, inter alia vide the proceedings/minutes of the Review Committee dated 14.11.2019, we find that the recommendation of the Review Committee to compulsorily retire the Applicant, had been reached on a comprehensive review of material/information before it and not just on account of the disciplinary proceedings cited. Specifically thereby, the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 and the impugned Order dated 04.05.2020 would not be deemable to have been taken in a situation of no evidence even after accounting for the errors in the Vigilance Report/Statement relating to the disciplinary proceedings O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 43 of 44 against the Applicant. That apart, we found strength in the presentation on behalf of the Respondents that the minutes of the Committees were internal deliberations/file notings. Moreover, examination of the impugned Orders dated 03.12.2019 and 04.05.2020 and the findings thereupon of non-existence of a situation of mala fide or arbitrariness were already recorded by us herein before vide Para-22 and Para-24 supra, respectively.
31. In the conspectus of the foregoing, it is found that the Respondents were required to form an opinion regarding whether the Applicant was fit to be continued in railway service or otherwise it was in public interest to retire him compulsorily from the same - and had come to the conclusion that the Applicant was fit to be compulsorily retired, after considering his overall service in the light of the various relevant factors available on record ; and after following the prescribed procedure for the same substantively, similar to that for 117 other officers who were taken up for review along with the Applicant. Further, it is also found that as per the remit laid down in law in respect of matters of compulsory retirement, this Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority or modify the findings recorded by the administrative authorities. It is also found on the basis of examination of the material before us, as foregoing, that none of the conditions specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for interference by a Tribunal/Court with the proceedings related to compulsory retirement - viz. the satisfaction 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 - had been found to be satisfied/met in the case of the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 or the Order dated 04.05.2020 issued after considering the Applicant's representation dated 23.12.2019.
O.A. No.206/2020 with O.A. No.163/2022 & O.A. No.584/2022 Page 44 of 44 Therefore, we hold that the impugned order dated 03.12.2019 for compulsory retirement of the Applicant and subsequent impugned Order dated 04.05.2020 passed upon considering his representation dated 23.12.2019, do not require any interference by this Tribunal. Further, it had also been found in the examination herein before that the various other reliefs claimed by the Applicant - through the three O.A.s before us, vide No.206/2020, No.163/2022 and No.584/2022 - were also not tenable.
32. Therefore, we hold that the O.A. No.206/2020 and the other two O.A.s heard together with it, i.e. O.A. No.163/2022 and No.584/2022, do not succeed. Accordingly these three O.A.s are disallowed. Consequently, the reliefs claimed thereby were also not tenable ; and thus shall be inadmissible to the Applicant.
33. The connected M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of in the light hereof. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv