Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Sudhiranjan Senapati vs Itat on 1 May, 2025
1 O.A.260/00708 of 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00708 of 2019
Reserved on 29.04.2025 Pronounced on 01.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Shri Sudhiranjan Senapati, IRS (Group -A), aged about 54
years, S/o. Shri B.C. Senapati, permanent resident
Address-64, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar-751007
previously working as Sr.DR, ITAT, 7th Floor, Lok Nayak
Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary
(Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Dehi-
110001.
3. The Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), Second
Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003.
4. The Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ad-VI,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central
Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delh110 001.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. J.M.Patnaik, Counsel
For the respondents: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Counsel
Mr. B.R.Swain, Counsel
Mr. A. Mallick
2 O.A.260/00708 of 2019
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
According to the pleadings as reiterated/highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant belongs to 1990 (CC-90059) batch IRS Officer. His Date of Birth being 16.02.1965, in normal course, he would have retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation of 60 years in the afternoon of 28.02.2025. In his service career, he has received many commendations for his dedicated service and one such commendation received from Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in letter dated 16.02.2014 is placed on record at Annexure-A/1. He has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 02.11.2018 at Annexure-A/2 to establish that his name has never been included in "Agreed List/ODI (officer having doubtful integrity) List. He has also placed on record copies of the APARs starting from August, 1990 till September, 2019 at Annexure-A/3 series to establish that he is an officer having integrity beyond doubt and his efficiency has been rated as very good/outstanding. According to him, notwithstanding his outstanding service career, he was made to retire compulsorily in exercise of power conferred under FR 56(J) on payment of three months' salary vide order No. A 270/2019 [File No. A-32011/02/2014-Ad.VI (Pt.)] dated 27.09.2019. He submitted memorial dated 16.10.2019 seeking 3 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 removal of injustice caused to him in the decision taking/making process of the matter in retiring him compulsorily by invoking FR 56(J) but the same was rejected and communicated to him vide order F.No. A 38012/47/2019-Ad.VI-A dated 31.12.2019 (A/7). Impugning and challenging the aforesaid orders dated 27.09.2019 and 31.12.2019, the present OA has been filed by him with prayer to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstatement him to service with payment of all his service and financial benefits retrospectively on various grounds, which shall be discussed infra.
2. Respondents filed their counter opposing the contentions raised by the applicant in the OA. According to the respondents, due to his alleged omission and commission in the matter of conducting survey for ensuring for completion of the assessment proceedings in a timely and proper manner, criminal case was instituted against him vide TR No. 11 of 2009 before the Learned Court of Special Judge, CBI, Court No.II, Bhubaneswar so also disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum dated 01.04.2008 was also initiated against him. The applicant challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the CAT, PB, New Delhi and the CAT, PB, New Delhi vide order dated 06.08.2010 quashed the charge sheet with liberty to proceed with the matter de novo. Accordingly, fresh charge sheet was issued to him on 04.08.2014. In terms of the 4 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 provision under FR 56(J), cases of many officers including the applicant were considered by the Review Committee constituted for the purpose. The Committee took note of the entire service record, gravity of the allegation made in the charge sheet and the grading made in the ACRs/APARs, and reached the conclusion to retire the applicant compulsorily under FR 56(J). The employment contract entail that an employee discharges his duties in good faith and if reasonable doubt exists regarding the integrity and conduct of an employee, the employer is entitled to compulsorily retire such employee particularly at the fag end of his service career to build public confidence and incentivize transparency, higher codes of ethics, integrity and good conduct. The compulsory retirement is not a penalty. It is not, in any manner, prejudicial or to create any stigma against him since the compulsorily retired employee is entitled to all retirement benefits. In this regard, they have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shyamlal Vs State of UP, AIR 1954 SC 369, and UOI Vs M.E.Reddy & Anr., 1980 (2) SCC 15. It is stated that the very object of the provision under FR 56(J) is to weed-out the dead-wood and persons with doubtful integrity/credential in order to maintain a high standard of ethics, value, efficiency and initiatives in the state service. The applicant occupied the very senior and sensitive position in Indian Revenue Service. Allowing him to continue in such position when his integrity was under cloud will 5 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 not have been conducive to public interest and general administration and, therefore, retiring him compulsorily from service is justified, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Colonel J.N.Sinha, 1970(2) SC 458. They have also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, to state that in the matter of compulsory retirement under FR 56(J) natural justice is not required to be followed. It is stated that the applicant has been compulsorily retired on account of doubtful integrity and not on account of ineffectiveness. The memorial submitted by the applicant was duly examined and the same was rejected. The respondents have also denied the allegation of the applicant that the compulsory retirement has been resorted to as a short cut to avoid departmental inquiry rather the same was resorted to in public interest. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
3. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the very purpose and object of the FR 56(J) is to retire an employee compulsorily, who has outlived his/her efficiency and became deadwood for the smooth running of the administration. The respondents fairly admitted in their counter that invocation of the provision under FR 56(J) in respect of the applicant was not on account of his ineffectiveness but for his doubtful integrity, which 6 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 has been arrived at on no evidence and/or due to initiation of criminal and departmental proceedings against the applicant. It is his stand that mere institution of criminal case or initiation of disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be said that the integrity of an employee is doubtful unless it is duly established by the end of the proceedings. However, he drew our attention to the order of the Learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No.II, Bhubaneswar dated 03.11.2019 in TR No. 11/2009 and of this Bench dated 07.01.2025 in OA No. 63/2022 to state that in the criminal case the applicant has been acquitted and disciplinary proceedings has been quashed. He has also taken us through the gradings and reporting made in the integrity column in the APARs of the applicant for the periods August, 1990 to September, 2019 to state that neither the applicant can be said to be a deadwood nor it can be established that the applicant is an employee having doubtful integrity and, to support that, the applicant is an officer without doubtful integrity, he drew our notice to the letter of the DGIT, Vigilance dated 02.11.2018 (A/2). It is also stated that the respondents did not produce any piece of evidence to substantiate that the applicant is an employee with doubtful integrity and his continuance in service would be adversIal to the interest of the administration. It has also been stated that as per the rules periodical review of the service after putting particular years of service and/or after attaining certain age is a mandatory one. In the instant case, the 7 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 respondents have neither produced any such review committee report held earlier or the report based on which the applicant was retired compulsorily to substantiate that the retirement of the applicant compulsorily is not by way of punishment, whims, fancy and based on the institution of criminal case and initiation of disciplinary proceedings but for his doubtful integrity and further to establish the basis on which the committee reached the conclusion that the applicant is having a doubtful integrity and needs to be weeded out. It is also contended that though the applicant in his memorial has sought removal of injustice caused to him in the decision taking process of the matter by stating all the points noted above but his memorial was rejected without meeting/answering those points or without giving him the report of the committee based on which the decision of his compulsory retirement was taken. In order of support his stand that the impugned orders have been made based on no evidence, arbitrarily and illegally requiring judicial interference in the matter, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and co- ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in the cases of M.P. State Co-op Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Rajneesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, 2009 (2) S C T 571, State of Gujarat and Another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v Union of India and another, 2023 8 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 LiveLaw (SC) 165, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Madan Mohan Nagar, (1967) IILLJ 63 (SC), State of U.P vs Abhai Kishore Masta, 1995 SCC (1) 336, State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, UOI Vs. H.C.Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364, Varkey Josheph Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1993 SC 1892, Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 933 of 2018 dated 14.01.2021 (Dr. Mayank Jain vs UOI and others) and of Ahmedabad Bench in OA No. 369 of 2018 dated 16.04.2019 (Ravindra Vittal Parmar vs UOI & Ors) relying on which the Division Bench of this Bench quashed the order of compulsory retirement in case of Sri Gupta Chandra Bidika Vs UOI & Ors in OA No. 336 of 2023 disposed of on 03.12.2024.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents by reiterating the stand taken in the pleadings has submitted that the objective of introduction of FR 56(J) is to strengthen the administrative machinery by developing responsible and efficient administration at all levels and to achieve efficiency, economy and speed in the portal of Government functions. It is submitted that under the rules, power is vested with the appropriate authority to retire a government servant under FR 56 (1), FR 56 (J) or Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [now Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021], as the case may be, if it is necessary to do so in public interest [DoP&T OMs dated 07.08.1985, 21.06.2013, 21.03.2014, 9 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 11.09.2015 and Home Affairs OM dated 05.05.1966]. In the instant case, in terms of the provisions, the review committee constituted for the purpose reviewed the cases of IRS officers coming under the purview of such review, which included the applicant. The report submitted by the review committee was duly accepted by the competent authority and ultimately the applicant was made to retire compulsorily in public interest and, therefore, scope of interfere in such decision by this Bench is not warranted. To strengthen his argument, he has placed reliance on the decision of the following decisions:
"(i) Shyam Lal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 369.
(ii) Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha and Ors., (1970) 2 SCC 458.
(iii) Union of India and Ors. vs. Μ.Ε. Reddy and Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 15.
(iv) S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 424.
(v) Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1175.
(vi) Parbodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 630.
(vii) K. Kandaswamy vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 162.
(viii) Pyare Mohan Lal VS. State of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3753.
(ix) Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs Union of India & Ors., C.A. No. 2365 of 2020.
(x) Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 801.
10 O.A.260/00708 of 2019
(xi) Baikunthanath Das & Ors. Vs. Chief District Medal Officer, Baripada & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 299.
(xii) Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305.
(xiii) Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. UOI & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 11177/2020.
(xiv) Alok Kumar Mitra vs. UOI, OA No. 332/450/2019.
(xv) Ajay Kumar Bassi vs. CBI, OA No. 3107/2022.
(xvi) B. Srinivasa Rao vs. UOI, OA No. 446/2020.
(xvii) Ajoy Kumar Singh vs. UOI, OA No. 3633/2019.
(xviii) Umesh Kumar Goel vs. UOI, OA No. 3163/2016.
(xix) Vinod Kumar vs. GNCTD & Ors., OA No. 3302/2019.
5. We have considered the rival submission of the respective parties and perused the stand taken in the pleadings and also gone through the decisions relied on noted above.
6. We find that the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shyam Lal (supra), J.N. Sinha and Ors. (supra), Μ.Ε. Reddy and Ors., (supra), K. Kandaswamy (surpa), Nisha Priya Bhatia (supra) & Baikunthanath Das (supra) relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents were also taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent decisions in the cases of Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra) relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and held as under:
11 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 "28. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest."
And also relied on in the case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"39. Dehors the aforesaid allegations of institutional bias and malice, having perused the material placed on record, we find merit in the other grounds taken by the appellant. It is noticed that though FR 56(j) contemplates that the respondents have an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest and such an order could have been passed against the appellant any time after he had attained the age of fifty years, the respondents did not take any such decision till the very fag end of his career. The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed in this case on 27th September, 2019 whereas the appellant was to superannuate in ordinary course in January, 2020. There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents who had till as late as in July, 2019 continued to grade the appellant as 'Outstanding' and had assessed his integrity as 'Beyond doubt'. But in less than three months reckoned therefrom, the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conclusion that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scale of 1 - 10 on 31st July, 2019 it has not been shown as to what had transpired thereafter that made the respondents resort to FR 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire him with just three months of service left for his retirement, in routine. In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is 12 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public.
40. In view of the above discussion, it is deemed appropriate to reverse the impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2022 and quash and set aside the order dated 27th September, 2019 passed by the respondents, compulsorily retiring the appellant. Resultantly, the adverse consequences if any, flowing from the said order of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant, are also set aside. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms while leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
7. In the aforesaid premises the decisions relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents in the cases of Shyam Lal (supra), J.N. Sinha and Ors. (supra), Μ.Ε. Reddy and Ors., (supra), K. Kandaswamy (surpa), Nisha Priya Bhatia (supra) & Baikunthanath Das (supra) are of no help. Similarly, after going through the rest of the decisions relied on by the Respondents we find that none of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondents are of any help to them because in none of the said cases the factual matrix are similar to the instant case. It is also note worthy that in the case of S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 491, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the order of compulsory retirement is a gross abuse of power as there was nothing on the record to justify and support the order. Similarly, in the case of Baldeo Raj Chaddha vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321, it was held that although the purpose of FR 56 (J) was to weed out worthless employees 13 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 without punitive extremes, if, under the guise of "public interest", an order of premature retirement is made for any other purpose, it would be the surest menace to public interest and the order must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and "disguised dismissal".
8. We are reminded by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P vs Abhai Kishore Masta, 1995 SCC (1) 336, it has been held that merely because the order of compulsory retirement was passed during the pendency of a disciplinary enquiry, it must be necessarily deemed to be penal in nature, is unsustainable in law.
9. In the case of State of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that --
"The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystalized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:
(I) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(II) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(III) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(IV) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
14 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 (V) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(VI) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(VII) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (VIII) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."
10. In M.P. State Co-op Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Rajneesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, 2009 (2) S C T 571, Hon'ble Apex Court had culled out principles governing judicial review in respect of an order of compulsory retirement and held as follows:-
"The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no longer res integra. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subject to judicial review inter alia:
(i) When it is based on no material;
(ii) When it is arbitrary;
(iii) When it is without application of mind; and
(iv) When there is no evidence in support of the case."
11. In this case, the Respondents have fairly admitted in paragraph-28 of the counter that the applicant has been compulsorily retired on account of "doubtful integrity" and 'not on account of ineffectiveness'. The Respondents did not dispute the letter dated 02.11.2018 (Annx.2) wherein it has been stated that the name of the applicant has not been included in the "Agreed List/Officer having Doubtful Integrity". The applicant is not an 15 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 officer of having 'doubtful integrity' is also well established by the recording made in his APARs during the period August, 1990 to September, 2019. The Respondents did not produce any such evidence at least to convince this Bench that the decision reached by the Committee that the officer is of doubtful integrity and his further continuance in service will create hindrance in public administration; nor even the minutes of the Review Committee to convince that the decision so reached by the Committee is based on valid reason or grounds. We find that the Respondents in the counter highlighted much on the institution of Criminal Case and initiation of disciplinary proceedings but the fact remains that mere institution of criminal case of initiation of disciplinary proceeding cannot be a ground to hold that the applicant is of doubtful integrity or guilty of the offence so alleged. Be that as it may, admittedly, the Criminal Case instituted against the applicant has been ended in his favour and the Disciplinary Proceedings have already been quashed. In the case of Varkey Josheph Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1993 SC 1892, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that suspicion is not the substitute of proof. There is long distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Law is well settled in a plethora of judicial pronouncements that Courts and tribunals may interfere in decision-making processes if the 16 O.A.260/00708 of 2019 process itself is flawed, not just the outcome. This includes instances where the decision is illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper. While courts typically respect the autonomy of decision-making bodies, intervention is warranted when there's a breach of law or a failure to adhere to established principles and/or the decision is based on no evidence. Thus, on examination of the facts in hand with reference to the provisions of the Rules and law laid down in the case of Suryakant Chunilal Sahah, Umedbhai M.Patel and Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra) we find sufficient force on the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been miscarriage of justice caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter requiring judicial interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 27.09.2019 and 31.12.2019 are quashed., The Respondents are directed to treat the Applicant under deemed duty till his date of retirement i.e. on 28.02.2025 entitling him all consequential service benefits. In so far as back wages is concerned we find that the applicant did not produce any evidence to show that during the period of his compulsory retirement till 28.02.2025 he was not in any engagement. Hence, it is ordered that the applicant is not entitled to any back wages but shall be entitled to fixation of his pay notionally. The consequential order is directed to be issued within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17 O.A.260/00708 of 2019
12. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (Admn.) MEMBER (Judl.)
KB/PS