Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ranjeet Kumar vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 30 May, 2025
Item No. 13/C-1 1 OA No. 935/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 935/2023
Reserved on: 08.05.2025
Pronounced on: 30.05.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Ranjeet Kumar
S/o Late Jai Prakash Gupta
R/o Qr. No. 250, Sector-4,
R. K. Puram [Government Quarter]
New Delhi-110 022
DSP CBI [Compulsory Retired]
ACB, Delhi
Group A ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Jha with Mr. Sachin Bhatt )
Versus
1. Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, P G and Pensions
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
[Through Its Secretary]
2. Central Bureau of Investigation
Plot No. 5B, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
[Through Its Director] ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
Item No. 13/C-1 2 OA No. 935/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Call for the records;
(b) Allow the OA with costs;
(c) Set Aside/Quash the order dated 23.12.2023 by which the Applicant was compulsorily retired from service;
(d) Set Aside/Quash the order dated 16.03.2023/20.03.2023 by which the review sought by the Applicant of the order under FR-
56j was rejected;
(e) Allow the applicant to retain the Government Quarter allotted to him till the disposal of this petition;
(f) Direct the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant into service from the date of the order of compulsory retirement from 23.12.2022;
(g) Direct the Respondent to grant full pay and allowances for the period from 23.12.2022 till he is reinstated and treat him as having spent the period on duty for all intents and purposes; and
(h) Pass any other and further orders that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was a direct recruit Sub-Inspector of Police (Group-C employee) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short „CBI‟), appointed on 11.03.1996. He was promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 07.05.2003. Upon the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (in short „CPC‟), his pay was fixed in the Grade Pay of ₹4600/-. Posts carrying this grade pay were subsequently notified as Group-„B‟ posts on 09.04.2009.
Item No. 13/C-1 3 OA No. 935/2023
2.1 Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, a Group-A post, on 31.12.2015. However, the applicant was compulsorily retired from service vide Office Order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure A/1), invoking the provisions of FR 56(j). Aggrieved by the same, he submitted a representation dated 24.12.2022 (Annexure A/3) to his Cadre Controlling Authority/DoP&T for review of the said order. Meanwhile, the DoP&T, vide its order dated 29.12.2022, accorded promotion to the applicant to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (in short „ASP‟) based on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short „DPC‟) held on 26.12.2022. 2.2 Subsequent to the DoP&T order dated 29.12.2022, the applicant made an additional representation on 31.12.2022 (Annexure A/5), enclosing the promotion order and requesting reconsideration of the aforesaid order passed under FR 56(j). When the said representation did not evoke any interest with the respondents, he submitted further representations dated 14.01.2023 and 19.01.2023.
2.4 However, the said representations of the applicant seeking review of the order under FR 56(j) were allegedly rejected mechanically by the respondents vide order dated 16.03.2023, which is impugned in this O.A. A corrigendum dated 20.03.2023 was also issued, stating that the date of the Representation Committee meeting should be read as „14.02.2023‟ instead of „30.09.2022‟ as Item No. 13/C-1 4 OA No. 935/2023 mentioned in the above order dated 16.3.2023. Hence, this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 is contrary to the mandate of the DoP&T‟s Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020 regarding the exercise of power under FR 56(j). The impugned orders dated 23.12.2022 and 16.03.2023 are stated to be arbitrary and whimsical, as the same are based on no material or evidence. 3.1 It is argued that due to non-compliance with the DoP&T Office Memorandum before invoking the provisions of FR 56(j) has caused grave prejudice to the applicant. It is further argued that the rejection of the representation filed by the applicant for review of the aforesaid impugned order dated 23.12.2022, vide order dated 16.03.2023 is vague and devoid of reasoning.
3.3 The orders dated 23.12.2022 and 16.03.2023 are stated to be against the basic tenets of administrative law, being uninformed and inconsistent with the applicant‟s service record. It is further stated that the promotions granted to the applicant vide Office Order dated 29.12.2022 confirms that his integrity is not in doubt and that he is not ineffective. He entered Group „B‟ service at the age of approximately 37 years and not prior to attaining the age of 35 years as a Group A or Group B employee.
Item No. 13/C-1 5 OA No. 935/2023
3.4 It is also argued that the applicant's successive promotions
from Sub-Inspector to Inspector, and subsequently to Deputy Superintendent of Police, further confirms that he is neither a „deadwood‟ nor a „black sheep‟. This is particularly evident from the observations of his reviewing officers, who have acknowledged his sound knowledge of laws, rules, and regulations, his keen intellect, and his positive attitude. It is further argued that the respondents also failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court regarding the invocation of FR 56(j).
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents filed their counter reply on 24.08.2023, wherein they submitted that the present Application filed by the applicant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. They contended that the Competent Authority had passed the impugned order in the public interest, thereby retiring the applicant from government service. The applicant‟s representation against the said order was duly considered by the Representation Committee, which upheld the decision of the Competent Authority, based on the review and recommendations of the Review Committee. The rejection of the applicant‟s representation was communicated by the respondent department vide orders dated 16.03.2023 and 20.03.2023. 4.1 The respondents further submitted that the Application is liable to be dismissed, as the impugned order is not punitive in nature and does not entail any civil consequences. They contended that this Item No. 13/C-1 6 OA No. 935/2023 Tribunal is not an appellate authority, but rather exercises a limited scope of judicial review, confined to examining the decision-making process, which, in the present case, was duly adhered to. 4.2 The respondents also submitted that the Application is liable to be dismissed, as no allegation of mala fides has been made, nor are there any averments to that effect in the body of the Application. It was further submitted that there exists no institutional bias against the applicant.
4.3 The respondents contended that the Application is liable to be dismissed, as the applicant cannot seek multiple reliefs in a single Application. They submitted that once the applicant was served with the order of premature retirement, his services stood concluded for all intents and purposes. Consequently, he cannot be permitted to retain government accommodation pending adjudication of his petition. The said prayer, therefore, is neither tenable nor liable to be acceded to.
4.4 The respondents stated that, in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(j), the department conducts a performance review of employees upon attaining the age of 50 or 55 years, as the case may be. Upon examination of the complete service record of the concerned employee, including ACRs/APARs, both communicated and un-communicated remarks, charge memos, and any pending criminal proceedings, the Review Committee may recommend compulsory retirement in the public interest. This power is an Item No. 13/C-1 7 OA No. 935/2023 absolute right vested in the Government, and the Competent Authority may pass such an order by giving not less than three months‟ notice in writing or by paying salary in lieu thereof. In the present case, the order was passed by the President, being the Competent Authority.
4.5 It was further stated that the applicant‟s case was reviewed by the Review Committee comprising the Director, CBI, and the Additional Director, CBI. As per the applicable circulars and notifications, the Review Committee for Group „A‟ Gazetted Officers (Non-ACC Appointees) of the CBI consists of the aforementioned officers and is assisted by an Internal Committee comprising the Joint Director (Administration) and the Joint Director (Policy), CBI. The Review Committee undertook a detailed examination of the applicant‟s complete service record, including ACRs/APARs, charge memos, communicated and uncommunicated remarks, and any criminal cases. Upon comprehensive evaluation, the Committee recommended compulsory retirement of the applicant in the public interest. This recommendation was accepted by the Competent Authority (the President), and an order under FR 56(j) was accordingly issued on 23.12.2022. The applicant was paid all admissible dues in accordance with the provisions of FR 56(j). 4.6 The respondents submitted that the order issued under FR 56(j) is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature and, therefore, does not attract the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It was further submitted that, under Article 310 of the Constitution, a Item No. 13/C-1 8 OA No. 935/2023 government servant holds office at the pleasure of the President, who is empowered to invoke the provisions of FR 56(j) in the public interest.
4.7 It is further submitted that the representations dated 31.12.2022 and 10.01.2023 against the order dated 23.12.2022 submitted by the applicant were placed before the Representation Committee, which, comprising members different from those on the Review Committee, undertook an independent evaluation of the applicant‟s complete service record. Upon due consideration, the Committee found no grounds to interfere with the decision to prematurely retire the applicant and accordingly, rejected the said representations. The Representation Committee held its deliberations on 14.02.2023, and the Appropriate Authority accepted its recommendations on 27.02.2023. The decision of rejection of the representations was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 16.03.2023. It is submitted that the Representation Committee constituted on the recommendations of the Cabinet Secretary comprised senior officers of the Government of India, including one Secretary and two Additional Secretaries. This composition ensures that the decision- making process was fair, impartial, and free from any mala fides or arbitrariness.
4.8 It is also stated by the respondents that the Review Committee undertook a comprehensive examination of the applicant‟s entire service record and identified multiple instances of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct like (i) while posted Item No. 13/C-1 9 OA No. 935/2023 as Sub-Inspector at ACB, Kolkata, he was rated "average" in certain ACR parameters in 1999 and "above average" in 2000; (ii) During his tenure as Inspector in Mumbai in 2010, he was noted to lack motivation and was rated "satisfactory."; (iii) While posted at ACB, Lucknow, he was reluctant to move out of headquarters, exhibited only average zeal and industry, and failed to submit case diaries in a timely manner, as noted in a memo dated 16.06.2010;
(iv) Another memo dated 19.04.2010 recorded that he had taken statements from 47 students in a general and unsatisfactory manner;
(v) In 2004, he was found absent from duty without prior intimation, for which he was advised by the DIG; (vi) While posted in Kolkata, his report submitted in November 2016 recommended registration of Regular Cases (RCs) without properly naming the suspects or outlining their roles, resulting in a show cause notice issued on 16.03.2017; (vii) While serving in Lucknow, he was issued a memo dated 05.08.2010 for taking frequent leave, thereby affecting official work; (viii) In Mumbai, he failed to recover ₹7-8 lakhs during a search operation, as recorded in a memo dated 30.09.2010; (x) Further, in July 2010, he attempted to influence his administrative transfer by approaching Members of Parliament and writing to constitutional authorities, in violation of the Conduct Rules; (xi) While posted in Delhi, he disobeyed instructions to update his case diary (memo dated 13.07.2021) and failed to act promptly on a High Court Writ Petition, leading to memos dated 25.03.2022 and 11.04.2022; (xii) Additionally, he retained the passports of accused persons in a case at ACB, Kolkata without Item No. 13/C-1 10 OA No. 935/2023 taking appropriate follow-up action, prompting a warning dated 15.01.2021 from the Director, CBI; (xiii) A secret note received from the SU, CBI, further alleged the applicant‟s involvement in corrupt practices and acceptance of pecuniary benefits; & (xiv) he was reportedly observed counselling accused persons, behavior which was contrary to his responsibilities as an Investigating Officer. In light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Review Committee concluded that the applicant‟s continuation in service was not in the public interest and that he lacked the integrity and dedication required of by an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
4.9 Further it is stated that the Representation Committee, after reviewing the representation and departmental comments, concluded that the applicant had a record indicating doubtful integrity. He had received several notices and show cause memos for acts of omission and commission. The Committee found that he exhibited a casual and lax approach to his duties and was involved in corrupt practices. It concluded that, in public interest and to maintain high standards of efficiency and integrity in service, it was imperative to prematurely retire the applicant by invoking the provisions of FR 56(j) which action was found to be fully justified. 4.10 The respondents also submitted that while deciding the case, the Committee relied upon various Office Memoranda issued by the DoP&T, including those dated 07.08.1985, 21.06.2013, 21.03.2014, Item No. 13/C-1 11 OA No. 935/2023 11.09.2015, and 28.08.2020. Reliance was also placed on the OM dated 05.05.1966 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 4.11 It is further stated by the respondents that just because the applicant was granted promotions is not a ground to not to invoke the provisions of FR 56 (j). The applicant was granted promotion keeping in view the bench mark of his ACRs and keeping in view the DoP&T OM dated 04.11.1992.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS
5. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 01.09.2023 reiterating the contentions in the pleadings of the OA.
CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the order/judgment of various Courts/Tribunal namely; (i) Order/judgment dated 27.02.2001 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1561/2001 in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314; and (ii) Order/judgment dated 16.09.2013 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8245/2013 in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the orders/judgments of various Courts/Tribunal namely; (i) Order/judgment dated 30.03.1954 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1953 in the matter of Shyam Lal Vs. The Item No. 13/C-1 12 OA No. 935/2023 State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 369; (ii) Order/judgment dated 12.08.1970 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1970 in the matter of Union of India Vs. J. N. Sinha and Ors, (1970) 2 SCC 458; (iii) Order/judgment dated 19.09.1979 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977 in the matter of Union of India and Ors. Vs. M. E. Reddy and Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 15; (iv) Order/judgment dated 31.08.1994 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 5815 of 1994 in the matter of S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424; (v) Order/judgment dated 27.02.2020 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 2018 in the matter of Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 1175; (vi) Order/judgment dated 01.05.2000 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3059/2000 in the matter of Parbodh Sagar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 630; (vii) Order/judgment dated 01.09.1995 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 162; (viii) Order/judgment dated 10.09.2010 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Writ Petitioner (Civil) No. 382/2003 in the matter of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3753; (ix) Order/judgment dated 24.04.2020 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2020 in the matter of Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (x) Order/judgment dated 10.12.2019 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8875/2019 in the matter of Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 801; (xi) Item No. 13/C-1 13 OA No. 935/2023 Order/judgment dated 19.02.1992 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 869/1987 in the matter of Baikunthanath Das & Ors. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 299; (xii) Order/judgment dated 22.09.2021 of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 11177/2020 in the matter of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors., (xiii) Order/judgment dated of Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 450/2019 in the matter of Alok Kumar Mitra vs. Union of India; and (xiv) Order/judgment in O.A. No. 3302/2019 in the matter of Vinod Kumar Vs. GNCTD & Ors..
8. Upon liberty granted as sought for by the parties, the applicant‟s counsel has filed written arguments in which it is stated that the order under FR 56 (j) of compulsory retirement was issued by Respondent No.1 on 23.12.2022 (Annexure-A/1) against the applicant and is under challenge in the present OA. The date of birth of the applicant is 14.04.1972 and the order under challenge was issued to the applicant on his completing 50 years of age. The Respondents in (Para 8: Page 9 of the reply), alleges that the Representation Committee came to the conclusion that the applicant is having doubtful integrity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment reported in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200, observed that administrative action is subject to judicial scrutiny on grounds of (i) illegality, (ii) irrationality, and (iii) procedural impropriety. The judgment in turn relies upon in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Item No. 13/C-1 14 OA No. 935/2023 Service, reported in (1984) 3 All ER 935 and illustrates the meaning of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The impugned order is thus stated to be arbitrary, illegal, irrational and suffering from procedural impropriety. Further it is stated that it is an unwritten rule of law, constitutional and administrative that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation on the part of such functionary to apply its mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and remote. 8.1. It is further stated that the Applicant joined Respondent No.2 as direct recruit to the post of Sub-Inspector [SI], a Group „C‟ service, on 11.03.1996. He was granted timely promotion i.e., promoted as Inspector on 07.05.2003, thereafter on 31.12.2015, promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police as Group „A‟ Officer with CBI. It is averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Umedbhai (supra) in para 11 crystallizing the law related to compulsory retirement, inter alia, held that, "If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer." Umedbhai judgment (supra) also finds mention in OM dated 11.09.2015 [Annexure-A/12, page 56 of the Rejoinder] and is also reiterated in OM dated 28.08.2020 of DoP&T. It is pertinent to mention that there have been no adverse entries in the confidential record of the applicant and neither the respondents have stated any in their Reply nor they have placed the ACR, which is in their possession, to show that the applicant had suffered any adverse entry. There exists no adverse entry in the ACR Item No. 13/C-1 15 OA No. 935/2023 of the applicant. It is also pertinent to mention that no FIR under any general and/or special law has ever been registered during the tenure of the applicant against him. He had not suffered any Departmental Enquiry and/or any punishment during entire service period. The fact that the applicant was granted timely promotion and that he had not suffered any Departmental Enquiry and/or any FIR was registered against him would show that there was n0 evidence against the Applicant to invoke the provision of FR- 56 (j). It is an irrational order and suffers from „Wednesbury unreasonableness" as is explained in para 14 of the judgment in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) reported in (2006) 8 SCC 200. The order under challenge is outrageous and is in defiance of logic.
8.2 Subsequent Promotion vide order dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure A/4) would confirm that the applicant after the issuance of the order under FR- 56 (j) was promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police. Para 2 of the said order reads as under:-
"The competent authority has approved the recommendations of DPC meeting held on 26.12.2022 regarding promotion of the following panel of officers to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in Central Bureau of Investigation.."
The name of the applicant is at serial no. 29 of the said Order. The document is dated 29.12.2022 and it does not record against the name of the applicant as compulsorily retired under FR 56 (j). The date of the DPC as is mentioned in the said order is 26.12.2022 and does not record that it is a supplementary DPC to the DPC which was allegedly held on 23.12.2022 as is being argued by the Item No. 13/C-1 16 OA No. 935/2023 Respondents and as stated in their reply to para 4.9- 4.10 of the OA [Page 12-14 of the Reply].
8.3 It is also submitted that in raising a frivolous argument, the respondents have also lost sight of the fact that the "Subject" of Annexure-A/4 talks of Supplementary DPC because of the approval of the competent authority to the ".... additional 30 vacancies for the year 2022" referring thereto existence of the earlier panel and the present panel being approved for additional 30 vacancies. CBI has 91 sanctioned posts in the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police [General Central Service Group "A", Gazetted, Non- Ministerial]. The said document dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-A/4) has not been disputed by the respondents.
8.4 Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma etc. Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 1570 wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 29 observed that "The non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party and its disclosure in a sealed-cover to the adjudicating authority (in this case the AFT) sets a dangerous precedent." The respondent produced alleged minutes of DPC held on 20.12.2022 before this Tribunal at the time of arguments and it would show that the DPC was first convened on 25.02.2022 and provided a panel of 24 officers which is the reason why the DPC which was held on 26.12.2022 is called supplementary. The 23.12.2022 DPC, as is being alleged by the Respondent, is an afterthought and this too was disclosed in a sealed-cover. The 26.12.2022 minute records against the name of the Applicant as Item No. 13/C-1 17 OA No. 935/2023 „FIT‟. This would mean that the applicant was considered "FIT" for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police. However, the factum of the applicant being retired under FR 56 (j) also stands recorded. The applicant has placed on record Central Bureau of Investigation (Senior Post) Recruitment Rules, 2013 and [Annexure-11 of the rejoinder), wherein it is stipulated that the DPC for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police would consist of Joint Director- CBI, DIG of Police or Deputy Director (Administration) CBI and Director or Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) DoP&T as its members. The respondents have argued that 23.12.2022 is the date of order under FR 56 (j) and also the alleged date of DPC, and as such the decision of FR 56 (j) could not have been communicated to the DPC. However, while arguing on this, the respondent has not disclosed the dates of the Internal Committee meeting and the Review Committee meeting. It is submitted that the Internal Committee and Review Committee would have deliberated upon the name of the applicant for invocation of FR 56 (j) much prior to 23.12.2022. It is submitted that 23.12.2022 is the date of communication of the decision of invocation of FR 56 (j) to the applicant. It is even otherwise, an erroneous argument that the members of DPC with the Joint Director- CBI, DIG of Police or Deputy Director (Administration) CBI and Director or Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) DoP&T as its members would not be aware of the decision of the Director, CBI & Additional Director - CBI as Review Committee members, and Joint Director CBI as well as Joint Director (Policy) as Internal Committee Item No. 13/C-1 18 OA No. 935/2023 members deliberating upon FR 56 (j) in respect of the applicant. The order of FR 56 (j) is communicated by DoP&T, the cadre controlling authority for the applicant, whose representative is also a member of DPC for the post of Additional Superintendent of Police and it would be erroneous to argue that DoP&T would not have the knowledge of the order of FR 56 (j). The subsequent promotion of the applicant would confirm that the invocation of FR 56 (j) against the applicant is without evidence, arbitrary and an illegality which cannot be justified by maneuvering the dates and facts. Even otherwise the alleged DPC proceedings of 23.12.2022 and 26.12.2022 produced in the court records against the name of the applicant as FIT, would further confirm that the allegation of the applicant having doubtful integrity has no basis in fact. The admission of the respondent in the last sentence of Page 15 of the reply gains importance where it is stated that, the applicant was granted promotion keeping in view the bench mark of his ACRs and keeping in view the DoP&T OM of 04.11.1992.
8.5 It is further submitted that to conduct DPC for promotion, a certificate from the designated officer that the proposal is complete as per DoP&T check-list, has is to be given and the check-list, amongst others, requires to state that "whether integrity certificate in prescribed Form (as per format in paragraph 4.2.5 of the DoP&T OM No. 220l1/5/86-Est. (D) dated 10.04.1989) given in respect of eligible officers. Further para 4.2.5 of OM dated 10.04.1989 stipulates that the integrity certificate on the line indicated below Item No. 13/C-1 19 OA No. 935/2023 should be furnished to the DPCs constituted to consider cases for promotion or confirmation:
"The records of service of the following officers who are to be considered for promotion/confirmation in the grade have been carefully scrutinized and it is certified that there is no doubt about their integrity."
8.6 In the light of the above, the timely promotions granted before 23.12.2022 and subsequent thereto, and admission of the respondent that the applicant is FIT to be considered for promotion, negates the allegation of the respondent that the applicant is having doubtful integrity.
8.7 The allegations against the applicant in para 7, pages 6-9, of the reply would be of no consequence as they are only in the realm of allegations and no FIR was registered under any general or special law, and/or any Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against the Applicant during his entire service career. Further, the timely promotions granted to the applicant before 23.12.2022, and subsequent thereto as Additional Superintendent of Police, would confirm that the allegations could not have been the basis of invocation of FR 56 (j).
8.8 At page 8 of the reply of the Respondent, one of the allegations has been that while being posted in Delhi, the applicant mis-conducted himself whereby he disobeyed the directions of the Head of Zone for submitting an updated diary. Submitting an updated diary would mean changing the opinion arrived at by the Applicant in preparing the Internal Report before finalisation of case by Competent Authority of CBI. Such a ground could not be the basis Item No. 13/C-1 20 OA No. 935/2023 for invocation of FR 56(j) and it exposes the irrationality of the order under challenge. The applicant has relied upon para 23 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan SRTC vs. Babu Lal Jangir, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 551, it is contended that this Tribunal would appreciate that the respondent has not placed on record the confidential record of the applicant, which would show whether any adverse entries are recorded against the applicant. Further, no record pertaining to the applicant exists which would show that the integrity of the applicant was doubtful. 8.9 It is also contended that procedural impropriety has been a ground to interfere with the administrative decision as the respondents in para 4 of their reply at page 4 - 5 have submitted that the Review Committee consisted of Director- CBI and Additional Director- CBI, and was assisted by Internal Committee members consisting of Joint Director (Admin)- CBI and Director (Policy) CBI. As such it is an admission on part of the Respondent that the CVO was not a part of the Review Committee in case of the applicant. It was pointed out that in case of the applicant, who is alleged to have doubtful integrity, CVO had to be associated in the decision-making process as a member of the Review Committee in view of OM dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure-A/12 of the Rejoinder) and OM dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure-A/13 of the Rejoinder). CVO had not been part of the Review Committee as is the mandate. The respondents have argued that Director (Policy) also held the additional charge of Chief Vigilance Officer and was the part of the Internal Committee. This is an admission on part of the respondents to say that the CVO Item No. 13/C-1 21 OA No. 935/2023 was not part of the Review Committee. The procedural impropriety is writ large and renders the impugned order arbitrary as the decision-making process is faulty.
9. The respondents have also filed their written submissions, in which they have stated that he applicant has filed the OA seeking the relief to quash the order dated 23.12.2023 and 16.03.2023 /20.03.2023 whereby he was compulsorily retired under FR 56 (j) and the rejection of his representation respectively. 9.1 The main ground of challenge by the applicant to the same was that he was considered for promotion by the DPC on 23.12.2022 to the post of Addl. S.P, in the C.B.I and that on the same day i.e. 23.12.2022 order under FR 56 (j) was passed. Thus, according to the applicant the same could not happen. His further submission was that vide letter dated 29.12.2022 an order was conveyed whereby a supplementary DPC held on 26.12.2022 recommended promotion to the post of Addl. S.P. in C.B.I was approved by the Competent Authority and the same contained the name of the applicant, and, therefore, the F.R. 56 (j) order is vitiated. Another contention of the applicant was that the Review Committee did not follow the decision-making process inasmuch as the CVO of C.B.I. was not part of the Review Committee, as since the allegation was of doubtful integrity which mandated that the CVO ought to be part of the Review Committee. Further argument of the applicant is that he was promoted on various occasions during the course of his service, for which vigilance clearance is required, and since he stood promoted, the question of doubtful Item No. 13/C-1 22 OA No. 935/2023 integrity does not arise and would not warrant invocation of FR 56
(j). He further cited certain judgments in his favour to show that the order under FR 56 (j) was uncalled for and is thus vitiated. 9.2 In this regard, it is submitted by the respondents that all the above arguments put forth by the applicant were duly addressed. Regarding the first argument that the DPC recommended his promotion on 23.12.2022 and the Presidential order under FR 56(j) was also passed on the same day, the respondents in their reply have stated that it was a mere co-incidence that both the orders came to be passed on the same day. It is a matter of record that a supplementary DPC was held on 23.12.2022 for consideration of promotion of DSPs to the post of Addl. S.P. in CBI for 28 additional vacancies for the year 2022 which recommended the name of the applicant. The said document has already been filed on record. As per the same, the supplementary DPC was required to be conducted on 23.12.2022, as new vacancies had arisen. It is stated that the process under FR 56 (j) is a long drawn process which had commenced much earlier and after the recommendation of the Review Committee and acceptance by the Competent Authority, it so happened that the said order came to be issued on 23.12.2022. When the said fact of FR 56 (j) came to the knowledge of the Competent Authority, a supplementary DPC was held on 26.12.2022 and the applicant was declared to have been retired under FR 56 (j) on 23.12.2022 and, therefore, could not be promoted. Even otherwise, the applicant was never promoted and even by the supplementary DPC held on 23.12.2022, he was only Item No. 13/C-1 23 OA No. 935/2023 recommended and never promoted by the Competent Authority. The other aspect is that the supplementary DPC held on 26.12.2022 considered him fit as he was within the zone of consideration for the vacancies for the year 2022. As per DoP&T‟s OMs dated 10.04.1989 & 12.10.1998, the zone of consideration would remain the same and in case the concerned officer either retires or dies or his name is in the sealed cover etc., he will be considered for promotion, but actually not promoted because if his name is removed from the said list, the zone of consideration would change and the next person/s in the line would have to be considered and despite the fact that they may not have been in the zone of consideration for any reason whatsoever and that would change the promotion avenues of persons. In this regard reference is made to paras 6.4.1 to 6.4.4, 11.2, 16.1, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 of the DoP&T O.M. dated 10.04.89. The said submission also considers/covers the submission of the applicant that the Competent Authority had approved the recommendation of DPC meeting held on 26.12.22 which included his name, which was forwarded to the DoP&T on 29.12.22.
9.3 So far as applicant‟s submission that the CVO of CBI was not associated with the Review Committee is concerned, the same is also unfounded as, it has been stated in the counter reply that Jt. Director (Policy) assisted the Review Committee and the said person, functioned as the CVO of CBI. In the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 (copy of which is enclosed with the written submissions) in Item No. 13/C-1 24 OA No. 935/2023 para 23.6 e), it is provided that Joint Director (Policy) will function as the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of CBI.
9.4 Further the submission of the applicant regarding his integrity being beyond doubt as he earned various promotions during his career, is also unfounded as the integrity for the purpose of consideration for promotion has different yardsticks whereas for the purpose of FR 56 (j) different yardsticks are adopted. For the purpose of promotion, the Vigilance clearance etc. is required for the last three years or five years, as the case may be and he must have benchmark grading, whereas for the purpose of FR 56 (j), service record and conduct of the person concerned is seen and that has been demonstrated in paras 7, 4.9 and 4.10 of the reply. 9.5 As per the law laid down by the various judicial fora and especially the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be seen that while invoking FR 56 (j), it is not a malafide exercise of power, it is not arbitrary and that it is not a case of "no evidence". In the facts of the present case, the applicant has not been able to show or demonstrate the above stated yardstick.
9.6 It is thus submitted that the instant O.A. deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions put forth by them.
Item No. 13/C-1 25 OA No. 935/2023
ANALYSIS
11. Having regard to the pleadings and arguments as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for the parties, we observe that since the issue involved in this case relates to invoking of the provisions of FR 56(j) by the Govt. for compulsorily retiring an employ, we deem it appropriate to refer to the landmark decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 2 SCC (L&S) 305, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court after noting the provisions of FR 56 (j) elaborately noted the law on compulsory retirement, the relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
"16. The provision of Fundamental Rule 56(j) reads as under:
"FR 56(j) : The appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group "A" or Group "B" service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years."
17. As is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it takes in its fold two elements -- the first one is the absolute right of the Government to retire an employee and the second is the requirement of meeting the condition of public interest for doing so. The provision also provides for a prior notice of at least three months to the outgoing employee and mandates that the said provision can be invoked to retire a government servant only after he has attained the age of 55 years.
18. We are conscious of the fact that the scope of judicial review in respect of an order of compulsory retirement from the service, is fairly limited. The law relating to compulsory retirement has been the subject-matter of discussion in a number of cases where certain settled legal principles have been laid down which are being elucidated hereinbelow.
Item No. 13/C-1 26 OA No. 935/2023
19. The object of compulsory retirement of a government servant was highlighted by this Court in Officers' Assn. v. Allahabad Bank [Officers' Assn. v. Allahabad Bank, (1996) 4 SCC 504 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1037] in the following words : (SCC pp. 508 & 512, paras 5 & 17) "5. The power to compulsorily retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. Generally speaking, Service Rules provide for compulsory retirement of a government servant on his completing certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed age. His service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is taken whether he should be compulsorily retired or continued further in service. There is no levelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanation from the government servant. While misconduct and inefficiency are factors that enter into the account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case of retirement they merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if held
-- and there is no duty to hold an enquiry -- is only for the satisfaction of the authorities who have to take action, in the case of dismissal or removal they form the very basis on which the order is made, as pointed out by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. [Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., (1954) 1 SCC 572 : AIR 1954 SC 369] and State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi [State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 48 : AIR 1957 SC 892] . Thus, by its very nature the power to compulsorily retire a government servant is distinct and separate from the power to punish him by way of removal, dismissal, etc. for misconduct. A government servant who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences.
***
17. The above discussion of case-law makes it clear that if the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the government servant in the sense that it contains a statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, then the court will treat that order as an order of punishment, attracting provisions of Article 311(2) of the Item No. 13/C-1 27 OA No. 935/2023 Constitution. The reason is that as a charge or imputation is made the condition for passing the order, the court would infer therefrom that the real intention of the Government was to punish the government servant on the basis of that charge or imputation and not to exercise the power of compulsory retirement. But mere reference to the rule, even if it mentions grounds for compulsory retirement, cannot be regarded as sufficient for treating the order of compulsory retirement as an order of punishment. In such a case, the order can be said to have been passed in terms of the rule and, therefore, a different intention cannot be inferred. So also, if the statement in the order refers only to the assessment of his work and does not at the same time cast an aspersion on the conduct or character of the government servant, then it will not be proper to hold that the order of compulsory retirement is in reality an order of punishment. Whether the statement in the order is stigmatic or not will have to be judged by adopting the test of how a reasonable person would read or understand it."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In Union of India v. J.N. Sinha [Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458] it has been observed that : (SCC pp. 460- 61, paras 8-9) "Fundamental Rule 56(j) does not in terms require that any opportunity should be given to the government servant concerned to show cause against his compulsory retirement. It says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision."
21. On similar lines were the observations made by this Court in Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P. [Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC 12 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 129] :
(SCC p. 14, para 3) "3. Several contentions have been raised in this appeal by the appellant, who appears in person. In our judgment, one of them suffices to dispose of the appeal. The contention which has found favour with us is that on a perusal of the material on the record and having regard to the entries in the personal file and character roll of the appellant, it is not possible reasonably to come to the conclusion that the compulsory retirement of the appellant was called for. This conclusion follows inevitably from the particular Item No. 13/C-1 28 OA No. 935/2023 circumstances, among others, that the appellant was found worthy of being permitted to cross the second efficiency bar only a few months before. Ordinarily, the court does not interfere with the judgment of the relevant authority on the point whether it is in the public interest to compulsorily retire a government servant. And we would have been even more reluctant to reach the conclusion we have, when the impugned order of compulsory retirement was made on the recommendation of the High Court itself. But on the material before us we are unable to reconcile the apparent contradiction that although for the purpose of crossing the second efficiency bar the appellant was considered to have worked with distinct ability and with integrity beyond question, yet within a few months thereafter he was found so unfit as to deserve compulsory retirement. The entries in between in the records pertaining to the appellant need to be examined and appraised in that context. There is no evidence to show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of the appellant's work or integrity that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. For all these reasons, we are of opinion that the order of compulsory retirement should be quashed. The appellant will be deemed to have continued in service on the date of the impugned order."
22. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India [Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 1] , emphasising the fact that exercise of powers under Fundamental Rule 56(j) must be bona fide and promote public interest, this Court observed that : (SCC pp. 321-22) "The whole purpose of Fundamental Rule 56(j) is to weed out the worthless without the punitive extremes covered by Article 311 of the Constitution. But under the guise of "public interest" if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest.
An officer in continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement cannot be compulsorily retired on the score that long years ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms."
23. In Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar [Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1990) 3 SCC 504 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 491] it was observed that in order to find out whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant or the said order has been made bona fide, without any oblique or extraneous purpose, the veil Item No. 13/C-1 29 OA No. 935/2023 can be lifted. Following are the pertinent observations made in the said decision : (SCC p. 516, para 32) "32. On a consideration of the above decisions the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the government servant concerned as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal case [Anoop Jaiswal v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 256] . This being the position the respondent State cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which prima facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view of the clear and specific averments made by the respondent State that the impugned order has been made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the aforesaid rule as the appellant was found to have committed grave financial irregularities leading to financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment. As such, such an order is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as it is arbitrary as it violates principles of natural justice and the same has not been made bona fide."
(emphasis supplied)
24. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das [State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1169] this Court observed as follows : (SCC p. 332, para 3) "3. ... It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or who are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking the decision to retire a government employee compulsorily from service, has to Item No. 13/C-1 30 OA No. 935/2023 consider the entire record of the government servant including the latest reports."
25. In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 313] , a case where the State Government had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat that had held that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent therein was bad, as there were no adverse entries in his Confidential Report and his integrity was not doubtful at any stage, this Court held thus : (SCC pp. 543-44, para 28) "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 entries 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."
26. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576] , this Court has delineated the following broad principles that ought to be followed in matters relating to compulsory retirement :
(SCC p. 320, para 11) "11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into a definite principle, which could be broadly summarised thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
Item No. 13/C-1 31 OA No. 935/2023
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."
27. In Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand [Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 663] this Court has once again highlighted the permissibility of ascertaining the existence of valid material by a court for the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement and observed thus : (SCC p. 590, para 34) "34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy."
(emphasis supplied)
28. In a recent judgment in Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India [Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 56 :
(2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 211] , confronted with the question as to whether action taken under Rule 135 of the Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975 is in the nature of "a penalty or a dismissal clothed as compulsory retirement"
so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that "the real test for this examination is to see whether the order of compulsory retirement is occasioned by the concern of unsuitability or as a punishment for misconduct". For drawing this distinction, reliance has been placed on the judgment in State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 48 : AIR 1957 SC 892] , where a distinction was made between an order of dismissal and order of compulsory retirement in the following words : (Saubhagchand M. Doshi case [State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 48 : AIR 1957 SC 892] , AIR p. 895, para 9) "9. ... Under the rules, an order of dismissal is a punishment laid on a government servant, when it is found that he has been guilty of misconduct or inefficiency or the Item No. 13/C-1 32 OA No. 935/2023 like, and it is penal in character, because it involves loss of pension which under the rules would have accrued in respect of the service already put in. An order of removal also stands on the same footing as an order of dismissal, and involves the same consequences, the only difference between them being that while a servant who is dismissed is not eligible for re-appointment, one who is removed is. An order of retirement differs both from an order of dismissal and an order of removal, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules, and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit."
12. Let us now proceed to analyze the facts of the present case in the context of the case laws discussed above, to determine whether the order of compulsory retirement issued by the respondents against the applicant was founded on valid grounds and truly served the public interest. The Review Committee undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the applicant‟s service record and identified multiple instances of unsatisfactory performance and misconduct, which included, but were not limited to, the following:
(i) While posted as Sub-Inspector at ACB, Kolkata, he was rated "average" in certain ACR parameters in 1999 and "above average" in 2000;
(ii) During his tenure as Inspector in Mumbai in 2010, he was noted to lack motivation and was rated "satisfactory";
(iii) While posted at ACB, Lucknow, he was reluctant to move out of headquarters, exhibited only average zeal and industry, and failed to submit case diaries in a timely manner, as noted in a memo dated 16.06.2010;
(iv) Another memo dated 19.04.2010 recorded that he had taken statements from 47 students in a general and unsatisfactory manner;
Item No. 13/C-1 33 OA No. 935/2023
(v) In 2004, he was found absent from duty without prior
intimation, for which he was advised by the DIG;
(vi) While posted in Kolkata, his report submitted in November 2016 recommended registration of Regular Cases (RCs) without properly naming the suspects or outlining their roles, resulting in a show cause notice issued on 16.03.2017;
(vii) While serving in Lucknow, he was issued a memo dated 05.08.2010 for taking frequent leave, thereby affecting official work;
(viii) In Mumbai, he failed to recover ₹7-8 lakhs during a search operation, as recorded in a memo dated 30.09.2010;
(ix) In July 2010, he attempted to influence his administrative transfer by approaching Members of Parliament and writing to constitutional authorities, in violation of the Conduct Rules;
(x) While posted in Delhi, he disobeyed instructions to update his case diary (memo dated 13.07.2021) and failed to act promptly on a High Court Writ Petition, leading to memos dated 25.03.2022 and 11.04.2022;
(xi) Additionally, he retained the passports of accused persons in a case at ACB, Kolkata without taking appropriate follow-up action, prompting a warning dated 15.01.2021 from the Director, CBI;
(xii) A secret note received from the Special Unit (SU), CBI, further alleged the applicant‟s involvement in corrupt practices and acceptance of pecuniary benefits;
(xiii) He was reportedly observed counselling accused persons, behavior which was contrary to his responsibilities as an Investigating Officer.
Item No. 13/C-1 34 OA No. 935/2023
13. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the Review Committee concluded that the applicant‟s continuation in service was not in the public interest and that he lacked the integrity and dedication required of by an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
14. The above records cumulatively reflect a pattern of professional indifference on the part of the applicant and suggest an element of doubt regarding the applicant‟s integrity and utility in the sensitive role of a CBI officer. While none of these isolated instances led to formal disciplinary proceedings, the cumulative effect is relevant for review of his case under FR 56 (j), which is based on an overall assessment.
15. As regards the applicant‟s argument that he entered Group-B service at the age of about 37 years and, therefore, falls outside the scope of FR 56 (j), this interpretation is not supported by law. The scope of FR 56 (j) extends to any Government servant, who has attained the age of 50 years (for Group „B‟ officers), and whose service is found not to be in public interest. There is no absolute bar based on age of entry into service category unless so provided expressly, which is not the case in hand.
16. The applicant‟s promotion on 29.12.2022 cannot override the FR 56 (j) order dated 23.12.2022, which was issued earlier in time or at the most on the very same day as stated by the respondents. Promotion processes often function on automatic benchmarks and Item No. 13/C-1 35 OA No. 935/2023 do not reflect a holistic assessment of suitability, integrity, or public interest in the same way as a Review Committee constituted for compulsory retirement under FR 56(j). Further the process for considering the case(s) for invoking the provisions of FR 56 (j) in the case in hand would have been started much earlier.
17. As for the procedural objections raised by the applicant regarding the corrigendum to the Representation Committee meeting date, no prejudice is shown to have been caused by the correction. The minutes and decisions of the Committee remain uncontroverted.
18. The applicant has miserably failed to establish any mala fides, personal bias, or extraneous consideration behind the impugned orders. The Tribunal‟s scope of judicial review in cases of FR 56 (j) is limited to verifying the process and ensuring it was not arbitrary, malafide, or devoid of any material. This threshold is not met in the present case.
19. Since we are guided by the recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra), we do not consider it necessary to delve into the judgments relied upon by the applicant, as mentioned above. CONCLUSION
19. In view of the above analysis and keeping in view the dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra), the Item No. 13/C-1 36 OA No. 935/2023 Tribunal finds no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the invocation of FR 56 (j) against the applicant. Rather the decision of the Competent Authority is based on the recommendations of a duly constituted Review Committee and Representation Committee, based on relevant materials on the record of the case, and does not call for any interference.
20. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA being devoid of merit is dismissed.
21. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/neetu/