Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Pankaja Kumar Lenka vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation ... on 18 November, 2025
1 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00066 of 2025
Reserved on 17.11.2025 Pronounced on : 18.11.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Pankaja Kumar Lenka, aged about 55 years, Son of Late
Haladhar Lenka, Ex-Enforcement Officer, O/o the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Rourkela, At
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Panposh Road, Rourkela-769021,
Dist-Sundergarh, Odisha, At present resident of Plot
No.918/6303, New Colony, Palasuni, P.O:-Rasulgarh,
Bhubaneswar-751010, Dist-Khurda, Odisha.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India represented through its Secretary.
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of
India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2 Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan,
14- Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 (HRM),
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Head Office,
Plate A, Ground Floor, Block II, East Kidwai Nagar, New
Delhi-110023.
4. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Janpath, Unit-IX,
Bhubaneswar-751022.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30'
2 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
5. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, Panposh Road, Rourkela-
769012.
.....Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. N.R. Routray, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr.B.N. Nayak, R.K. Sarangi,
Counsels
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The Applicant was working as Accounts Officer/Enforcement Officer in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Rourkela and, while working as such, the Competent Authority, in exercise of power conferred under provisos of Rule 56 (J)(i) of the Fundamental Rules (FR) read with Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ordered to retire him from service prematurely, vide order No. AVS-2001418-HRM-IX/E/8735 dated 02.12.2024 (A/3). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred memorial/representation dated 06.12.2024 which was considered and rejected and the rejection was communicated to him vide letter No. AVS-
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 3 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 20014/3/2018-HRM-IX/E/809 dated 03.02.2025 (A/8) which orders have been challenged by the Applicant in this Original Application filed u/s.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with prayer as under:
"(i) To quash the order dated 02.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 under Annx.A/3&A/8 respectively;
(ii) And to direct the Respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 02.12.2024;
(iii) And to direct the Respondents to grant all consequential and financial benefits in view of reinstatement in service;
And pass any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The Respondents filed their counter contesting/opposing the stand taken by the Applicant in the pleadings based on which relief has been sought by him. The Applicant has also filed rejoinder. The points raised by them shall be dealt with while dealing with their arguments infra.
3. According to learned counsel for the Applicant, while the applicant was working as E.O./A.O., in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, at Rourkela, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, New Delhi initiated proceedings under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (Classification, Control & Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 4 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 Appeal) Rules, 1971 vide Memorandum dated 14th May, 2024; which has been challenged. While the matter stood thus, to avoid the tit-bit procedure provided to be followed in disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents adopted a shortcut method by retiring him compulsorily attaching stigma. It is stated that during course of service the applicant promoted upto the grade of Accounts Officer/Enforcement Officer and discharged his duty for the utmost satisfaction of the department, accordingly his APAR & Integrity recorded by the Controlling Officer & Reviewing Officer as "Very Good" and "nothing adverse" till the order of premature retirement. It is stated that the assessment report dated 08.11.2024 of the controlling officer/Respondent No.5 in respect to assessment report of cases review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension Rules 1972" has forwarded to Respondent No 4 with the following recommendation:-
"A criminal case vide No. RC0152015A0007 dated 13.03.2015 is pending before the CBI, Bhubaneswar. Further, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CC&A) Rule 1971 against the official is initiated by H.O. and is now pending. However, no adverse remarks found in the last five years (2017-18 to 2022-23) of the APAR and APAR Gradings for the said period is also good and above. The Official is fit for continuation in job."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 5 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 4 It is stated by that, DoP&T vide Office Memorandum dtd.28.08.2020 has issued the guideline regarding periodical review of Central Government employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(J)(1) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the O.M the criteria has been specified to be followed by the Review Committee at para-10, which is reproduced below:-
10. Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee The broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while recommendations are as follows:-making the
(i) Government servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired.
(ii) Government servants found to be Ineffective shall also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such Government servants should be their fitness/competence to continue in the post held.
(iii) No Government servant should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of his case. However, in a case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of a Government servant, it would be open to review such a case also for premature retirement. The said instruction of not retiring the Government servant within one year on the ground. of ineffectiveness except in case of sudden and steep fall in his performance is relevant only when he is be retired the ground of proposed ineffectiveness, but not on the ground of doubtful integrity.
(iv) No Government servant should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, his service during the preceding Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 6 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 5 years or where he has been promoted to a higher post during that 5 year period, his service in the highest post, has been found satisfactory. There is no such stipulation, however, where the Government servant is to be retired on grounds of doubtful integrity. In case of those Government servants who have been promoted during the last 5 years, the previous entries in the ACRS may be taken into account if he was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit.
(v) The entire service record of a Government servant should be considered at the time of review. The expression 'service record refers to all relevant records and therefore, the review should not be confined to the consideration of the ACR/APAR dossier. The personal file of the Government servant may contain valuable material. Similarly, his work and performance could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the Ministry Department/Cadre puts together all the data available about the Government servant and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRS/APARS may be taken into consideration."
5. It is stated that Respondent No.3 issued office order dtd.02.12.2024 for retirement of the applicant compulsorily from service with immediate effect under Rule 56(j) (i) of Fundamental Rules/Rule-48 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. For better appreciation Rule 56(j)(i) of Fundamental Rules/Rule-48 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 are quoted below:-
"56. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, 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 less Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 7 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 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,"
48-A. Retirement qualifying service on completion of 20 years' (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service.
Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is
(i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes.
(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments,
(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub rule (1) shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority:
Provided that where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3) Deleted.
(3-A) (a) A Government servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefore;
(b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a), the Appointing Authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 8 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.
(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded. from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. *(5) The pension and retirement gratuity of the Government servant retiring under this rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under Rules 33 and 34 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any notional fixa-tion of pay for purposes of calculating pension and gratuity. (6) This rule shall not apply to a Government servant who-
(a) retires under Rule 29, or
(b) retires from Government service for being absorbed perma-nently in an Autonomous Body or a Public Sector Undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement."
6. It is submitted that though the applicant's premature retirement is under 56(j) (i) of Fundamental Rules/Rule-48 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, but in the order dtd. 02.12.2024 the Respondent No.3's decision is contrary to the said provision. For better appreciation the operating portion of the order is quoted below:-
"Further, in view of the pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings, DCRG, CVP and Leave encashment of the officer may be kept withheld till further orders"
It is stated that respondent No.2 is the competent authority, who can invoke 56(j)(i)/Rule-48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 9 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 1972, but the decision dated 01.12.2024 has been passed by Respondent No.3, who lacks authority.
7. Respondents filed counter contesting the case of the applicant. The stand taken in the counter highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that a case was registered against the applicant by CBI, Bhubaneswar vide criminal case no. RC0152015A0007 on 12.03.2015 on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Shri Bijay Kumar Bhayan alleging therein that the applicant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000/- to process the file for issuance of EPF License in favour of his firm and asked to pay the demanded bribe at the office on 13.03.2015 during office hours. He was caught red handed on 13.03.2015, in the presence of witnesses, at his office at RO, Bhubaneswar.
CBI submitted their investigation report dated 30.06.2015 and sought sanction for prosecution of the applicant.
Accordingly, the Sanction Order dated 15.06.2015 for prosecuting the official was accorded. CBI Bhubaneswar had filed charge sheet No. 08 dated 22.07.2015 against him.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 10 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
8. It is stated that futher, a Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against the applicant vide Memorandum dated 14.05.2024. IO and PO appointed vide order dated 18.09.2024. The above facts already shows that the applicant had the doubtful integrity and the decision of premature retirement was not taken hurriedly but after following the due procedure. It is further submitted that the order of Premature retirement of the applicant under the provision of FR 56(j) is not passed as a short cut to avoid departmental inquiry but it was done by the Competent Authority after following due procedure as prescribed by DoPT in its OM dated 28.08.2020.
9. It is stated that, Premature retirement under FR-
56(j) and the departmental proceedings under the provisions of the EPF Staff (CC & A) Rules, 1971 are separate, independent and simultaneous processes, which can continue together. The same has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in "Ram Nath son of late Bhaggoo vs State of UP (Para-26)". It is further stated that the representation Committee has gone through all the facts Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 11 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 submitted by the applicant in his representation and after going through all the facts, rejected the representation and there is no provision in DoPT guidelines to provide the copy of Minutes of the representation Committee to the concerned official. It is further stated that under the provision of FR 56, there is no provision to issue any show cause notice to the official before retiring him under FR 56(j). As per DOPT OM dated 28.08.2020 there is Internal Committee (i.e. Screening Committee in this case) is to only assist the Review Committee. The power to recommend is with Review Committee and the Review Committee in its meeting dated 21.11.2024 has recommended for invocation of FR 56(j) in the case of applicant. It is stated that, the order of retirement was issued under FR 56(j). The retirement under 56(j) is not a punishment, however, the retiral benefits are held due to pendency of the CBI case against the official. It is stated that as per Rule 69(1)(c), CCS (Pension) Rules no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. As per Rule 4, CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules No Government servant Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 12 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 against whom departmental or judicial proceedings, as referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted before the date of his retirement, or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his retirement, shall be eligible to commute a percentage of his provisional pension authorized under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings. It is stated that as per Rule 39(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him on conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld adjustment of Government dues, if any. In view of the above the applicant does not deserve any relief, therefore, the O.A. is devoid of any merit and is laible to be dismissed with costs.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar BeheraKalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 13 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
10. The respondents have relied on the decisions as under:
1. Ram Nath Son of Late Shri Bhaggoo Vs. State of U.P. (Para-26).
2. Shyamalal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 1954 O AIR (SC) 369 (Para-19).
3. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Indira Sen Jain (Para-9)
4. Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (2010) 10 SCS 693 (Para-8 to 18 & 24)
11. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has brought to our notice a copy of the order of this Bench in O.A. No. 336 of 2023, dated 03.12.2024 to substantiate that the facts and issues involved in the above case being same and similar to the present case applicant is entitled to the relief. We have examined the case in hand with reference to the case decided by this Bench in O.A. No. 336 of 2023 dated 03.12.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.12.2024 of this Bench passed in O.A. No. 336 of 2023 is reproduced below:-
"22. We have examined the case in hand with reference to the decisions quoted above including the cases cited by learned counsel for the Respondents. One thing is made ample clear from quoted decisions that judicial interference in the order of compulsory retirement imposed on an employee in exercise of power conferred under Fundamental Rule 56 (J) or 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is not completely wiped out. Such judicial interference in the order of compulsory Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 14 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 retirement is permissible where miscarriage of justice is caused in the decision making process of the matter and not in the decision itself viz; where such an order is passed without application of mind, mala fide, perverse, or arbitrary exercise of power or by an authority who is not competent to do so and/or if there is noncompliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority.
23. The order of compulsory retirement dated 26.12.2022 (A/4) reads as under:
"Whereas the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, the President hereby retires Shri Chandragupta Bidika (Staff No. 20269) with immediate effect, he having already completed 30 years of service. The President also directs that Shri Chandragupta Bidika shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement.
Further, in view of the pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings, DCRG and CVP of the officer may be kept withheld till further order."
24. In the counter, respondents have fairly and candidly disclosed their mind that the representation committee examined the grounds and conditions leading to orders under Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, taking into consideration that the applicant was caught red handed with an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and criminal case is under trial; FIR lodged against him for possessing disproportionate asset to his known source of income; disciplinary proceedings against him are underway and applicant's name in the Officers with Doubtful Integrity list of 2018-22 maintained by the department. Further, the Committee in its report has observed as under:
"3. The Review Committee noted that APAR grading of Shri Chandragupta Bidika (Staff No. 20269), (Date of birth 04/04/1967) (Date of Joining-06/01/1992) for the years 2011-2012 to 2020-21 are outstanding during 8 periods and very good in 2 periods. His integrity reflected in the APAR is 'Beyond Doubt'. However, from Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 15 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 Vigilance history of the officer, the Committee observed that:
(i) Prosecution sanction was issued vide order No. 9-
27/2017-Vig.I dated 27.03.2018 in RC 6 (A)/2017-BBS. Case is under Trial. Charge Sheet has been filed by the CBI, Bhubaneswar in this case. NO RDA was issued in this case."
25. Thus, it is clear from the record that the compulsory retirement of the applicant is solely based on mere hunch of authority that it is a case of doubtful integrity due to initiation of Criminal Case against him. It may be recorded that to bring an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity"
it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. Only initiation of disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceeding against an employee cannot be a ground to record that his integrity is in doubt, which is also the law of the land. At this stage, we may record that though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the government to weed out corrupt officers from public service, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof. Time and again it has been held that scrupulous care must be taken to see that innocent are not punished also applies to the disciplinary inquiry held under the statutory rules (vide UOI Vs. H.C.Goel, AIR 1964 SC
364). Further, 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. In the instant case, it is established that the foundation of invocation of power under Rule 42 is for initiation of criminal case, disciplinary proceeding and caught red handed while taking 1 lakh rupees as bribe, which are still underway and, in the circumstances, we see much force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the compulsory retirement of the applicant is based on mere hunch despite eight outstanding grades in APAR and two very good during the years 2011-2012 to 2020- 21 and his integrity reflected in the APAR is 'Beyond Doubt'.
26. Add to the above, it may be noted that the respondents in their reply have submitted that from the vigilance report it was observed that his vigilance clearance was withheld as the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 16 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 officer has been charge sheeted in two CBI cases, which are pending against him and, therefore, he was in officers with doubtful integrity list for the period 2018-2022. Further, it is noticed that in the order of compulsory retirement dated 26.12.2022, it has been mentioned that his DCRG and CVP may be kept withheld till further orders due to pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings. Thus, it is established that his name was placed in the ODI list because of the initiation of CBI case, which was the basis to retire him compulsorily irrespective of his eight outstanding grades in APAR and two very good during the years 2011-2012 to 2020-21 and his integrity being mentioned 'Beyond Doubt' in his APAR and, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the order of compulsory retirement is penal in nature, which ought not to have been done without following due procedure of rule and law. Similarly, we find that the representation/memorial submitted by the applicant was rejected in an unreasoned order without meeting and answering the points raised by the applicant but also without taking the law discussed above.
27. In the case filed before the CAT, PB, New Delhi by Shri Suresh Kumar, who was an ITS Officer, Gr. A in BSNL and was retired compulsorily under Rule 42, the CAT, PB, New Delhi, after examining the matter quashed the order of compulsory retirement. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below:
"22. One very curious fact which finds mention in the minutes of both the Review and Representation Committees is that, predominantly, grading in the APARs of the applicant had been outstanding. In fact, reference has been made to ten of his APARs, of which eight are "outstanding", one is "very good" and for one year he has not been graded.
23. Now, the confines of judicial scrutiny of an order passed under Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and FR 56(j) may be limited and there may not be sufficient material before the judicial fora to determine the competence or otherwise of an employee, however, the glaring facts before us cannot be ignored. Here is an officer/applicant whose record has been, by and large outstanding, who has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings long back and who has also been acquitted in the criminal trial against him; and if this is not enough, the appeal against his acquittal has also been dismissed.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 17 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
24. Against this background, it fails to justification as to how the provisions of Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules or FR 56(j) could be invoked. If these were still to be invoked, how could reliance be placed upon wrong facts as also by drawing an inference which runs contrary to the findings of the appropriate Courts.
25. In view of what has been elaborately outlined above, we have no hesitation in holding the impugned order to be perverse as it is based on wrong and incorrect facts and thus, suffers from arbitrariness. Accordingly, while allowing the Original Application, we quash and set aside the order dated 26.12.2022 vide which the applicant has been ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. As a consequence to this order, the applicant would be deemed to have been reinstated w.e.f. the date he was relieved pursuant to order dated 26.12.2022. As a consequence to quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.12.2022, the minutes and recommendations of both the Review and Representation Committees too are quashed and set aside since they have relied upon wrong and incorrect information. Needless to say that the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as may accrue in accordance with Rules. The directions contained herein shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
26. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the applicant does not press for award of cost and hence, there shall be no order as to costs."
28. We have gone through the decision of CAT, Jabalpur Bench filed by Shri Asheesh Pathak, who was also an Officer of Indian Telecom Service, Gr. A, in the BSNL, against whom Criminal Case registered by the CBI was pending and he was imposed with the punishment in major disciplinary proceedings. He was retired compulsorily, which order he had challenged before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. The Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal after taking note of facts of the matter, rules and law finally quashed the order of compulsory retirement imposed on him. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below:
"13. The Office Memorandum dated 27.04.2022 regarding SOP for review under FR 56(j) provides for broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 18 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 The same has been reproduced below for ready reference:
"D. Broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee
10. Broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making the recommendations are as follows:
(i) If the integrity of the Government servant is doubtful, he/she shall be retired.
(ii) If the integrity of the servant is not doubtful, then following criteria will be followed:
(a) If the Government servant has been promoted to a higher post during the preceding 5 years, then the Government servant should not be retired.
(b) If the Government servant is going to be superannuated within one year from the date of consideration of his case by the Review Committee, then the Government servant should not be retired.
However, in a case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of a Government servant, it would be open to review such a case also for premature retirement.
(c) If the Government servant is not falling the categories of (i) and (ii) above, and falls in either of the following categories, then the Government servant shall be retired unless the Review Committee records otherwise after due deliberation:
(a) In departmental proceedings involving separate offences/charges, at least 2 Major Penalties; or 1 Major and 2 Minor Penalties; or 3 Minor Penalties have been imposed on the Government servant during entire service period of the Government servant.
(b) If the Government servant is convicted by any court of law in preceding 10 years and there is no appeal pending against such judgment of the Court.
(c) If in at least three APARs within the last 10 years, the grading is below the benchmark for promotion to the next higher grade-provided that the said grading has been reviewed and accepted (if applicable) by different authority as well.Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 19 O.A.260/00066 of 2025
(d) If the Government servant's reputation, as ascertained by Internal Committee through 360-degree feedback convinces the Review Committee that the Government servants' further continuance in service is not in the public interest."
14. The Review Committee while implementing the SOP referred in OM dated 27.04.2022 has only taken into consideration the 31 O.A.No. 260/00336 of 2023 two penalties awarded to the applicant. The other criteria to be followed by the Review Committee as provided in the OM dated 27.04.2022 have been totally ignored by the Review Committee. It has failed to consider the fact that the applicant was promoted twice during the preceding five years period and also the APAR of the applicant for the last 10 years were up to the Benchmark required for further promotion. The penalties for which the applicant was awarded punishment were also the subject matter before the CBI Court in two different cases and both those cases, the applicant has been acquitted. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Review Committee regarding doubtful integrity of the applicant does not appear to be justified especially after the outcome in the CBI cases.
15. It is also important to note that as per existing rules and regulations, whenever case of an officer is considered for retention in service under Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, no opportunity of hearing is provided to the concerned officer. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Review Committee to consider available records meticulously in an unbiased manner, which has not been done in the present case. The Review Committee failed to acknowledge latest service records like past 10 years APAR/ACR, integrity as mentioned in APAR and performance of the applicant. Thus, the opinion formed by the Review Committee tends to become a penalty under Rule 48 when the Review Committee has invoked this provision in the absence of proper material.
16. We also find from the record that in both the departmental cases, the charges against the applicant were not conclusively proved by the Department and the decision to impose punishment was arrived on the basis of preponderance of probability only. Further, the Internal Review Committee has explicitly mentioned in its report that there were no pending complaints or disciplinary actions against the applicant. It has also Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 20 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 accorded its approval that the applicant is free from vigilance angle. But the Review Committee formed his independent opinion by declaring the applicant's integrity doubtful. It is also pertinent to mention that from the date of formation of BSNL since 2000, the applicant is working with the BSNL and not with DoT. However, the advice of the BSNL under whose direct supervision the applicant is working was not sought for by the DoT. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Review Committee has erred while taking the decision to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56(j) read with Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we quash and set aside the orders dated 26.12.2022 (Annexure A-7) and 13.12.2022 (Annexure A-10) prematurely retiring the applicant. The applicant shall be reinstated back in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Let the necessary orders be passed within a period of three month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. Accordingly, this Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs."
29. 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 26.12.2022 and 13.04.2023 are quashed and, consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant with notional fixation of his pay without any backwages. Respondents are also directed to pass the consequential order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
30. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
12. We do not find any reason to deviate from the aforesaid order and take a different view. In view of the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30' 21 O.A.260/00066 of 2025 above position and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this O.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 02.12.2024 (A/3) and dated 03.02.2025 (A/8) are hereby quashed and, consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant with notional fixation of his pay without any backwages.
Respondents are also directed to pass the consequential order within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the OA stands allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
KB/PS
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +05'30'