Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
R K Sonker vs Department Of Defence Production on 4 September, 2025
(Reserved on 22.08.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No.810/2022
This is the 04th Day of September, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Shree R.K. Sonker a/a 64 years, son of Shree Ram Prasad R/o 109/128,
Jawahar Nagar Kanpur.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vishnu Shekhar Gupta
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Government of India.
2. The Director General of Quality, Assurance Department of
Defence Production and Supplies DHQ, P.O. New Delhi 110011.
3. Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Material) Cantt,
Kanpur.
......... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Vishnu Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
"(a) Issue a write order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure No. ___ to the writ petition)
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash or der dated 31.12.2013 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure No. ___ to the Writ Petition) SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2
(c) Issue a writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to disburse a salary and other service benefits to the applicant to treat the applicant in service as on the age of 60 years of the applicant.
(d) Issue a writ order or direction commanding the Respondent to fix the pension of the applicant to treat to the applicant as on service at the age of 60 years and disburse pension and other pensionary benefits to the applicants.
(e) Issue a writ order or direction commanding the respondents to pay interest on the delay payment of salary and pension to the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case, as reflected from the Original Application, are as under:-
3.1 The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Controller of Quality Assurance (Materials), Kanpur in 1983 and his services were regularized in 1985. However, vide order dated 26.06.2000, the respondents prematurely and compulsorily retired him after 17 years of service, even though he had not completed 30 years of qualifying service.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant made a representation before the Hon'ble President of India, who after examining the matter, vide order dated 05.07.2002 set aside the compulsory retirement and directed his reinstatement on the post.
3.3 After reinstatement, the applicant continued to discharge his duties efficiently and in recognition of his service record, was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the year 2008. Despite this, the respondents once again passed an order dated 31.12.2013 prematurely retiring him under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The order was passed without issuing any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing and without recording any reasons as to how his retention in service was against public interest. The impugned order also SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 failed to consider his promotion in 2008 and his satisfactory service record thereafter.
3.4 The applicant challenged the said order i.e. 31.12.2013 before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 224/2014. During the pendency of the O.A., he also approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which vide order dated 05.06.2018 advised the applicant to file a review petition with prayer for condonation of delay and directed the Ministry of Defence to forward the Review for sympathetic consideration to DoPT.
3.5 In view of this advice, the applicant withdrew his O.A. and filed a review appeal on 03.07.2018. When no order was passed, he was constrained to approach the High Court of judicature at Allahabad by filing Writ Petition No. 19004/2018. The High Court disposed of the matter on 18.09.2019 with liberty to approach this Tribunal.
3.6 Pursuant thereto, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1059/2019, which was disposed of on 20.01.2022 with directions to file a fresh representation along with request for condonation of delay and further directing the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks.
3.7 The applicant duly submitted his representation dated 08.02.2022 along with prayer for condonation of delay, followed by a reminder dated 12.04.2022. However, in breach of the Tribunal's directions, the respondents rejected the review vide order dated 05.05.2022 without considering the entire service record, as mandated by law and by DoPT O.M. dated 11.09.2015. Hence, this OA.
4. Respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit on 02.03.2023, wherein they have denied the claim of the applicant and stated that:-
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 4.1 The applicant was earlier compulsorily retired on 26.06.2000 due to serious misconduct such as habitual late coming, lack of devotion to duty, refusing assigned duties, tampering with the key register and use of intemperate and indecorous language against superiors.
4.2 The order of 2000 was reviewed by the Hon'ble President of India.
While reinstating the applicant in 2002, the President only did so after considering the applicant's assurance of improved conduct in future. Even then, reinstatement was not unconditional, it was with the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale for five years.
4.3 Despite this leniency, the applicant's work and conduct did not improve. Therefore, after due consideration, he was prematurely retired on 31.12.2013 under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j) in public interest.
4.4 The principle of FR 56(j) gives the Government absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest after he has attained 55 years of age (for Group C employees) or completed 30 years of service. They submitted that this provision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under it, no show cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or departmental enquiry is required.
4.5 The 30 years of service was a pre-condition for compulsory retirement and the completion of 30 years is only one ground; alternatively, attaining the prescribed age (55 years) is sufficient.
4.6 The applicant did not avail the prescribed remedy of representation against the premature retirement order within the stipulated time of three weeks. Instead of following the departmental channel, he directly filed cases before the Tribunal and the High Court. Therefore, this delay disentitles him to relief as claimed in the OA.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 4.7 Pursuant to directions of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1059/2019, the applicant's representation was duly considered by the competent authority, i.e., DGQA and was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 05.05.2022. Therefore, his grievance already stands addressed.
4.8 The applicant is misusing SC/ST protections and portraying himself as a victim, even though the decisions against him were taken strictly as per service rules and in public interest. The applicant is attempting to re-enter service despite consistently unsatisfactory performance.
4.9 The action under FR 56(j) is not a penalty and therefore principles of Article 311 of the Constitution do not apply. The applicant has raised false and baseless allegations of discrimination.
4.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating that premature retirement under FR 56(j) is a matter of the Government's subjective satisfaction and cannot be interfered with unless mala fides or arbitrariness is proved, which is not the case here.
4.11 The orders of compulsory retirement (2000) and premature retirement (2013) were passed legally and validly. They deny any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and submitted that the applicant's Original Application deserves dismissal.
5. The applicant in his Rejoinder Affidavit filed on 10.10.2013 denied the averments of the respondents made in the counter affidavit and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the Original Application.
6. The submissions of the leaned counsel for the applicant are as follows:-
6.1 The impugned orders of compulsory retirement dated 31.12.2013 and rejection of review dated 05.05.2022 are arbitrary, punitive and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. It is stated that once the earlier order of compulsory retirement of 2000 had been set aside by the Hon'ble President of India, the same could not have been relied upon again to justify the 2013 retirement, as such reliance amounts to double jeopardy.
6.2 The respondents, while passing the review order dated 05.05.2022, considered only three years' ACRs/APARs (2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-
12) and ignored the applicant's overall satisfactory record and promotion to UDC in 2008. Even in their counter affidavit in O.A. No. 1059/2019, the respondents admitted that the applicant was retired on the ground of "unsatisfactory service," which shows that the action was stigmatic and punitive. However, no departmental enquiry as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was conducted, nor was any charge-sheet or show-cause notice issued.
6.3 The order dated 31.12.2013 was without jurisdiction, as the appointing authority for the post of UDC was the Director General of Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence and not the Controller at Kanpur who passed the order. It is also contended that the applicant had not completed 30 years of qualifying service by 2013 and the order was not passed in genuine public interest but solely on the alleged ground of unsatisfactory service.
6.4 The applicant submitted that the action of the respondents authorities is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16, 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 and in violation of DoPT O.M. dated 11.09.2015. As a result, the applicant has been illegally deprived of his service, salary and pensionary benefits. Therefore, he prays for quashing of the orders dated 31.12.2013 and 05.05.2022, reinstatement up to the age of 60 years with all SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 consequential service and pensionary benefits, together with interest on delayed payments.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that:-
7.1 The order dated 31.12.2013 was passed strictly under the provisions of FR 56(j), which confers absolute right on the Government to prematurely retire an employee in public interest after he has attained the age of 55 years.
7.2 The applicant's past service, including the earlier compulsory retirement of 2000, was taken into account and despite his reinstatement in 2002, his conduct and performance remained unsatisfactory, warranting his retirement in public interest.
7.3 The action under FR 56(j) is neither stigmatic nor punitive and as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no notice, hearing, or departmental enquiry is required before passing such an order.
7.4 The applicant's review petition was duly considered by the competent authority in compliance with the Tribunal's earlier order and a speaking order was passed on 05.05.2022.
7.4 The respondents denied that the order was mala fide or arbitrary, and contended that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the Government's subjective satisfaction as to what constitutes public interest.
They emphasized that continuation of the applicant in service was not in public interest and the present Original Application, filed after repeated unsuccessful attempts before different forums, is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings of both sides, the documents placed on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.8
9. The scope of judicial review in matters of compulsory/premature retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is well-settled. The Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada [(1992) 2 SCC 299] laid down that premature retirement is not a punishment, it does not cast any stigma and principles of natural justice have no place in such exercise. Judicial interference is permissible only if the order is mala fide, arbitrary, based on no evidence or passed without taking the entire service record into account. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board & Ors. Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368; Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr., (1996) 5 SCC 103; I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3740; M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3058; and Rajat Baran Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1661. This Court observed that there was a very limited scope of judicial review in a case of compulsory retirement and it was permissible only on the grounds of non-application of mind; mala fides; or want of material particulars. Power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of Service Rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.
10. In State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529, this Court held that while considering the case of an employee for compulsory retirement, public interest is of paramount importance. The dishonest, corrupt and dead-wood deserve to be dispensed with. How efficient and honest an employee is, is to be assessed on the basis of the material on record, which may also be ascertained from confidential reports. However, there must be some tangible material against the employee warranting his compulsory retirement.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.9
11. Similarly, in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314], it was held that the power under FR 56(j) has to be exercised in public interest to weed out the inefficient, corrupt or doubtful employees, and the Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the employer.
12. In the present case, the material on record shows that the applicant was earlier compulsorily retired in 2000 on account of serious misconduct and lack of devotion to duty. Though reinstated in 2002 on sympathetic consideration by the Hon'ble President of India, it was with a penalty of reduction of pay. Even thereafter, his performance did not improve and on an overall assessment of his record, the competent authority came to the conclusion that his further retention was not in public interest and accordingly passed the order dated 31.12.2013 under FR 56(j). By that time, the applicant had already crossed the age of 55 years, which satisfies the requirement under the Rule. Thus, the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, or violation of Articles 14, 16, 20(2) and 21 is misconceived.
13. For ready reference, the operative portion of the impugned premature retirement order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Competent Authority is reproduced below:
"NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules/Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Controller hereby retires Shri Ram Krishna Sonkar, UDC, with immediate effect, he having already attained the age of fifty-five years on 03rd October 2013. Shri Ram Krishna Sonkar has been paid a sum of Rs.79,624/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four only) on 31.12.2013 into his salary account, which is equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement, after deducting Income Tax."
A plain reading of the above order shows that the retirement was effected strictly under FR 56(j) in public interest, after the applicant had SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.10 crossed the age of 55 years and the statutory requirement of payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice was duly complied with. This itself negatives the contention that the order was passed without jurisdiction or contrary to rules.
14. It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to this Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 1059/2019, the applicant's representation dated 08.02.2022 was duly considered and rejected by the Competent Authority vide a reasoned speaking order dated 05.05.2022. In the said order it was observed that the Review Committee in 2013 had examined the applicant's last ten years' service record and found his performance unsatisfactory, as reflected in the APAR gradings of 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 which were 3.1, 2.7 and 2.0 respectively. It is further noted that the applicant had earlier been compulsorily retired in 2000, but reinstated in 2002 by the Hon'ble President only on his assurance of improved conduct, yet no significant improvement was noticed thereafter. The speaking order also records that the applicant failed to submit his self-appraisal for the year 2012-13, which demonstrated lack of seriousness and that his first representation against the premature retirement dated 31.12.2013 was filed only on 03.07.2018, i.e. after nearly five years, whereas DoPT instructions require filing within three weeks and there is no provision for condoning such extraordinary delay of almost eight years. On these grounds, the Competent Authority rejected the representation as time-barred and devoid of merit. In light of the above, the plea of the applicant that only three years' ACRs were considered is untenable. What is required, as held in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha [(1970) 2 SCC 458], is the Competent Authority's bona fide satisfaction based on the overall service record, not a quasi-judicial enquiry or detailed appraisal of every year's performance. The speaking order demonstrates that relevant materials were duly considered, and the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.11 applicant has failed to establish mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity in the decision-making process.
15. In light of the settled principles laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), Umedbhai Patel (supra), and Col. J.N. Sinha (supra), as also reaffirmed in subsequent judgments including Shiv Dayal Sharma v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 291], this Tribunal finds no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity in the impugned orders dated 31.12.2013 and 05.05.2022. The action of the respondents was a valid exercise of power under FR 56(j) read with Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in public interest.
16. Accordingly, the Original Application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this dismissal shall not adversely affect the applicant's entitlement to retiral and pensionary benefits, if any, already admissible to him under the applicable rules.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (Judicial)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA