Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suhail Fasih vs Nic on 15 December, 2025
1
O.A. No. 4835/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4835/2024
Reserved on: 03.09.2025
Pronounced on:__.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Suhail Fasih
S/o Late (Sh.) Fasih Uddin
R/o 510, Asia House, Kasturaba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi - 110001.
(By Advocates: Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tashriq
Ahmad, Mr. Shahid Anwar, Ms. Farzeen Iqbal, Mr. Arvind Kumar
Singh and Mr. Mahender Rao
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Electronics & IT
Electronics Niketan
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110003.
2. Director General
National Informatics Centre, HQ
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110003.
3. The Secretary
Department of MSME
Chairman Representation Committee
Room No. 169, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg
New Delhi - 110011.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
ANJALI
2025.12.17
ANJALI
11:59:26+
05'30'
2
O.A. No. 4835/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):
By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):
"(i) Direct the respondents to produce entire record of the proceedings of Review Committee meeting & documents relief upon.
(ii) Direct the respondents to produce entire record of the Representation Committee with regard to representations dated 31.10.2023, 06.11.2023 & 05.08.2024 against impugned order dated 11.08.2023.
iii) Direct the respondents to produce recommendation of Internal Committee/SOP of Department of Electronics & IT as regards to premature retirement of the applicant in the interest of justice and quash the same.
(iv) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 and further command and direct the Respondents not to adversely affect applicant in any manner in pursuance to the impugned order and restore applicant to his original position in the cadre without any brake in service with all consequential benefits like pay, perks, status, promotions and arrears thereof and interest therein treating the period as on duty;
(v) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 in the interest of justice.
(vi) Grant any other relief/s, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the applicant.
(vii) Award cost of the instant lis to the applicant."
Facts in a Nutshell:-
2. The undisputed brief factual matrix of the case as could be ANJALI gleaned from the records is that the applicant was initially recruited 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' in the National Informatics as a Scientific Officer 'SB' and was appointed as District Informatics Officer (DIO) on 21.01.1997. He 3 O.A. No. 4835/2024 continued in his career and progressed to the position of Scientist B in 14.01.2004 and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Scientist C and Scientist D on 03.03.2010 and 01.01.2015 respectively. In the year 2010, the respondents introduced a new policy of MFCS (Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme) of promotion Group A Officers for Science and Technology Departments/Organizations effective from 01.01.2011 onwards. The applicant claims that due to qualifications related issues the respondents had not convened reviews for promotions of Science and Technology officers through MFCS and therefore, the MFCS scheme which was to have been implemented from 01.01.2011 onwards could not be implemented in a timely manner. The applicant is an office bearer of AINOA (All India NIC S&T Officers Association), which was formed in the year 2014 to lobby with the respondents and ensure timely implementation of MFCS among other demands. The applicant claims that being an office bearer of AINOA and an active member of the same the applicant used to participate in gatherings/protests and agitate to implement the MFCS and alleviate stagnation among Science and Technology officers. The applicant claims that the respondents were aggrieved by the aggressive attitude of the applicant in agitating service related promotional issues of fellow colleagues and had issued three transfer orders on 16.02.2016, 26.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 respectively with the intention of harassing the applicant and suppressing the legitimate demands for timely implementation of MFCS. The applicant claims that such transfer orders are also ANJALI ANJALI 2025.12.17 violative of the extant instructions of the DOPT and came in quick 11:59:26+ 05'30' succession within a short period of one month. While the first transfer order dated 16.02.2016 was to transfer the applicant from 4 O.A. No. 4835/2024 NIC, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to NIC, Ministry of Mines, the said order was amended on 26.02.2016 and the third transfer order dated 14.03.2016 was issued to transfer the applicant from NIC, Ministry of Mines to NIC Headquarters, New Delhi for further posting. The applicant claims that the respondents issued the fourth transfer order on 18.03.2016 directing the applicant to join at DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, without issuing any relieving order and even before he could report to the NIC Headquarters as per order dated 14.03.2016. The applicant alleges that the respondents issued the memorandum dated 08.06.2016 directing him to join at DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry without issuing any relieving order/handing over charge which was responded to by him on 17.06.2016. While the applicant was subjected to a spate of transfer orders, he continued to agitate for timely promotions under the MFCS and finally a policy was formulated on 19.09.2016 for promotions of Group A level Science and Technology Officers of NIC.
3. Meanwhile, the respondents had formed a committee sometime in the end of 2016 to go into the reasons for delay in the applicant in joining the office of DGFT while the transfer order was issued on 18.03.2016 and 14.03.2016 and the said committee had come to the conclusion that the said transfer order could not be given effect to only because the HOD, NIC, Mines-MCA, who was the controlling officer of the applicant had not issued the relieving order to the applicant. The sum and substance of all these four transfer orders is that the applicant had not joined the office of the DGFT and the ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as to 05'30' why the applicant could not join the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry immediately and the counter response from the 5 O.A. No. 4835/2024 respondents finally culminated in an OM dated 21.08.2020 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'Meity'), which had to intervene in this transfer matter and directed the applicant to obey the transfer order dated 18.03.2016 and join at NIC, DGFT, Udyog Bhawan. Accordingly, the applicant joined on 26.08.2020. The respondents, piqued by the intransigence of the applicant in not immediately obeying the transfer order dated 18.03.2016 which could be implemented only on 26.08.2020 issued a charge memo dated 21.06.2021 in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, containing five articles of charges of disobedience as hereunder:-
"Article-I Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code No. 4602) while working as Scientist- C in National Informatics Centre Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs failed to comply with the lawful orders issued by NIC Hqs. vide their office order no. 17(17)/2016 dated 16/02/2016 and 26/02/2016 by not reporting to his place of posting at NIC Cell Ministry of Mines.
By the aforesaid act the said Shri Suhail Fasih has violated Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code No. 4602) while working as Scientist- C in National Informatics Centre Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs threatened and used inappropriate language against his superior officers namely Shri Debasish Sarkar, Technical Director and HoD (MCA & Mines), senior officers Smt. Savita Dawar, Scientist-F and Shri Harbok Singh, Scientist-G and Shri K. V. R. Murty, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
By the aforesaid act the said Shri Fasih has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-III Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code No. 4602) while working as Scientist- C in National Informatics Centre Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs failed to comply with the lawful orders issued by NIC Hqs. vide their ANJALI 2025.12.17 office order no. 17(17)/2016 dated 14/03/2016 and office order no. ANJALI 11:59:26+ 17(17)/2016 dated 18/03/2016 for reporting to DDG (Pers) at NIC 05'30' Hqs. and for joining his place of posting at NIC Cell DGFT.
By the aforesaid act the said Shri Fasih has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rules 3(1)(i), 6 O.A. No. 4835/2024 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-IV Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code No. 4602) while working as Scientist- C in National Informatics Centre Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs failed to comply with the various lawful orders issued by NIC Hqs. as per details given in the statement of imputation of charges.
By the aforesaid act the said Shri Fasih has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-V Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code No. 4602) while working as Scientist- C in National Informatics Centre Cell, Ministry of Corporate Affairs sent the communications/e-mails attached to higher authorities bypassing the channel of communications in violation of the DoPT OM No. 11013/08/2013-Estt(A-III) dated 6/06/2013. Shri Fasih sent communications violating the government hierarchy through bypassing the channels of communication. DoPT OM (Ref OM dated 06 June 2013) No. 11013/08/2013-Estt(A-III) clearly states that in case a government servant wishes to press a claim or seek redressal of a grievance, the proper course for him is to address his immediate official superior, or the Head of his office (in this case HoD) or such authority that has been laid as competent to hear the matter.
By the aforesaid act the said Shri Fasih has exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government servant thereby violating Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
While the disciplinary inquiry was making progress, the applicant contends that he was maliciously transferred out of Delhi by order dated 29.09.2022 to Badaun, UP. Learned counsel for the applicant claims that in addition to transferring him from Delhi to Budaun, the respondents had deliberately not admitted his LTC claim and not sanctioned mandatory leave between 03.10.2022-10.10.2022 and also did not release his salary for the months of October, 2022 and November, 2022, which they did later. Thereafter, the applicant was ANJALI kept under suspension from 25.11.2022 to 24.05.2023 on the 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' ground that charges were contemplated against him. The said 7 O.A. No. 4835/2024 suspension period from 25.11.2022 to 24.05.2023 was followed by a charge-memo dated 21.07.2023, which reads as under:-
"ARTICLE - I That the said Shri Suhail Fasih, while posted as Scientist - D in NIC Budaun District Centre, Uttar Pradesh has used abusive language while interacting with Shri P. Victor Albuquerque, Joint Director (now Deputy Secretary), Meity.
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code:
4602), Scientist - D, NIC Budaun District Centre, Uttar Pradesh has violated Rules 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii), and 3(1A) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE - II That the said Shri Suhail Fasih, while posted as Scientist - D in NIC Budaun District Centre, Uttar Pradesh has used abusive language with Shri Rajesh Bahadur, Scientist-G & HOG (Personnel), NICHQ, New Delhi.
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code:
4602), Scientist - D, NIC Budaun District Centre, Uttar Pradesh has violated Rules 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii), and 3(1A)(a) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE - III That Shri Suhail Fasih, Scientist D, NIC has assassinated the character of Shri Rajesh Bahadur, Scientist G and HOG (Personnel), NICHQ, New Delhi by sending messages in the Whatsapp Groups.
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Suhail Fasih (Emp. Code:
4602), Scientist - D, NIC Budaun District Centre, Uttar Pradesh has violated Rule 3(1)(iii), CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. The charge-memo dated 21.07.2023 was followed by the respondents issuing the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 giving him 3 months notice of their intention to prematurely retire him from service on 10.11.2023 invoking their powers to do so conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules. The applicant's ANJALI 2025.12.17 representations dated 31.10.2023, 06.11.2023 and 05.08.2014 will ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' be considered (as directed by CAT in OA No. 2455/2024) and rejected 8 O.A. No. 4835/2024 by the respondents through their impugned order dated 07.11.2024.
Hence, this OA filed by applicant.
5. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant:-
6. The applicant states that after he obeyed the orders dated 21.08.2020 issued by the Secretary (Meity) and joined NIC, Cell, DGFT on 26.08.2020, the respondents issued a charge sheet dated 21.06.2021. After an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 03.12.2021 held Charges III and V to be 'proved', and Charges I, II and IV 'not proved'. However, no final order has been passed till date by the respondents.
7. Thereafter, the applicant was kept under suspension from 25.11.2022 to 24.05.2023. This suspension period was later followed by the issuance of a charge memo dated 21.07.2023. The suspension from 25.11.2022 to 24.05.2023 thus formed the precursor to the said charge memo.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been having excellent APAR grading during the last ten years and despite that the respondents have chosen to invoke the provision of FR 56(j) and compulsorily retired him. Learned counsel contends that ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ the applicant has been compulsorily retired despite having 05'30' "Outstanding/Very Good" grading in the APAR throughout service and also his integrity assessed as "Beyond Doubt" on all occasions.
9 O.A. No. 4835/2024He submits that the order of premature retirement of the applicant passed against him is in violation of the DOPT Circular No.25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV dated 28.08.2020 containing comprehensive guidelines and envisages procedures for premature retirement wherein the said OM directs that compulsory retirement shall not be used as a short cut to avoid lengthy disciplinary proceedings. The relevant extracts from the said DOPT OM dated 28.08.2020 is as hereunder:-
"11.2 In the case of State of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314, Hon'ble Court held that --
"The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystalized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries 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."
(emphasis supplied) ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' 10 O.A. No. 4835/2024 In this regard, learned counsel submits that the applicant's case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj V/s. UoI. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when it is found that the order of compulsory retirement passed is punitive in nature and was passed to shortcut disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant and ensure his immediate removal, then in such circumstances resorting to FR 56 (j) is invalid. The relevant para 23 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"23. In State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, this Court has delineated the following broad principles that ought to be followed in matters relating to compulsory retirement :
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into a definite principle, which could be broadly summarized thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(i) 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 the 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.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not ANJALI be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental ANJALI 2025.12.17 enquiry when such course is more desirable.
11:59:26+ 05'30'
(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.
11 O.A. No. 4835/2024(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."
9. Learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India& Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 70 (1980), Allahabad Bank Officers' Association v. Allahabad Bank, reported in 1996 SCC (4) 504, Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar &Anr., reported in 1990 (3) SCC 504, Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1791, Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Shashi Prabha (Civil Appeal No. 2365 of 2020), State of Baikunth Nath Das AndAnr. v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada, reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299, Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725, M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd.
&Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 20428 of 2007) to argue that FR 56(j) cannot be used as a device to avoid departmental inquiries/disciplinary proceedings or as a disguised punishment
10. In addition, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 which has been duly incorporated in the DOPT circular dated 28.08.2020 and quoted in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra) that FR 56 (j) cannot be used as a ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ punitive measure. He submits that in the present case respondent 05'30' Nos. 1 and 2 have chosen to invoke FR 56 (j) and compulsorily retired the applicant prematurely in the backdrop of the fact that 12 O.A. No. 4835/2024 he was kept under suspension between 25.11.2022 & 24.05.2023 and there were 2 disciplinary proceedings dated 21.06.2021 & 21.07.2023 pending against him.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:-
11. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the scope of Judicial Review in cases involving FR 56 (J) is limited and there are only four main ingredients to the scheme of compulsory retirement of inefficient government servants under FR56(j) to be seen under Judicial Review:-
i. Whether the order regarding compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) has been passed by the competent authority or not.
ii. Whether a definitive opinion has been formed by the recommendation committee regarding continuance or otherwise of the applicant in government service and to decide in their opinion whether the applicant has become a 'dead wood' to the organization.
iii. Whether the public interest would be best served by discharging from government service such dead wood and inefficient persons.
iv. The government has got the absolute right to exercise its powers under FR 56(j) to compulsorily retire a person.
ANJALI
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' instant case, all these four ingredients/conditions of the scheme of FR 56 (j) have been fulfilled. Learned counsel counters the arguments 13 O.A. No. 4835/2024 put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is having excellent grading in his APAR during the last ten years by stating that the entire service record of the applicant and not just the first 10 years of APAR is taken into account by the respondents to decide whether to continue the service of the applicant in government or not under FR 56 (j). He submits that the respondents have come to the conclusion that the applicant has become ineffective and therefore, unfit to be continued in service.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents states that it may be noted that this is the second round of litigation. The applicant had initially filed O.A. No. 2455/2024 before this Tribunal which was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 06.08.2024 and had directed the respondents to decide the applicant's representation against invoking Rule 56(j) within a period of four weeks and it was directed that till the decision of the competent authority on the representation of the applicant is taken, he shall not be compelled to vacate the residential accommodation provided to him. Using this interim relief, the applicant continues to stay in the government quarter allotted to him.
14. He places reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to buttress his claim that Rule 56(j) has been invoked against the applicant by following all relevant instructions and law on the subject:-
(i) Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1954 SC ANJALI ANJALI 2025.12.17 369, the relevant para 25 of which reads as under:-
11:59:26+ 05'30' "25. The foregoing discussion necessarily leads us to the conclusion that a compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal and, therefore, does not attract the 14 O.A. No. 4835/2024 provisions of article 311 of the Constitution or of the rule 55 and that, therefore, the order of the President cannot be challenged on the ground that the appellant had not been afforded full opportunity of showing cause against the action sought to be taken in regard to him. Both the questions under consideration must also be answered against the appellant."
(ii) Union of India v. J.N. Sinha and Ors., reported in (1970) 2 SCC 458, the relevant paras 10 & 11 of which reads as under:- , "10. It is true that a compulsory retirement is bound to have some adverse effect on the government servant who is compulsorily retired but then as the rule provides that such retirements can be made only after the officer attains the prescribed age. Further a compulsorily retired government servant does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement. Three months', notice is provided so as to enable him to find out other suitable employment.
11. In our opinion the High Court erred in thinking that the compulsory retirement involves civil consequences. Such a retirement does not take away any of the rights that have accrued to the government servant because of his past service. It cannot be said that if the retiring age of all or a section of the government servants is fixed at 50 years, the same would involve civil consequences. Under the existing system there is no uniform retirement age for all government servants. The retirement age is fixed not merely on the basis of the interest of the government servant but also depending on the requirements of the society."
(iii) Union of India and Ors. vs. M.E. Reddy and Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 15, the relevant paras 8, 11, 18, 31, 33) "8. An analysis of this rule clearly shows that the following essential ingredients of the Rule must be satisfied before an order compulsorily retiring a Government servant is passed :
1. That the member of the Service must have completed 30 years of qualifying service or the age of 50 years (as modified by notification dated 16-7-1969);
2. That the Government has an absolute right to retire the ANJALI Government servant concerned because the word "require"
ANJALI 2025.12.17 clearly confers an unqualified right on the Central 11:59:26+ 05'30' Government;
3. That the order must be passed in public interest;
15 O.A. No. 4835/20244. That three months' previous notice in writing shall be given to the Government servant concerned before the order is passed.
It may be noted here that the provision gives an absolute right to the Government and not merely a discretion, and, therefore, impliedly it excludes the rules of natural justice. It is also not disputed in the present case that all the conditions mentioned in Rule referred to above have been complied with. It is a different matter that the argument of Reddy is based on the ground that the order is arbitrary and mala fide with which we shall deal later."
XXX "11. It seems to us that the main object of this Rule is to instill a spirit of dedication and dynamism in the working of the State Services so as to ensure purity and cleanliness in the administration which is the paramount need of the hour as the Services are one of the pillars of our great democracy. Any element of constituent of the Service which is found to be lax or corrupt, inefficient or not up to the mark or has outlived his utility has to be weeded out. Rule 16 (3) provides the methodology for achieving this object. We must, however, hasten to add that before the Central Government invokes the power under Rule 16 (3), it must take particular care that the rule is not used as a ruse for victimization by getting rid of honest and unobliging officers in order to make way for incompetent favourites of the Government which is bound to lead to serious demoralisation in the Service and defeat the laudable object which the rule seeks to sabserve. If any such case comes to the notice of the Government the officer responsible for advising the Government must be strictly dealt with. Compulsory retirement contemplated by the aforesaid rule is designed to infuse the administration with initiative and activism so that it is made poignant and piquant, specious and subtle so as the meet the expanding needs of the nation which require exploration of "fields and pastures now". Such a retirement involves no stain or stigma nor does it entail any penalty or civil consequences. In fact, the rule merely seeks to strike a just balance between the termination of the completed career of a tired employee and maintenance of top efficiency in the diverse activities of the administration."
XXX "18. After considering the various shades, aspects, purport and object of such a provision this Court observed as follows :-
But if on the other hand a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the ANJALI 2025.12.17 application of any or all the principles of natural justice ANJALI 11:59:26+ then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature 05'30' or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice.16 O.A. No. 4835/2024
The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to content that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.... Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56 (j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organisations and more so in government organisations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56
(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest."
XXX "31. On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above we are satisfied that there is no legal error in the impugned order passed by the Government of India retiring Reddy. It was, however, contended by counsel for Reddy that reading the order as a whole it contains an order of victimisation, so as to make the order arbitrary. We are, however, unable to find any material on the record to show that the order was in any way arbitrary. The Government of India acted on the orders passed by the Home Minister concerned who had considered the report of the Review Committee in its various aspects. There is ANJALI nothing to show that Reddy was victimised in any way. ANJALI 2025.12.17 On the other hand, the history of his service shows that he 11:59:26+ 05'30' was always given his due. He was taken in the I.P.S. and allotted the year 1952. He was promoted to the selection grade also at the proper time. The order of suspension was withdrawn and the departmental enquiry was 17 O.A. No. 4835/2024 dropped and the officer was reinstated and later promoted as D. I. G. These facts completely militate against the concept of victimisation. It appears that on an overall consideration of the entire history of the service of Reddy and the various stages through which he had passed it was considered in the interest of administration and to ensure better initiative and efficiency to retire him in public interest. We are also unable to find any element of arbitrariness in the impugned order. For these reasons, therefore the first contention by learned counsel for Reddy must be rejected."
XXX "33. The impugned order as held by us is a bonafide order and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and, therefore, we cannot permit Reddy to play a game of hide and seek with the Court by withdrawing the allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 3 in the High Court and then reviving them when after some time an adverse order against him was passed. Moreover, if respondent No. 3 was really inimically disposed towards Reddy he would not have either dropped the departmental enquiry or reinstated him, or have promoted him to the rank of D.I.G. Furthermore, the Chief Minister Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy has himself filed a personal affidavit before the High Court which is contained at page 235 Vol. III wherein he has categorically denied all the allegations made against him by Reddy. The assertions made in the affidavit are fully supported by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of Reddy himself. For these reasons, therefore, the second contention regarding the impugned order being mala fide is also rejected."
(iv) Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 1175, the relevant para 5 of which reads as under:-
"5. This Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha1 held that compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences. It also dealt with the issue of what constitutes public interest. The following observations are apposite:
"9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j) 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. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. ANJALI That power can be exercised subject to the conditions ANJALI 2025.12.17 mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned 11:59:26+ 05'30' authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the 18 O.A. No. 4835/2024 requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the Government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the Government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights 1 (1970) 2 SCC 458 acquired by him before retirement.
Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56(j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the Government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there.
There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in Government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest.
XXX
11. In our opinion the High Court erred in thinking that the compulsory retirement involves civil consequences. Such a retirement does not take away any of the rights that have accrued to the Government servant because of his past service. It cannot be said that if the retiring age of all or a section of the Government servants is fixed at 50 years, the same would involve civil ANJALI consequences. Under the existing system there is no ANJALI 2025.12.17 uniform retirement age for all Government servants. The 11:59:26+ 05'30' retirement age is fixed not merely on the basis of the interest of the Government servant but also depending on the requirements of the society."
(emphasis supplied) 19 O.A. No. 4835/2024
(v) K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 162, the relevant paras 8 to 10 of which read as under:-
"8. As seen in the light of documents and in the light of the specific permission sought by the appellant himself on the basis of the special report submitted by the State Government, the Government of India through its appropriate Committee reached the conclusion that in view of the doubtful integrity it would not be desirable in the public interest to retain the appellant in service. Accordingly, they have compulsorily retired the appellant from service. Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is neither punishment nor visits with loss of retiral benefits; nor does it cast stigma. The officer would be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned and there is no diminution of the accrued benefits. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government employee is public interest. If the appropriate authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it. But the same may be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not been formed or the decision is based for collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.
9. While exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to weigh several circumstances in arriving at the conclusion that the employee requires to be compulsorily retired in public interest. The Government is given power to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service, when the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in the public interest, court would not interfere with the order. In S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC 424], a Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, considered the entire case law and held that "the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there ANJALI may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary ANJALI 2025.12.17 11:59:26+ action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is 05'30' such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the 20 O.A. No. 4835/2024 Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone; the Government should form the opinion that the Government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer."
10. Higher the ladder the officer scales in the echolons of service, greater should be the transperancy of integrity, honesty, character and dedication to duty. Work culture and self- discipline augment his experience. Security of service gives fillip to accelerate assiduity to stay in line and measure up to the expected standards of efficiency by the Government employee. Thereby, they ultimately aid to achieve excellence in public service. The security of service provided by Article 311 of the Constitution and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 would thus ensure to remove deficiency and incompetence and augment efficiency of public administration. The rights - constitutional or statutory - carry with them corollary duty to maintain efficiency, integrity and dedication to public service. Unfortunately, the latter is being overlooked and neglected and the former unduly gets emphasised. The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material on record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power."
(vi) Baikuntha NathDas v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada& Ors., reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299, the relevant para 32 of which reads as under:-
"32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.
ANJALI (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial 05'30' scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is 21 O.A. No. 4835/2024 arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority."
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above."
Apart from above, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3753, Parbodh Sagar v.Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in (2000) 5 SCC 630, DalpatAbasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., reported in (1990) 1 SCC 305 etc. to argue that compulsory retirement is not punitive or stigmatic, and that judicial review is limited to cases of mala fides or arbitrariness, which are not present here.
Conclusion:-
15. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 16. We find that there is a kernel of truth in the contentions of the 05'30' counsel for the respondents that the applicant was performing quite well during the initial 18 years of his service as is evidenced by the 22 O.A. No. 4835/2024 grading in the APAR which were 'Excellent' and 'Very Good' for all the years from 1997 to 2015. In fact, the respondents have given the applicant promotion up to the grade of Scientist 'D' based on the excellent APAR gradings for the period prior to the year. However, there is a fall in the performance of the applicant subsequent to the year 2015 and in fact, he has not bothered to give his self assessment report for the APAR for the period 2016-2020, that is, the period when the applicant was not obeying the transfer order dated 18.03.2016, which could be implemented only on 21.08.2020, that is, after four years of the issuance of the transfer order to transfer him from one office to another office of NIC within New Delhi! Obviously, during this period the applicant could not have discharged his duties efficiently as there was a deadlock caused by his inability to join the new place of posting at NIC, DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry due to the reason that he had not been relieved from the Ministry of Mines. In any case, we agree with the respondents' contention that the entire service record of the officer is taken into consideration for taking a decision to invoke FR 56 (j) and compulsorily retire a person and not just the APAR records.
Therefore, the internal committee has rightly considered all the APAR records as well as the entire service record as part of the decision to invoke FR 56(j).
17. The contentions of the applicant that the respondents deprived him of the opportunity to file his APARs for the period from 2016 to July 2020, and that his Reporting Officer could have recorded ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ remarks even in the absence of the applicant's self-appraisal, are 05'30' untenable.
23 O.A. No. 4835/202418. It is seen that complaints against the applicant have been received, including that of a complaint dated 17.11.2015 from the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs requesting replacement of the applicant with a more competent and responsible officer stating that "Shri Farshi had a consistent track record of misbehaving with officers and staff of MCA including senior officers such as Joint Secretary and Secretary of MCA including himself. He has proved to be incapable of providing the necessary technical support to MCA." In addition there was another complaint dated 01.06.2016 from the Director, MCA, stating that " In no case he be posted back to MCA as he has vitiated the atmosphere in the past".
These two complaints dated 17.11.2015 and 01.06.2016 formed the backdrop to the transfer orders dated 16.02.2016, 26.02.2016, 14.03.2016 and 18.03.2016 which could not be implemented by the respondents resulting in 'Meity' interfering and issuing transfer order dated 26.08.2020, which was finally implemented. In this backdrop, two charge-memos dated 21.06.2021 and 21.07.2023 described in para 3 above came to be issued by The Deputy Director, NIC, Meity.
Although the I.O. had proved two out of the five charges as 'proved' and remaining three charges as 'not proved' in his report dated 03.12.2021, they were not acted upon by the respondent no. 3 till the time of writing this judgment. The Deputy Director, NIC, Meity, even before taking charge-memo dated 21.06.2021 to its logical conclusion had issued a second charge-memo dated 21.07.2023 preceded by a suspension period between 25.11.2022 to 24.05.2023; without ANJALI ANJALI 2025.12.17 finalizing these two charge-memos, the respondents have chosen to 11:59:26+ 05'30' issue a three months' notice vide letter dated 11.08.2023 and finally 24 O.A. No. 4835/2024 invoked Rule 56(j) and prematurely retired the applicant on 10.11.2023.
19. Under the above facts and circumstances, we find that the ground of "ineffectiveness" to sack the applicant taken by the respondents is nothing but a camouflage to short-cut the two Disciplinary proceedings emanating out of the charge-memos dated 21.06.2021 & 21.07.2023. This is clearly in violation of DOP&T OM dated 28.08.2020 and Hon'ble Apex Court judgments in the cases of Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra) and Umedbhai Patel (supra).
20. We find that in the instant case, although the applicant had rightly raised this as the main ground in his appeal dated 22.04.2024 that the respondents invoked FR 56(j) as a punitive measure to short cut the two pending disciplinary cases, respondents have taken the view that this ground is not substantiated as the applicant herein has been pre-maturely retired on the ground of non-
performance, inefficiency and insubordination as corroborated from the series of complaints received against him for obstructing office work, numerous memos issued him for non-compliance of official instructions and his unauthorized absence for four years from 2016 to 2020. In this regard, we had requested the respondents to submit all the relevant papers related to the internal review committee and the representation committee in a sealed cover. We have opened the sealed cover and perused the documents therein. From the pleadings on record as well as from the perusal of the relevant papers found in ANJALI the sealed cover, we find that the internal committee has invoked the 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' FR 56 (j) based upon the following grounds:-
25 O.A. No. 4835/2024"a) Suspended for misbehavior since 25.11.2022 (extended till 22.08.2023) due to his continued misbehavior. Charge sheet approved,
b) Willful insubordination by not following official instructions of NIC and MeitY. Not obliged to transfer order,
c) FIR lodged for creating obstruction in office work and misbehavior in office,
d) Non-surrender of MHA ID card even after being suspended,
e) MHA has issued letter to all government buildings to seize his ID card,
f) Writing on social media against officers and government."
21. The contention of the respondents that FR 56 (j) has not been invoked as a punitive measure despite pending disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and stating that the applicant has been prematurely retired only on the ground of non-performance, inefficiency and insubordination is untenable. It is precisely for these grounds of insubordination that two charge memos dated 21.06.2021 and 21.07.2023 have been served upon the applicant and disciplinary proceedings have not been fully completed at the time of passing of the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (J) on 11.08.2023. The perusal of their Internal Representation Committee reveals that the respondents have invoked FR 56(j) based on the grounds mentioned in Para 20 of this order.
22. The respondents have also prepared the details of misconduct of the applicant in the form of a tabular sheet for the perusal of the Internal and Review Committee, which we are reproducing below:-
ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ S. Memo No. and Date Description Remarks 05'30' N.
1. Office Memorandum Sri Suhail Fasih was Director Ministry No. HQ/316/2015- transferred/posted of Corporate 26 O.A. No. 4835/2024 Compt of Ministry of from NIC Cell, Ministry Affairs informed Corporate Affairs, vide Order No. that he had a GoI, New Delhi dated 17(1)/2016-Pers. consistent track 01.06.216 Dated 16.02.2016 record of from Sri Suhail Fasih misbehaving regarding his with officers and representation to staff of Ministry cancel/set aside of Corporate transfer order from Affairs, including Ministry of Corporate with senior Affairs. In this context, officers such as Director, Ministry of Joint Secretary Corporate Affairs and Secretary, wrote to DG NIC Ministry of asking not to post Shri Corporate Affairs Suhail Fasih back to himself.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
2 1(10/NIC/2016- For willful He was directed Adm.I insubordination to report for duty 29.04.2016 at NIC-DGFT 3 1(10/NIC/2016- For willful He was informed Adm.I insubordination to that he is liable 08.06.2016 lawful and reasonable for disciplinary order of a superior, act action.
in discourteous
manner and directly
submitting
representation to the
higher authorities
without following the
prescribed channel
4 1(10/NIC/2016- Memo was issued in Competent
Adm.I reference to aforesaid authority
05.05.2016 memo at Sr. No.3 constituted a
committee to
examine the
case. The
committee
submitted its
report and
recommended
that he should
join his place of
posting (i.e. NIC-
Cell DGFT)
immediately.
5 1(10/NIC/2016- Memo was issued Sh. Suhel Fasih
Adm.I Towards non- did not report to
ANJALI 16.08.2017 compliance of the NIC-Cell, DGFT.
ANJALI
2025.12.17 posting order He was directed
11:59:26+
05'30' to report on duty
at NIC-Cell,
DGFT
immediately
27
O.A. No. 4835/2024
failing which
disciplinary
administrative
action would be
initiated against
him.
6 1(09/2018-DC-VIG Memo was issued Sh. Suhel Fasih
10.12.2018 Towards non- not reported to
compliance of the NIC-Computer
posting order Cell, DGFT,
Adm-I was
requested by Dy.
Director to
inform about
stopping of his
salary due to
non-reporting on
duty at DGFT.
7 PF/4602/NIC/2019/ Memo was issued due He was also
Admin.I to non-compliance of warned that FR
28.01.2020 posting order. He was 17(I) would be
directed to report for invoked in
duty immediately. respect of his
unauthorized
absence.
8 PF/4602/NIC/2019/ Memo was issued to Process for
Admin.I him for not performing invoking FR
dated 10.02.2020 duties anywhere either 17(1) was
at NIC-MINES or at initiated and his
NIC-DGFT. Salary was
stopped by
invoking FR
17(1).
9 PF/4602/NIC/2019/ Memo was issued to He was directed
Admin.I him for not performing to report for duty
29.06.2020 his duties. immediately at
NIC-DGFT so
that his salary
can be restored.
10 F.No. 17(10)/2019/P- Issued by the Deputy He was informed
I Director (Pers.) MeitY that salary may
21.08.2020 be resumed after
he reports to NIC
Cell DGFT in
compliance of
NIC order.
11 PF/4602/NIC/2020/ He was informed by He was also
Admin.I the Deputy Director informed that
04.01.2021 (Admin.) that his increment of
ANJALI salary was restored July 2020 would
ANJALI
2025.12.17
11:59:26+
w.e.f. the date of be released on
05'30' joining at DGFT i.e. the outcome of
26.08.2020. disciplinary case
against his
absence upto
28
O.A. No. 4835/2024
25.08.2020 with
Vigilance Sction.
12 1(7)/2022/DC-VIG As Shri Suail Fasih Later on by the
18.05.2022 was detained in order
police/judicial custody No.1(7)/2022/D
for a period exceeding C-Vig. Dated
forty eight hours so he 14.07.2022, the
was deemed to have suspension was
been suspended from revoked.
the date of detention
in police/judicial
custody i.e. w.e.f.
22.03.2022.
13 15(3)/2022- He was requested to He did not join at
Adm/UPSU join at NIC Budaun, Badaun, UP.
22.11.2022 UP in compliance of
his transfer order
no.17(04)/2022-
Pers/3143732/16842
Dt. 29.09.2022.
14 I(29)/2022-VIG He was suspended Presently under
01.12.2022 w.e.f. 25.11.2022. As suspension.
per the order-During
the period that this
order shall remain in
force the headquarters
of Shri Suhail Fasih
should be new Delhi
and he shall not leave
the headquarters
without obtaining the
previous permission of
competent authority.
23. From the above, it is evident that there are two charge-memos issued against the applicant dated 21.06.2021 and 21.07.2023 apart from nine memos. In addition, FIR Case No. 6874/17 and 271/13 were lodged against him for misbehaviour on 22.03.2022 under Sections 452/354/323/504/506 of the IPC. He was also arrested and kept under judicial custody on 22.03.2022 for a period exceeding 48 hours. Certainly, all these factors have weighed very heavily in the mind of the respondents, as is evident from the papers connected with the Internal and Review ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ 05'30' Committee.
29 O.A. No. 4835/202424. Meanwhile, we have come across a judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 28.05.2025 in WP (C) No. 1823/2021 titled Ajay Kumar Sharma v Commissioner, SDMC & Anr. The Hon'ble High Court after having discussed the entire case law concerning compulsory retirement under 56(j), especially with reference to the following cases :
(i) Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 299
(ii) Rajesh Gupta v State of J & K, (2013) 3 SCC 514
(iii) Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 56
(iv) CISF v Om Prakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100
(v) Pramod Kumar Bajaj V/s. UoI. & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022
(vi) Nand Kumar Verma v State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580
(vii) State of Gujarat v Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314
(viii) Jugal Chander Setia v State of Assam, (2003) 4 SCC 59
(ix) Officers Association v Allahabad Bank, (1996) 4 SCC 504 have laid down the following principles regarding invoking FR 56(j) and compulsorily retiring a Government servant :-
"(i) The scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory retirement, is fairly limited.
(ii) Compulsory retirement involves no penal consequences.
(iii) At the same time, if unlimited discretion is permitted to the administration in the matter of passing orders of compulsory retirement, it would be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonable, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal.
(iv) The exercise of power to compulsory retire an officer must be bona fide and to promote public interest.
ANJALI 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ (v) It is permissible to lift the veil in order to ascertain whether an 05'30' order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant and whether the order has been made bona fide without any oblique and extraneous purpose.
30 O.A. No. 4835/2024(vi) A bona fide order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion has not been informed, the decision is based on collateral factors or is arbitrary.
(vii) The court cannot sit in appeal over an order of compulsory retirement, but can interfere if it is satisfied that the order is passed mala fide, or is based on no evidence, or is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion in the given material.
(viii) The object of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment, aims at weeding out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service, and dispensing with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.
(ix) If the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the government servant or contains any statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, it would be treated as an order of punishment, attracting Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. If, however, the order of compulsory retirement refers only to an assessment of his work and does not cast an aspersion on his conduct or character, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be treated as an order of punishment. The test would be the manner in which a reasonable person would read or understand the order of compulsory retirement.
(x) FR 56(j) does not require any opportunity to show cause to be provided before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.
(xi) Before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into account.
(xii) The gradings in the ACRs of the officer are relevant. The performance of the officer in later years, including the gradings granted in later years, would be of greater relevance than those in earlier years. Where the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as being "beyond doubt", or grade him "outstanding" or "very good", it is an important factor in favour of the officer, and would, in a given case, vitiate the order of compulsory retirement, unless it is shown that, between the last such entry and the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, there was sudden and unexplained deterioration in the performance of the officer.
(xiii) Uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACRs of the officer can also be taken into account before passing an order of compulsory retirement.
(xiv) Grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record is a factor operating in favour of the officer. Promotion to a higher post notwithstanding adverse remarks result in the adverse remarks losing their sting.
(xv) The fact that the officer was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, ANJALI or was granted promotion after the events which formed the 2025.12.17 ANJALI 11:59:26+ basis of the order of compulsory retirement, is also a relevant 05'30' consideration.
(xvi) The subjective satisfaction of the authority passing an order of compulsory retirement must be based on valid material.
31 O.A. No. 4835/2024(xvii) Compulsory retirement is not required to be by a speaking order.
(xviii) The principle of audi alteram partem has no application in the case of compulsory retirement."
25. Definitely this Tribunal cannot be a superior authority over this Internal and Review Committee and we are conscious of the fact that the scope of our interference in 56(j) is very limited. However, as we are guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra), Umedbhai Patel (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), it is permissible for us to lift the veil in order to ascertain whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the Government servant, and whether the order has been bona fide, without any oblique or extraneous considerations. A bona fide order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion has not been informed, the decision is based not on collateral factors or is arbitrary. We cannot improve upon the well reasoned and cogent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra), Umedbhai Patel (supra) and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) and we find that this order of compulsory retirement has been passed to short cut the process of disciplinary proceedings against this applicant which is violative of the guidelines contained in the DOPT OM dated 28.08.2020 which we have quoted in detail in Para 8 of this order.
26. Under these circumstances, the O.A. is allowed with the following directions:-
ANJALI ANJALI 2025.12.17 11:59:26+
(i) The impugned orders dated 11.08.2023 and 07.11.2024 05'30' are quashed and set aside;32 O.A. No. 4835/2024
(ii) The respondents are directed to restore the applicant to his original position in the cadre without any break in service with all consequential benefits keeping in view the rules and law on the subject.
(iii) The above orders shall be implemented within 06 weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B.Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/anjali/
ANJALI
2025.12.17
ANJALI
11:59:26+
05'30'