Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rinku Dhugga vs Home Affairs on 8 August, 2025
Item No. 33/C-1 1 OA No. 3636/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 3636/2024
Reserved on: 30.07.2025
Pronounced on: 08.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Rinku Dhugga
W/o Shri Sanjeev Khirwar
Aged 54 years
R/o C-II/195, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi-110021
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankur Chhibber with Mr. Nikunj Arora with Ms.
Muskan Dutta)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
Government of India
North Block New Delhi-110001
3. The Joint Secretary (UT)
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh
Civil Secretariat
Block No. 2, 5th Floor, Itanagar
Arunachal Pradesh-791111 .....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.N. Verma for R-1 to R-3 with Dept.
Representative Shri Alok Kumar for Shri Anil Srivastava for R-4)
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 2 OA No. 3636/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. Quash and set aside the Memorandum dated 26.03.2024, 07.08.2023, 08.08.2023 whereby the Applicant has been prematurely retired under Rule 16 (3) of the All India Services (Death cum Retirement benefits) Rules, 1958 and the memorial dated 06.09.2023 submitted to the Hon‟ble President of India has been rejected.
ii. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant back into service with all consequential benefits."
FACTS OF THE CASE AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT
2. Applicant joined the Indian Administrative Service in September 1994 and was allocated the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa- Mizoram-and Union Territories Cadre (hereinafter referred to as ‗AGMUT Cadre'). She was granted the Senior Scale in the year 1998, Junior Administrative Grade in 2003, Selection Grade in 2007, and Super Time Scale in 2010.
2.1 At the relevant time, the applicant was serving as Secretary in the Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and her husband, Mr. Sanjeev Khirwar, was posted as the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. Certain allegations surfaced against her husband and were widely reported in the media. Although in respect to above incident, no allegations were levelled against the applicant, however, she was nonetheless transferred to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, vide order dated 26.5.2022, where she joined on 27.06.2022 (Annexure A4).
2.2 Further although the applicant submitted an application dated 28.6.2022 (Annexure A6) for grant of Earned Leave from 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022, however, due to non-available of the her service book, order had not been issued by the respondents. Thereafter, she applied for extension of leave in the form of 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 3 OA No. 3636/2024 Extraordinary Leave (Ex-India) for the period from 29.7.2022 to 15.9.2022 vide email dated 23.7.2022 (Annexure A-7). Again due to non-availability of her service book, order had not been issued by the respondents. However, only on receipt of the service book of the applicant, the respondents came to know that she had only 73 days Earned Leave and 410 Half Pay Leave and, therefore, no order against her aforesaid requests for EL and Ex-India leave was issued. Thereafter, upon coming to know about her leave position, on 04.11.2022 (Annexure A12) the applicant submitted a revised request seeking grant of Earned Leave of 73 days w.e.f. 30.6.2022 to 10.09.2022 and Half Pay Leave for remaining six days w.e.f. 11.09.2022 to 16.09.2022. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a letter dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure A13) addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh seeking details regarding the applicant's leave status. In response to the said letter, the Under Secretary (Personnel), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh wrote a letter dated 2.12.2022 (Annexure A14) to the Under Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, informed about the leave status of the applicant and further that she had not submitted her joining report to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.
2.3 Thereafter, in respect to letter received from MHA dated 8.12.2022, the Under Secretary (Personnel), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, again appraised the above status of applicant's leave applications and also clarified that the leave application submitted by the applicant was under process for consideration of the State Government. Notwithstanding the same, the MHA issued a Memorandum dated 30.12.2022 (Annexure A16) to the applicant calling upon her to explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her for proceeding Ex-India Leave on personal grounds without prior approval of the competent authority. A similar Memorandum dated 7.2.2023 (Annexure A17) was also issued by the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the applicant for explaining her stand. The applicant 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 4 OA No. 3636/2024 submitted her replies to both memoranda vide her replies dated 20.2.2023 (Annexure A18) and 28.2.2023 (Annexure A19).
2.4 Despite not being the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the MHA proceeded to issue a chargesheet against the applicant under Rule 18 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 vide Memorandum dated 27.2.2023 (Annexure A20). The applicant submitted her reply to the said chargesheet on 03.04.2023 (Annexure A21). Upon completion of her aforesaid leave, the applicant resumed duties with the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 24.04.2023 (Annexure A-
22).
2.5 Thereafter the applicant again applied for Extraordinary Leave (Ex-India) from 25.07.2023 to 27.12.2023 on account of her son's medical condition. The said leave was duly approved by the competent authority vide order dated 13.7.2023 (Annexure A23). While the proceedings under Rule 18 of the Rules ibid were still pending, the respondents issued an order dated 07.08.2023, by invoking the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958 retired the applicant prematurely (Annexure A1 Colly.) and the said decision of the competent authority was communicated to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh by the MHA vide order dated 8.8.2023 (Annexure A1 Colly.).
2.6 Aggrieved by the said order of compulsory retirement, the applicant submitted a statutory memorial to the Hon'ble President of India. However, the same was rejected by the Competent Authority through the impugned order dated 26.3.2024. Hence, this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
3. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the same was passed without proper examination of the relevant records and reflects complete non-
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 5 OA No. 3636/2024
application of mind. Further the applicant was prematurely retired purportedly in public interest, primarily on the basis of adverse remarks allegedly recorded by superior authorities. However, the applicant's APARs have consistently been graded as ―Outstanding‖ or ―Very Good‖, and there are no adverse entries recorded in her ACRs.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that one of the grounds cited in the impugned order dated 26.3.2024 is that the applicant had repeatedly proceeded on ex-India leave without prior sanction or approval of the Competent Authority. This allegation, as submitted by the applicant's learned counsel, is factually incorrect and contrary to the record, as the applicant had always sought and obtained requisite approval before proceeding on such leave.
3.2 Learned counsel also argued that in the impugned order dated 25.3.2024 the respondents had alleged that the applicant had not been promoted for a long time and had not been empanelled with the Government of India. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that except for promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade, the applicant had been promoted on due dates. Further, that empanelment with the Government of India is neither mandatory nor automatic for all officers of the All India Services. It is a selective process based on merit and subject to availability of limited vacancies. Therefore, non-empanelment cannot be construed as an adverse remark or deficiency on the part of the applicant.
3.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the allegation of prolonged unauthorised absence is unsustainable as there is no such entry in the applicant's service book. For the alleged unauthorized absence, a charge sheet dated 27.2.2023 was issued by the MHA. However, the said charge sheet had already been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in OA No.681/2024. As such the Competent Authority could not have 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 6 OA No. 3636/2024 treated the said period as unauthorised absence without considering the outcome of the enquiry proceedings.
3.4 With regard to the allegation of multiple vigilance cases pending against the applicant, learned counsel submitted that the only charge sheet pending was the one dated 27.02.2023, which, as noted above, stands quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 7.5.2025 in OA No.681/2024. Therefore, the assertion of multiple pending vigilance cases is factually incorrect.
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the impugned order dated 26.3.2024 is apparently based on the Minutes of the Meeting of the Review Committee held on 25.03.2023, wherein the records of 321 officers were examined. However, it is significant to note that only the case of the applicant was segregated and recommended for compulsory retirement. The agenda of the Committee, as per the Minutes, was to undertake an analytical assessment based on ACRs/APARs, material records, and any proposed, initiated, or concluded action in respect of misconduct or criminal cases. However, the Committee's selective recommendation in respect of the applicant, without proper application of the prescribed criteria, renders the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENTS Nos.1 to 34. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 drew attention to the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 19.12.2024 wherein they have stated that the applicant is a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of 1994 batch of Joint AGMUT cadre. She was transferred from Delhi to Arunachal Pradesh vide the Ministry's Order dated 26.05.2022. The applicant joined the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 27.06.2022. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh posted the applicant as Principal Secretary (Indigenous Affairs) vide their order dated 05.07.2022. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide letter 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 7 OA No. 3636/2024 dated 15.12.2022 intimated that the applicant, vide her letter dated 28.07.2022, requested to sanction 79 days of Earned Leave w.e.f. 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022. However, the EL so requested by the applicant was not approved by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the applicant, after proceeding on the aforesaid EL, further requested through email dated 23.07.2022, to sanction ex- India Leave for 49 days w.e.f 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022 to visit USA i.e. within the period of 79 days of EL earlier applied for. However, the Competent Authority did not sanction the ex-India leave requested by the officer. Para 3(c) of the General Conditions for Ex- India Leave laid down in DoP&T's letter No. 11019/06/2001-AIS- III dated 05.12.2007 (Annx.-R/1) provides that in case where a member of service proceeds for abroad visit without obtaining necessary cadre clearance, the period of his absence shall be treated as ‗dies non' apart from other consequences under the service rules.
4.1 Further as per the DoP&T's OM dated 27.07.2015, regarding Government servant application for leave for going abroad on a private visit, the decision is to be conveyed to the Government servants within 21 days of receipt of complete application to the competent authority. Any lacunae in the application should be brought to the notice of the Government Servant within one week of the receipt of the application. In the event of failure on the part of the competent authority to communicate its decision to the Government employee concerned within 21 days of receipt of the application, the employee concerned shall be free to assume that permission has been granted. In other words, the applicant should have waited for 21 days to find the status of her application. In the instant case, applicant proceeded on Ex-India Leave on 07.08.2022 i.e. without waiting for even 21 days for approval. It is also stated that she had applied for Ex-India Leave w.e.f. 29.07.2022 but she proceeded on Ex-India Leave w.e.f. 07.08.2022 without approval and intimation of the Competent Authority. Thus, the applicant 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 8 OA No. 3636/2024 violated the extant guidelines of DoP&T dated 27.07.2015 (Annx.- R/2).
4.2 The respondent Ministry noticed that the applicant has left the country without prior approval of the Competent Authority. Therefore, the respondent Ministry issued a Memorandum/ Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2022 to the applicant, directing her to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the Memorandum as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her for proceeding on Ex-India leave without prior approval of the Competent Authority, including treating the period of her foreign visit as ‗dies-non' within the meaning of para 3(c) of the General Conditions for Ex-India Leave laid down in DoP&T's letter dated 05.12.2007 (Memorandum/Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2022) (Annx.-R/3).
4.3 The respondent Ministry, vide Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 (Annx.-R/4), decided that the entire period of the applicant's unauthorized ex-India leave, w.e.f. 07.08.2022 to the date of joining the cadre, shall be treated as ‗dies non' and will not be counted as qualifying service for any purpose i.e. increments, leave and pension, in terms of para 3(c) of the General Conditions for Ex-India Leave laid down in DoP&T's letter dated 05.12.2007. Further, the period of ‗dies non' will neither be treated as break in Service nor as forfeiture of past service and also not be treated as a penalty under the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
4.4 Keeping in view the guidelines in para 3 (c) of the General Conditions for Ex-India Leave laid down in DoP&T letter dated 05.12.2007, the respondent Ministry issued a Charge-sheet dated 27.02.2023 (Annx.-R/5) with the following article of charge against the applicant:-
"Article-1 "Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS while posted with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh committed gross misconduct by travelling 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 9 OA No. 3636/2024 abroad without approval of the Competent Authority during August, 2022 to February, 2023. Ms. Dhugga has applied for Ex- India Leave from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022 which was not approved by the Competent Authority, However, Ms. Dhugga proceeded unauthorized and left the country on 07.08.2022 and returned on 01.01.2023. However, she did not report for duty in Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, again she left the country on 25.01.2023 without prior intimation and approval of the Competent Authority.
Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT:1994), by her aforesaid act, exhibited lack of integrity, lack of devotion to dutyamounting to unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated Rule 3 of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968."
4.5 In response to the said charge sheet, the applicant, vide letter dated 02.04.2023 submitted her reply, wherein she requested, inter alia, that her application for Ex-India leave may kindly be formally sanctioned on humanitarian grounds and also requested to withdraw the Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Respondent Ministry.
4.6 Thereafter, the Competent Authority in the respondent Ministry rejected the representation of the applicant and appointed the Inquiring Authority (IA) and Presenting Officer (PO) vide two separate Orders dated 02.08.2023 to inquire the matter. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an OA No. 681/2024 before this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the said charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2023. This Tribunal vide its interim order dated 22.02.2024 directed the respondent (MHA) not to proceed any further with respect to the said charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2023.
4.7 Thereafter a meeting of duly constituted Review Committee was convened by the respondent Ministry on 21.03.2023 to conduct an intensive review of the service records of IAS/IPS officers of Joint AGMUT Cadre, as required in terms of Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 read with the instructions in DoP&T's letter No. 25013/02/2005-AIS.II dated 28.06.2012. Accordingly, the Review Committee conducted an intensive review of the overall service records of 121 eligible IAS officers and 137 eligible IPS officers of Joint AGMUT Cadre, 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 10 OA No. 3636/2024 including the applicant. The Committee, after detailed and objective scrutiny of applicant's overall service records spanning a period of more than 29 years, including the details relating to adverse remarks recorded by the supervisory authorities regarding performance, repeated instances of ex-India leave without prior sanction/clearance of the Competent Authority, non-promotion over a long period, non-empanelment with the Government of India and long period of unauthorized absence from duty, was of the considered view that the applicant is not fit to continue in Government service. The Committee also recommended that the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against her shall not come in the way of prematurely retiring the officer in public interest and that the disciplinary proceedings can continue after the officer's premature retirement from service in public interest after which an appropriate penalty can be imposed on her terminal benefits. Accordingly, the Review Committee recommended that the applicant may be prematurely retired from service, an administrative decision recommended in public interest and not amounting to a penalty, under Rule 16 (3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 to be read with DoP&T's letter No. 25013/02/2005-AIS.II dated 28.06.2012. The recommendations of the Review Committee were approved by the Competent Authority in the respondent Ministry, and the proposal was then forwarded to the Central Government (DoP&T) for taking a final decision. The DoP&T vide their Order dated 07.08.2023, conveyed the approval of the Competent Authority for the premature retirement of the applicant, in public interest, not amounting to a penalty, under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, with immediate effect by giving three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The aforesaid order dated 07.08.2023 was served upon the applicant vide the respondent Ministry's letter dated 08.08.2023.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 11 OA No. 3636/2024
4.8 The applicant submitted a Memorial dated 06.09.2023 to
the Hon'ble President of India, as permitted under Rule 25 (1) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969, questioning therewith the legality of the order of premature retirement from service, requesting that the said order of premature retirement from service may be quashed and that she may be reinstated in service. Considering that the aforesaid Memorial dated 06.09.2023 was preferred against the Order dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Central Govt. (DoP&T), the Respondent Ministry furnished a concise statement of facts, along with its opinion, to the Central Govt., for taking a final decision on the memorial, in terms of Rule 25 (4) and 25 (5) of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969. Upon examination of the Memorial submitted by the applicant, the concise statement of facts and opinion of the Respondent Ministry, and the overall facts & circumstances of the case, the Central Govt. i.e. DoP&T, vide Order dated 26.03.2024, rejected the memorial submitted by the applicant.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS
5. In response to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the applicant filed a rejoinder on 06.02.2025, wherein she reiterated the averments made in the Original Application and denied the contents of the counter reply. It was submitted that none of the reasons now sought to be justified in the counter affidavit were actually stated in the impugned order. The newly introduced grounds, it was contended, are a clear afterthought, intended to bolster the respondents' case. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, wherein it was held that the validity of an administrative order must be judged solely by the reasons stated in the order itself, and the same cannot be supplemented by additional reasons in subsequent affidavits or explanations. Any such supplementation, the Apex Court warned, 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 12 OA No. 3636/2024 would allow an order bad at inception to be validated ex post facto by fresh grounds.
5.1 It was further submitted that the reply to the applicant's memorial clearly indicates that the impugned order passed under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, was based on a gross misrepresentation of facts by the MHA before the Competent Authority. Contrary to what has been suggested, there was no vigilance case pending against the applicant, nor was there any prolonged period of unauthorised absence--except for the charge memorandum dated 07.08.2023, issued a mere two weeks before the Review Committee meeting, by an authority alleged to be incompetent. Notably, this charge memorandum has already been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.05.2025. The respondents' failure to mention any pending vigilance case in the counter reply further undermines the foundational basis of the impugned order. When the very premise of an order is legally untenable, the entire edifice built upon it cannot survive.
5.2 It was further submitted that the respondents' counter reply is replete with allegations and references to events from the early years of the applicant's career, which reveals a clear intent to malign and punish the applicant, rather than conduct an objective review in the public interest. Such selective targeting runs contrary to the settled legal position that an order under Rule 16(3) is not punitive in nature, as repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5.3 The applicant reiterated that the impugned order dated 07.08.2023, approving her compulsory retirement, was passed under the purported ground of ‗public interest' under Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid. However, the grounds cited therein are not only factually inaccurate but legally unsustainable.
5.4 The applicant specifically disputed the respondent's assertion that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by letter 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 13 OA No. 3636/2024 dated 15.12.2022, had stated that the applicant had applied for 79 days of Earned Leave vide letter dated 28.07.2022. It was submitted that this is a clear misreading of the record, as the relevant leave application was dated 28.06.2022. The leave requested, including ex-India leave, was in fact approved by the Competent Authority. Moreover, as per the DoPT's Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2015, in the absence of any communication of defect within 7 days or a decision within 21 days, the leave application is deemed to have been approved. The State Government's correspondence dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 clarifies that the delay in issuance of a formal leave order was solely due to the non-receipt of the applicant's service book from the Government of NCT of Delhi. These communications affirm that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was willing to grant the leave and that there was no refusal or objection conveyed to the applicant at any stage.
5.5 It was further submitted that the invocation of Rule 16(3) in the present case was unwarranted, particularly since the absence of the applicant was duly approved and does not fall within the ambit of the said Rule. Without prejudice, it was also pointed out that the respondents' reliance on Annexure R-1 dated 05.12.2007 is misplaced, as clause 2(i) thereof explicitly states that for private visits abroad, no approval of the Cadre Controlling Authority is required.
5.6 As regards the allegation that the applicant proceeded on ex- India leave on 07.08.2022 without awaiting a decision, it was submitted that the DoPT O.M. dated 27.07.2015 places the onus on the authority to communicate any defect within 7 days and a decision within 21 days. The applicant had applied for such leave on 23.07.2022 and departed only after a lapse of more than two weeks, in the absence of any communication. Her request was necessitated by her need to take care of her ailing son, which was clearly explained in her application. Further, she had met the Hon'ble 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 14 OA No. 3636/2024 Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh on 28.06.2022 and obtained sanction for leave from 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022 from the Chief Secretary.
5.7 The charge sheet issued on 27.02.2023, which pertained to this period, has already been quashed by this Tribunal on 07.05.2025. It was argued that since the authority issuing the charge memorandum lacked jurisdiction, it could not form part of the applicant's service record for the purpose of Rule 16(3) review.
5.8 It was further contended that the respondents have violated their own Office Memorandum dated 28.06.2012, which lays down the procedure for invoking Rule 16(3). As per the said O.M., there must be a review of the officer's efficiency and performance over the preceding five years. If adverse findings emerge, the State Government must first constitute a Review Committee and forward its recommendations to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which would then take an independent view. In the instant case, no such recommendation was made by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Furthermore, the applicant's APARs for the relevant period were all rated ‗Outstanding', which negates any presumption of deterioration in efficiency.
5.9 It was submitted that when the respondents realised that the charge memorandum would not withstand judicial scrutiny, they sought to short-circuit the process by invoking Rule 16(3) as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings. An alleged Review Committee meeting was held on 21.03.2023 wherein records of 121 IAS and 137 IPS officers of the AGMUT cadre were reportedly reviewed. However, only the applicant was singled out for compulsory retirement. The arbitrary nature of this process is evident from the fact that no action was taken against other officers who had FIRs registered against them and otherwise met the criteria for removal under the same O.M. To illustrate this, the applicant cited the cases of: (1) Ms. Varsha Joshi (AGMUT 1995), 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 15 OA No. 3636/2024 against whom FIR No. 0287 dated 12.06.2020 at P.S. Narela Industrial Area was registered, and who was prematurely repatriated from MCD for causing embarrassment to the Government of NCT of Delhi; and Ms. Geetanjali Gupta (AGMUT 1996), against whom FIR No. 0145 dated 21.06.2021 at P.S. Anand Vihar is pending.
5.10 The applicant submitted that the action taken against her is a blatant abuse of Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid and the procedure outlined in the O.M. dated 28.06.2012. It is evidently punitive in nature, intended to circumvent due process of law and ongoing departmental proceedings, which were in any case stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2024. In view of the foregoing, it was contended that the applicant's service record, including her service book and APARs, contains no material that could justify action under Rule 16(3) of the Rules. On the contrary, her consistent promotions and ‗Outstanding' APARs over the preceding five years establish her continued competence. The decision to compulsorily retire her, despite the existence of officers with far more serious allegations against them, clearly reveals a mala fide intent to victimize the applicant under the guise of public interest.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.4, i.e., Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh
6. The respondent No.4 has filed a detailed reply wherein it is stated that the applicant's leave application for a total of 79 days could not be sanctioned by the Competent Authority due to non- availability of the applicant's Service Book and Leave Account at the relevant time. In the purported "copy of approval of leave application", the remark "approved" was merely a recommendation made by the Controlling Officer, who had forwarded the file to the Secretary (Personnel) for obtaining formal approval from the Competent Authority. This endorsement, however, cannot be construed as a final or valid sanction of the leave. As per the prescribed procedure, leave applications are to be examined with 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 16 OA No. 3636/2024 reference to the entries in the Service Book and Leave Account of the officer concerned and thereafter placed before the Competent Authority for a decision. Only upon such consideration is the final sanction or denial communicated to the officer concerned.
6.1 It is further stated that in the present case, after receipt of the Service Book/Leave Account from the Government of NCT of Delhi, the matter was duly processed, and ex-post facto approval was granted for 38 days of Earned Leave, i.e., from 30.06.2022 to 06.08.2022, along with station leave permission, as communicated vide order dated 24.06.2023 (Annexure-B). The remaining period was treated as ‗Dies Non' through a separate communication. It is further submitted that the applicant had sought 49 days of Ex-India Leave from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022, which fell within the originally requested 79 days Earned Leave period (Annexure-C). However, the same could not be granted due to the unavailability of the Service Book and Leave Account at the relevant time. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide letter dated 07.02.2023 (Annexure-D), informed the Ministry of Home Affairs that the said leave had neither been sanctioned by the State Government nor had the officer submitted any report of having availed it. It came to the notice of the State Government that the applicant had proceeded on Ex-India Leave to the USA for the period from 07.08.2022 to 23.04.2023, without prior approval of the Competent Authority. Treating the matter seriously, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued a show cause notice to the applicant. Subsequently, the entire period of unauthorized absence was declared as ‗Dies Non' pursuant to MHA Memo dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure-E), which was duly followed by the State Government's order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure-F).
6.2 It is also submitted that although the State Government had anticipated that, upon receipt of the leave account, the leave might be regularized, it was eventually found that the Earned Leave balance was insufficient to cover the period requested. The letter 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 17 OA No. 3636/2024 issued in this regard (Annexure-G) was not an acknowledgment of any leave having been sanctioned; rather, it merely conveyed the inability of the State Government to process the leave application due to the absence of the Leave Account of the applicant. It does not, either expressly or impliedly, constitute sanction of leave by the Competent Authority.
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.4
7. In response to the reply of respondent no.4, the applicant has filed rejoinder in which the applicant has stated that she had applied for Earned Leave w.e.f. 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022 and later applied for ex-India leaves from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022, which were approved by the Competent Authority, however, a formal order was not passed as they were awaiting the service book of the applicant. The said fact is also confirmed from the replies/clarifications dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the MHA.
7.1 Further the remark "approved" was recommended by the Controlling Officer who endorsed the file to the Secretary (Personnel) for obtaining due approval of the Competent Authority rather it could only be the Acting Chief Secretary who could have done the same. As such it is denied that the said EL and ex-India leaves applied by the applicant were not approved by the Competent Authority. The same were deemed to have been approved as per the Office Memorandum dated 27.07.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (Establishment Division). The relevant part of the said OM is reproduced hereinbelow:
"2. Keeping the above in view, it has been decided that requests for permission for private visits abroad may be processed in the attached formats. As clarified vide the OM dated 1st September, 2008, the competent authority for granting permission will be as per instructions issued by the Cadre Authority/administrative Ministry/Department. In the absence of any such instructions, it is the leave sanctioning authority. In case due to specific nature of work in a Department, 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 18 OA No. 3636/2024 administrative exigencies, or some adverse factors against the Government servant etc., it is not expedient to grant permission to the Government servant, such decision for refusal should not be taken below the level of Head of Department. It may be ensured that the decisions are conveyed to the Government servants within 21 days of receipt of complete application to the competent authority. Any lacunae in the application should be brought to the notice of the Government servant within one week of the receipt of the application. In the event of failure on the part of the competent authority to communicate its decision to the Government employee concerned with 21 days of receipt of the application, the employee concerned shall be free to assume that permission has been granted to him."
7.2 It is further submitted that when the Respondents themselves accept that the leave application of the applicant was approved as ―recommended‖ then it is clear that there was no objection on the said leaves sought by the applicant. Therefore, it is vehemently denied that the said recommendation in light of the above stated OM cannot be treated as final approval of leave as the same was deemed approved. It is further stated that the Sanction Order dated 24.06.2023 has come up, without prejudice, in suspicious circumstances where the same has never been part of the replies/clarifications issued by the Respondent No.4 to the MHA nor it was communicated to the applicant anytime before the filing of the present reply. Additionally, the sanctioning of the part of the total leaves by the Respondent No.4 i.e. 38 out 79 is erroneous in as much as one part of the leave cannot be denied and the other part be accepted that too without any reason especially when the Earned Leaves and the Half Paid Leaves were communicated the applicant as is apparent from the letter dated 15.12.2022. It is further reiterated that the applicant had applied for Earned Leave w.e.f. 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022 and later applied for ex-India Leaves from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022, which were approved by the Competent Authority, however, a formal order was not passed as they were waiting for the service book of the applicant. Also, the contents of the said paras of the reply with the clarification issued by the Respondent in its reply dated 02.12.2022 and letter dated 15.12.2022 clearly shows that formal order of grant of leave was not 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 19 OA No. 3636/2024 being issued as the Service Book of the applicant had not been received from the Government of NCT Delhi and not for any other reason. It is submitted, without prejudice, that in view of the sanction order dated 24.06.2023, all the leaves applied and in question of the applicant stand sanctioned as the leaves other than those 38 days in the sanctioned order are deemed sanctioned in light of the OM dated 27.07.2015.
7.3 It is further submitted that, however, it is necessary to mention that the said Memorandum dated 07.02.2023 with Subject ―Forwarding of reply in respect of Smt. Rinku Dhugga, IAS-reg.‖ clearly shows the non-grant of leave was due to the non-availability of the service book of the applicant. Further on perusal of the chronology events, it is evident that after the applicant applied for the said leaves, there was no objection on the said application of the applicant and as there was no objection and as such in light of the aforesaid OM dated 27.07.2015, it was deemed that her leaves were approved as no communication even after lapse of 21 days have been issued by the respondents. However, on 01.11.2022, a communication was received by the applicant stating that her leave period had expired on 16.09.2022. Upon receiving the said letter, the Applicant revised her request to sanction earned leave (ex- India) for 73 days upto 10.09.2022 and further requested that half pay leave (ex-India) may be sanctioned from 17.09.2022 to 01.06.2023 vide her letter dated 04.11.2022. Surprisingly, the MHA enquired about the joining and leaves of the applicant with the Respondent No.4 and multiple communications happened between the two regarding the same where the consistent stand of the Respondent No. 4 was that the sanctioning of the leave could not be granted due to non-availability of the service book of the applicant. Nonetheless, the Memorandum dated 30.12.2022 and subsequent Charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 was issued in excess of jurisdiction to the applicant by the MHA while addressing the Respondent No.4. Therefore, it is in this backdrop that the Show 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 20 OA No. 3636/2024 cause notice and the above stated Memorandum was issued by the Respondent No.4, only being an afterthought and offshoot of the unwarranted and illegal proceedings sought to be initiated by the MHA. Moreover, the reply to the said Show Cause Notice and Charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 issued by the MHA has already been submitted by the applicant, however, the record shall show that the Respondents failed to act at all on the same. Further the above chain of events brings one to an inevitable conclusion that the proceedings initiated against the applicant are undoubtedly punitive striking at the very root of the proceedings under Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid. It is important to highlight the fact that the document annexed in the said para, i.e., the letter dated 07.02.2023 has also suspiciously popped up without any knowledge to the applicant or to the MHA and more importantly has never been part of the proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, it is imperative that the Respondent may be put to strict proof of the same.
7.4 Further, the period declared as „dies-non‟ is illegal in light of the OM dated 27.07.2015 as there was no objection ever communicated or even taken on the leaves sought by the applicant. Therefore, such non-communication has to be read as deemed approved in light of the aforesaid OM.
CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
8. In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment dated 27.02.2001 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (civil) No.12652 of 2000 in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even otherwise, pendency of a departmental enquiry cannot be a ground to invoke Rule 16 (3) of the Rules ibid. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 03.12.1998 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 21 OA No. 3636/2024 of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 529, a case where the State Government had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in which it has been held that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent therein was bad, as there were no adverse entries in his Confidential Report and his integrity was not doubtful at any stage. Further reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated 01.02.2012 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.5921/2007 in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has once again highlighted the permissibility of ascertaining the existence of valid material by a court for the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement. Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments:- (i) Order/judgment dated 01.02.2012 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1458/2012 in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580; (ii) Order/judgment dated 30.04.2024 of the Tribunal in OA No. 2440/2023 in the matter of Gurjinder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr.; and the order of this Tribunal was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 10703/2024 in the matter of Union of India Vs. Gurjinder Pal Singh, and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 23.08.2024. The order of the Hon'ble High Court was further challenged by the respondents before Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24779/2024 in the matter of Union of India Vs. Gurjinder Pal Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment on 10.12.2024 has dismissed the said SLP and the judgment of Hon'ble Court of Delhi attained finality,; (iii) Order/judgment dated 03.04.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022 in the matter of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2023) 11 SCC 466; (iv) Order/judgment dated 03.04.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022 in the matter of 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 22 OA No. 3636/2024 Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2023) 11 SCC 466; (v) Order/judgment dated 28.05.2025 of Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 1823/2021 in the matter of Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC Online 3864.
9. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Order/judgment dated 19.09.1979 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977 in the matter of Union of India Vs. M. E. Reddy & Anr., reported in 1980 AIR 563; (ii) Order/judgment dated 03.04.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022 in the matter of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2023) 11 SCC 466; (iii) Order/judgment dated 10.09.2010 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 382/2003 in the matter of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SCC 3753; and (iv) Order/judgment dated 11.07.2014 of the Tribunal in OA No. 4293/2012 in the matter of J. K. Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
10. We have perused the pleadings available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the Orders/Judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsels for the respective parties carefully.
ANALYSIS
11. Since in the instant OA the applicant has challenged the impugned orders dated 7.8.2023 and 8.8.2023 compulsorily retiring the applicant, as also the order dated 26.3.2024 vide which her Memorial against the aforesaid orders of compulsory retirement was rejected by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension and the basis for passing the said orders 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 23 OA No. 3636/2024 was the recommendations of the Review Committee for intensive review of the service records of IAS Officers of Joint AGMUT cadre held on 21.3.2023, we deem fit to reproduce the same as under:-
"MINUTES OF THE 'MEETING OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR INTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE SERVICE RECORDS OF IAS OFFICERS OF JOINT AGMUT CADRE A meeting of the Review Committee was held on 21.03.2023 at 10:15 AM for intensive review of the service records of IAS officers of Joint AGMUT cadre, as required in terms of Rule 16(3) of the All India Serv ices (Death - cum- Retiremen t Ben efits) Rules, 1958 to be read w ith DoP&T's lette r No.25013/02/2005-AIS.II dated 28.06.2012. The composition of the Review Committee is as under:
1. Shri. Ajay -Kumar Bhalla, Union Home Secretary -Chairman .
2. Dr. Dharmendra S. Gangwar, Secretary (BM), MHA - Member,
3. Shri Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Member
4. Shri Khilli Ram Meena, Addl. Secretary & FA, M/o Rural Development; Govt. of India - Member
5. Shri Ashutosh Agnihotri, Joint Secretary (UT), MHA - Member Secretary
2. The Review Committee carefully perused, Rule 16(3) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 read with DoP&T 's l ett er N o .25 01 3 /02/20 05 - AI S .I I da te d 28.06 .2 01 2. T he C o m mit tee al so c on si de re d t he extant rules and instructions issued by the Govt. of India from time to time including the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs Umed Bhai M. Patel (civil appeal No 1561 of 2001) on premature retirement from service.
3. Acc ordingly, the Review C ommittee review ed the serv ice rec ords of 121 IAS office rs of j oint AGMUT cadre, who were eligible for review as on 31.12.2022, by grouping them: into two categories:
(i) Category-I: 76 IA S officers who have c ompleted 15 years of q ual ifying serv ice.
(ii) Category-II: 45 IAS officers who have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50, whichever is earlier, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The officer should have completed minimum 15 years of qualifying service.
(b) In the case of State Service Officers appointed to the All India Service by promotion or selection, they should have completed minimum 05 years of actual service in the respective All India Service.
4. The Review Committee was apprised about the overall service records of the IAS officers in the 02 c a t e g o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s u m m a r i z e d A C R s / A P A R s i n t h e y e a r s p r e c e d i n g t h e r e v i e w , a d v e r s e remarks', if any, recorded by the supervisory authorities, and status of promotion, empanelment, physical/mental health, integrity, and vigilance. The Committee was also informed about instances of officers being placed under s uspens ion, implicated in criminal cases, or subjec ted to disc iplinary inquiries. The issue of Ms. Padma Jaiswal, IAS (AGMUT:20 03) has not been considered as the case of her remov al from serv ice is pen ding in the Delhi High Court .
5. The Review Committee was of the considered view that prolonged unauthorized absence from office should be considered, as a criterion for rendering officers physically/mentally unfit for continuation in p ublic s erv ic e. T he C ommittee al so took n ote of cases of n on - in itiation or 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 24 OA No. 3636/2024 del ayed in itiation of PARs/AC Rs b y offic e rs for p r ol on ged o r mul ti p l e p erio ds , w it h t he s ame b ein g v iew e d as n on - seriousn ess tow ard official res p on s ib il ities . T he C ommittee c on cl uded that assessmen t of the s uit ab il ity of I A S of f ic e rs for ret en ti on , in p ub l ic serv ic e w o ul d b e b a sed on a c o mp reh en s iv e examination of their overall service records, with primary focus on the following aspects:
(a) A n al y ti c al a s s es s men t of p e rf o r m an c e b as e d on A C Rs/ A PA Rs an d m at e r i al in t h e p e rs on al records.
(b) A c ti on p r op os e d/ in i t i a te d / tak en in t he c on t ex t o f m i sc on d uc t or c r i m in al c as e .
6 . (i ) T he Rev iew C om mit tee , aft er p e rusal of t he ov e ral l serv i c e rec or ds , c a me to th e c on c l usion th at 1 20 out of the 1 21 IAS offic ers do n ot attrac t the p rov ision s for p remature retiremen t from serv ic e in p ubl ic in teres t an d are, therefore, suitabl e for c on tin ua tion in serv ice.
(ii) In the case of the remaining one IAS officer, namely Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994), the C o m m i t t e e w a s o f t h e c o n s i d e r e d view that comprehensive examination of her service records t h ro u g h o ut h e r t en u r e w as n ec es s ar y t o a sc e rt a in he r su i t ab il i ty fo r r et en t i on in s erv i c e .
7 . CASE REVIEW OF MS. R1NKU DHUGGA, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) N ame of t he offi ce r: Ms. Rin k u Dhugga Service: IAS, 1994 [RR] D ate of Bi rt h: 1 8.08.19 69 D at e of S u p e r an n u at i on : 3 1 . 08 .2 0 29 Current Grade: Super-Time Scale [Level 14 in the Pay Matrix] Posting: Princip al Sec retary, Departmen t of I ndigenous Affairs, Govt. of Arun achal Prades h [ O n u n a u t h o r i z e d a bs e n c e w . e . f. 3 0 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 2 ] 7 .1 AC R /A PA R gradin g s heet durin g s ervi ce PAR Period R e po r t i ng R e v i e w i n g A c c e p t i n g Remarks Year of PAR 1997-98 0 1 . 0 4 . 1 9 9 7 t o NRC Period treated as n o - r e p o r t 31.03.1998 period.
Supervisory authorities 1998-99 0 1 . 0 4 . 1 9 9 8 t o T i m e B ar r e d recorded a p p r a i s a l s 31.03.1999 b e y o n d t h e t i m e - frame stipulated in the AIS (CR) Rules, 1970 01.04.1999 to NRC Period does not exceed 90 15.06.1999 days.
Time Barred Self-appraisal report
16.06.1999 to s u b m i t t e d a f t e r a d e l ay
0 8 . 1 2. 1 9 9 9 o f 1 . 5 years
Date not appended by Supervisory
1999-00
authorities while recording
appraisal. Hence, it cannot
D e m i t te d be ascertained whether
Office ap p r ai s al s were r e co r ded
0 9 . 1 2. 1 9 9 9 t o w i th i n the time-frame
3 1 . 0 3 . 20 0 0
stipulated in the AIS (CR)
Rules, 1970
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 25 OA No. 3636/2024
PAR Period of R e po r t i ng Reviewing Accepting Remarks
Year PAR
Supervisory
0 1 . 0 4 . 20 0 0 t o Time Barred authorities recorded
2 0 . 0 8 . 20 0 0 appraisals beyond
the t i m e - frame
stipulated in the AIS
200-01
(CR) Rules, 1970
21 .0 8 .20 00 .- - - PAR not available in the
t o : 08 .1 2. 20 00 records
. 09.12.2000 Very Good Time Barred Time Reviewing Authority recorded
to:31.03.2001 Barred
. appraisal beyond the
time-frame stipulated
in the AIS (CR) Rules,
1970
01.04.2001 to' - - - PAR not initiated
26.08.2001
2001-02
27.08.2001 to - - - PAR not initiated
.31.03.2002 as officer
0 1 . 0 4 . 20 0 2 - - - reported upon
to03.05.2002 was not on duty
for at-least 90
days during the
period
04,05.2002 to - - - Date not appended . by
31.03.2003 Supervisory authorities
2002-03 while recording
appraisal. Hence, it
c a n n o t b e a s ce r t a i n e d
w h e th e r appraisal
was recorded within
the time-frame
stipulated in The AIS
(CR) Rules, 1970
01.04.2003 to -
31.07.2003
2003-04 0 1 .0 8. 200 3 t o Supervisory authorities
3 1. 03 . 200 4 Time Barred recorded appraisals
b e y o n d t h e t i m e frame
stipulated in the AIS
(CR) Rules, 1970
2004-05 01.04.2004 to NRC Period does not exceed
08.04.2004 90 days
0 9 .0 4. 200 4 t o Time Barred Supervisory authorities
22. 0 7. 20 04 recorded appraisals
24 .0 7. 20 04 to Time Barred beyond the time-
3 1. 03 . 200 5 frame stipulated in the
AIS (CR) Rules,1970
2005-06 0 1 .04 . 200 5 to Time Barred
3 1. 03 . 200 6
01.04.2006 to Self appraisal report
02.07.2006 not submitted on time
2006-07 by officer reported
upon
0 3 .0 7. 20 06 to Date not appended by
0 9 .1 0. 200 6 supervisory authorities
while recording
appraisal. Hence, it
c a n n o t b e a s ce r t a i n e d
w h e th e r appraisal
was recorded within
the t i m e - f r am e
s ti p u l a te d i n th e AIS
(CR) Rules, 1970
10.10.2006 to Appraisal not recorded by
31.03.2007 supervisory Authorities
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 26 OA No. 3636/2024
PAR Period R e po r t i ng Reviewing Accepting Remarks
Year of PAR
Period of duty under
N R C supervisory authorities
01.04.2007 to
15.07.2007 was less th an 90 d ays .
2007-08
Appraisal of Accepting
16.07.2007 to 9.00 9.00 - Authority was time-
31.03.2008 barred in terms of AIS
(PAR) Rules, 2007
01 - .04.2008 to 9.00 9.00 9.00
31.07.2008
*The then Hon'ble
LG, • A86N
.
2008-09
7.20 9.00* Demitted I s l ands incre ased
01.08.2008 to office f in al gr ad in g from
31.03.2009 . "7.50" to "9.00" based on
.
a representation
submitted by Ms.
Rinku Dhugga, IAS.
2009-10 01.04.2009 to PAR not initiated
31.03.2010 No Report as officer was not
01.04.2010 to on duty for at-
04.10.2010 least 90 days
duri ng t he perio d
Self appraisal
2010-11 submitted on time b y
- officer reported
05.10.2010 to 'Time Barred upon. However,
31.03.2011 appraisal recorded by
supervisory
authorities was
time-barred in terms o f
A I S (PAR) Rules, 2007
1. Date not appended by
officer reported upon
while submitting s el f-
Time Barred app r ais al rep or t.
01.04.2011 to
Hen ce , i t c a n n o t b e
31.03.2012
2011-12 a s c e r t a i n e d w h e th e r
the same was
s u b m i t t e d o n time.
.
2. Appraisal recorded
by supervisory authorities
was time-barred in
terms of AIS (PAR) Rules,
2007
Self appraisal report
01.04.2012 to - - not s u b m i t t e d on
25.10.2012 time by o f f i c er
2012-13 reported upon
26.10.2012 to Demitted Demitted Demitted
31.03.2013 Office Office Office
S e l f ap p r ai s al r ep o r t
s u b m i tted on time by
officer reported upon.
01.04.2013 to However, ap pr ai s al
08.01.2014 Time Barred
recorded by
supervisory
a u th o r i ti e s w as
2013-14
ti m e - b ar r ed i n terms
of AIS (PAR) Rules,
2007
09.01.2014 Period does
td,i31.03.2014 NRC not exceed
90 days
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 27 OA No. 3636/2024
PAR Period R e po r t i ng Reviewing Accepting Remarks
Year of PAR
01.04.2014 to: 8.70 6.00 6.00
27.08 . .2014
2014-15 28.08.2014 to -9.90 5.00 5.00
28.02.2015
01.03.2015 NRC Period does not exceed
031.03.2015 90 days
2015-16 01.04.2015 8.32 9.10 5.00
to:31.03.2016
0 1 .04 , 2016 td 8.74 8.74 Demitted
2016-17 3 0 .11 . 20 16 office.
01.12.2016 td' 7.10 7.10 7.10
31.03.2017
01.04.2017 7.45 7.45 8.00
2017-18 to.10.08.2017
11.08.2017 to. 7.45 7.45 8.00
03.12.2017
04.12.2017 9.00 7.45 8.00
td,31.03.2018
2018-19 01.04.2018 9..00 7.00 8.00
tdi27.11.2018
28.11.2018 to 9.00 7.00 8.00
31.03.2019
2019-20 01.04.2019 to 9.00 9.00 9.00
31.03.2020
01.04.2020 to V 9.00 9.00 - 9.00
2020-21 11.10.2020
12.10.2020 NR C Period does not exceed
td:28.12.2020 90 days
29.12.2020 9.00 9.00 9.00
to 1 :31.03.2021
2021-22 01.04.2021 to 9.50 9.50 Demitted
31.03.2022 office
2022-23 01.04.2022 to - - - Officer on
;till date unauthorized
absence w.e.f.
30.06.2022
Observations of the Review Committee:
(i) The Committee observed that during the years 1998-99,
2000-01, 2003 -04, 2004 -05, 2005 -06, 2007-08, 2010-11,. 2011- 1 2 , a nd 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 , t h e S u p e r v i so r y A u t ho r it i e s o f M s . R i n k u D hu g g a , IAS d i d n o t r e c o rd t h ei r a p p ra i s a l s w i t h i n t h e t i m e - fr a m e s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e A l l I n d i a S e r v i c e s (Confidential Rolls) Rules , 1970 and All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. The Committee also t h a t d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1 9 9 9 - 0 0 , 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 , a n d 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 , t h e S u p e r v i s o r y A u th o r it i e s o f M s . R i n k u D h u g g a , I A S di d n o t a p p e n d a n y da t e w h ile r e c o r d i ng t h ei r a p pr a i sa l s . H e n c e , i t c o u l d n o t be ascertained whether the appraisals were recorded within the time - f r a m e stipulated in the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 19 70.
In view of the above, the Committee decided that the ACRs/APARs recorded in respect of Ms. Rinku D h u g g a , I A S d u ri n g t h e a f o r e s a i d y e a r s a r e n o n - a d m is s i bl e . F u r t h e r , s i nc e . t h e p e r i o d o f v a lid AC Rs /AP A Rs i n r es pec t o f Ms . Rink u Dhug g a , IAS is o nl y a pp ro x i ma t el y 1 0 y ea rs o ut o f t he 2 5 y ea rs o f service co mpleted by the o ffi cer i n the IAS , the Co mmittee wa s o f th e co nsidered view tha t t h e a s s e ss m e n t r e co r d e d i n t h e A C R s / AP A R s co u ld n o t co n si d e r e d a s th e s o l e ba si s fo r t a k i ng a decision regarding the officer's retention in service.
(ii) The Committee observed that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS failed t o s u b m i t h e r s e l f - a p p r a i s a l r e p o r t s o r initia te her PARS within the sti pulated ti me -fra me o n multiple occasions; further, the Co mmittee also noted several periods during which the officer's performance could not be supervised as she wa s no t o n dut y fo r th e mi n i mum 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 28 OA No. 3636/2024 required duration. This resulted in non -recording of her ACRs/APARs during the PAR years 1999-00, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 , 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 01 2 - 13 , a nd 2 02 2 -2 3. The Committee viewed such acts by the officer as non -seriousness toward official responsibilities; moreover, the Committee also considered it possible that the officer deliberately delayed or avoided the initiation of her PARs to avoid adverse reports/appraisals by her supervisory authorities.
(iii) The Committee observed that the supervisory authorities Of Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS consistently a d v e r s e r e m a r k s r e g a r d i n g h e r performance during the PAR years 2014-15, 2015-16,2017-18, and 2018-19 as under:
A. Shri Najeeb Jung , then Hon'ble Lieutenant Governo r of Delhi, assessed Ms. Rinku Dhugg a as an unreliable, non-punctual, and "average officer" who exhibited "tardy performance" during yea rs 2014 -15 a nd 2015-16.
B. Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi, opined that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS "lacked c o m mi t m e n t , se n s e o f r e s p o ns i bi li ty i n o f f i ci a l d i s p e n sa t i o n " a n d e xh i bi t e d " i n co m p e t e n c e , lackadaisical and laidback attitude, and insensitiveness towards public , interest" during the 2017-18 a nd 2018-19.
7.2. Leave Records Leave availed by the officer for greater than 30 days in a PAR year, with the prior approv al of the Competent Authority PAR year Period of availed leave 2001-02 217 days (from 27.08.2001 to 31.03.2002) 2008-09 31 days (from 26.05.2008 to 27.06.2008) 2009-10 124 days (in 03 spells) + 389 days (in 07 spells) = .
2010-11
513 days
2019-20 71 days (in 06 spells)
2020-21 65 days (from 12.10.2020 to 17.12.2020)
2021-22 112 days (from 06.09.2021 to 26.12.2021) .
Leave availed by the officer without prior approval/clearance of the Compet ent Authority PAR year Period of leave Purpose of 2016-17 06 days (from 17.06.2016 to 22.06.2016) leave 2017-18 04 days (from 19.05.2017 to 22.05.2017) 04 days (from 25.07.2017 to 28.07.2017) Ex-India 2019-20 35 days (from 25.11.2019 to 29.12.2019) visit 13 days (from 11.03.2020 to 23.03.2020) 2021-22- 28 days (from 28.04.2021 to 24.05.2021) 09 days (from 25.05.2022 to 02.06.2022) 147 da ys o f e x - I n d i a 2022-23 266 days (from 30.06.-2022 to till date) l e a v e f r o m 0 7 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 2 t o 31 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 2 a n d 56 days of ex-India leave f r o m 25.01.2023 to till date.
2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 29 OA No. 3636/2024 Observations of the Review Committee:
The Committee observed that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS has shown a continuous tendency to proc on unauthorized leave, without obtaining prior approval/ clearance from the Competent Autho rity during her entire service tenure.
The Committee also noted that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS was transferred from Delhi to Arunachal Pra desh vide MHA's o rder da ted 26.05.202 2. Af ter jo ining the Go vt. o f Aruna cha l Pra desh 27.06.2022, the officer immediately proceeded on unauthorized l e a v e f r o m 3 0 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 2 . Committee took a serious view regarding the fact that the officer has not joined her duty with Go vt. o f Aruna cha l P ra desh since then. Furthe r, she ha s a g a in pro ceeded o n a n una utho ri zed I n d ia l ea v e w . e . f . 0 7 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 2 . T h e C o m m i t t ee n o t e d w i th c o nc e r n t h a t M s . R i n k u D h u g g a , r e m a i ns o n u n a ut h o ri z e d a bs e n c e f r o m d u t y w . e . f . 3 0 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 2 t i l l d a t e , w i th a _ m a j o r i t y o f period being spent outside the country.
7.3 P romot ion and Empanelment Current Grade in cadre: Super-Time Scale Year of promotion: 2010 Current Grade at the Centre: Not empanelled till date Year of empanelment: NIL Observat ions of the Review Committee:
T h e C o m m i t t e e no t e d t h a t . M s . R i n k u D hu g g a , I A S wa s p r o mo t ed t o S u p e r - T i m e S c a l e i n 2 0 along with her batch-mates, after completion of 16 years of service. However, the officer has failed to earn any pro motions since then. All IAS o fficers of joint AGMUT cadre till 1998 batch, except Rinku Dhugga, IAS, have been promoted to the HAG on completion of 25 years of qualifying service. However, the DPC continuously determined that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS was unfit for promotion to the HAG during the pa nel yea rs 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The Committee further noted that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS has not been empanelled with the Govt. India till date. IAS officers are generally considered for empanelment to Joint Secretary or equivalent level posts after completion of 16 years of service and for empanelment to Additional Secretary equivalent level posts after completion of 25 years of service. All IAS officers of AGMUT cadre 1995 batch, except Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, have been empanelled to hold atleast Joint Secretary equivalent level posts with the Govt. of India.
7.4 Vigilance Status The Committee observed that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS is not clear from vigilance angle as on date because disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against her in the following two cases:
A. Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, then posted with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as Secretary (L&B), allege m i s u s e d h e r o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n t o e n t e r the Thyagraj Stadium, New Delhi with her pet after visit hours in May 2022. The officer has been charge -sheeted for imposition of minor penalty vide MHA‟s me mo ra n dum da t ed 2 7. 0 2 .2 0 23 .
B. Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, current ly posted with the Govt. of A r u n a c h a l P r a d e s h a s P r i n c i p a l Secretary (Indigenous Affairs) proceeded on unauthorized foreign visit w.e.f. 07.08.2022. The officer h a s b e e n c h a r g e - s h e e t e d f o r i m p o s i t i o n o f m a j o r penalty vide MHA's memorandum dated 27.02.2023. Moreover, the period of her unauthorized foreign visit i.e., from 07.08.2022 till the date of return to the country, has been treated as dies-non.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 30 OA No. 3636/2024
8. Recommendations of the Review Committee After careful examination of the case details relating to adverse remarks recorded by the supervise authorities regarding performance, repeated instances of proceeding on ex -India leave without pr:
sanction/ clearance of the Competent Authority, non-promotion over a long period, non-empanelment with th e Go v er n me nt o f I ndia , a n d l o ng p e ri o d o f una utho riz ed a bs enc e f r o m du t y , th e R evie w Committee is of the considered view that M s. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) is not fit to continue in Government service. The Co mmi ttee also co nsiders tha t the o ng oing disciplina ry pro ceedin gs against Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT 1994) should not come in the way of prematurely retiring the officer in public interest. The disciplinary proceedings can continue after the officer's premature retirement from service in public interest and an appropriate p e n a l t y c a n b e i m p o s e d o n h e r terminal benefits after retirement. Accordingly, the Review Committee hereby recommends as under:
"Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) may be premat urely ret ired from service in publi c i n t e r e s t u n de r Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death -cum-Retirement B e n e f i t s ) R u l e s 1958 to be read w ith DoP&T's letter N o. 25013/02/20 05 -A IS. II dated 2 8.06 .2012 ."
(emp hasis sup plied)
12. The said Review Committee was constituted by the respondents keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 16 (3) of All India Services (Death- cum-Retirement-Benefits Rules, 1958, which reads as under:-
"16(3) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned, require a member of the service to retire from service in public interest after giving such Member at least three month‟s previous notice in writing or three month‟s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, -
(i) after the review when such Member completes 15 years of qualifying Service; or
(ii) after the review when such Member completes 25 years of qualifying Service or attains the age of 50 years, as the case may be, or
(iii) If the review referred to in (i) or (ii) above has not been conducted after the review of any other time as the Central Government deems fit in respect of such Member.
Explanation :- For the purposes of sub-rule (3), "review" of the entire service record of the Member of the Service regarding suitability or otherwise of such Member for further retention in the Service to be conducted regularly of each Member of such Service, firstly, after his completion of 15 years of qualifying Service and secondly, after his completion of 25 years of qualifying Service or on his attaining the age of 50 years, as the case may be, or if the review referred to in clauses (i) or (ii) of this sub-rule has not been conducted in respect of such Member, such review may be conducted at any other time as the Central Government deems fit.";
Note 1: In computing the period of three month‟s notice referred to in sub-rules (2), (2A) and (3) the date of service of the notice and the date of its expiry shall be excluded.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 31 OA No. 3636/2024
Note 2: In the case of a member of Service who retires under sub- rule (2) or (2A) or who is retired under sub-rule (3), the date or retirement shall be treated as a non-working day."
13. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of exercise of power by the Government to retire a Government servant prematurely. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has crystallized the legal principles governing compulsory retirement. The said judgment continues to serve as a guiding precedent and has been consistently followed by various Courts across the country. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-
wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(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.
12. In the instant case, there were absolutely no adverse entries in respondent's confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in this Court also, nothing has been averred that the respondent's service record revealed any adverse entries. The respondent had successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well 55. He was placed 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 32 OA No. 3636/2024 under suspension on 22.05.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. The State Govt. had sufficient time to complete the enquiry against him but the enquiry was not completed within a reasonable time. Even the Review Committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the respondent. The respondent had only less than two years to retire from service. If the impugned order is viewed in the light of these facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory retirement was passed for extraneous reasons. As the authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry and decided to dispense with the services of the respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse entries in his service record to support the order of compulsory retirement, we are of the view that the Division Bench was right in holding that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, three months' time is given to the appellant- State to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which the respondent would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to him."
14. Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and pleadings as well as law on the subject, we are of the considered view that the following issue is required to be adjudicated in this case:-
(i) Whether the impugned orders, vide which the applicant was ordered to be prematurely retired, suffer from non-
application of mind and are vitiated in view of the settled law on the subject?
15. In examining this issue, the pivotal consideration is whether the competent authority, while passing the impugned order of premature retirement of the applicant, applied its mind to all relevant and material aspects of the applicant's service record and adhered to the settled legal principles governing such retirement as noted above. It is well settled that premature retirement under the service rules is not a form of punishment, but the same must be based on a bona fide opinion formed upon due consideration of the entire service record, including both adverse and favorable entries. If the order reflects a mechanical exercise of power or a mere reproduction of the applicable rules without any specific reasoning or analysis of the officer's performance, it would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 33 OA No. 3636/2024 catena of judgments has consistently held that such orders must not be arbitrary, capricious, or based on no evidence.
16. In the present case, we find that the competent authority invoked the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, and constituted a Review Committee for undertaking an intensive review of the service records of IAS officers of the Joint AGMUT Cadre and other officers totaling 258 (121, IAS Officers + 137 IPS Officers), in terms of the DoP&T's letter dated 28.02.2012. The said Committee reviewed the service records of 121 IAS officers. Notably, out of these 121 officers, the case of the applicant alone was identified for a comprehensive and detailed examination of her entire service record for the purpose of assessing her suitability for continued retention in service.
17. As reflected in the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 21.03.2023, the Committee purportedly deliberated upon the following four aspects of the applicant's service record while arriving at the conclusion to recommend her premature retirement:
(i) ACR/APAR gradings throughout her service;
(ii) Leave record;
(iii) Promotion and empanelment status; and
(iv) Vigilance status.
17.1 In order to ascertain whether the conclusion of the said Review Committee was duly supported by objective assessment of overall service report and relevant material, it becomes necessary to examine each of the aforesaid four factors individually.
18. So far as point at para 17 (i) dealing with ACR/APAR gradings throughout her service is concerned, the said Review Committee after recording the periods since 1997 till 2023 in which besides the ACRs/APARs grading, the No-Report Periods were also 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 34 OA No. 3636/2024 taken into consideration and further despite the ACRs/APARs for the relevant period(s) were on record, the Review Committee had recorded with respect to around 10 periods that the same are time barred. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant rules on the subject. Although the said Review Committee placed reliance on the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, it is relevant to note that the said Rules stood superseded by the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007. The applicable provisions governing the assessment of service records are now contained in Rules 5, 6, and 7 of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007, which are extracted below for convenience and reference:
"5. Performance appraisal reports.- (1) A performance appraisal report assessing the performance, character, conduct and qualities of every member of the Service shall be written for each financial year or as may be specified by the Government in the Schedule 2:
Provided that a performance appraisal report may not be written in such cases as may be specified by the Central Government, by general or special order:
Provided further that if a performance appraisal report for a financial year is not recorded by 31st of December of the year in which the financial year ended, no remarks may be recorded thereafter and the officer may be assessed on the basis of the overall record and self assessment for the year, if he has submitted his self-assessment on time.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), a performance appraisal report shall also be written when either the reporting or reviewing or accepting authority who is a government servant or the member of the Service reported upon relinquishes charge (other than retirement) of the post, and, in such a case, the report shall be written within the time frame as specified in Schedule 2 for completion of performance appraisal report in paragraph 9 of general guidelines for filling of the performance appraisal report form.
(3) Where more than one performance appraisal reports are written on a member of the Service during the course of a financial year each such report shall indicate the period to which it pertains:
Provided that only one report shall be written on a member of the Service for a particular period during the course of the financial year:
Provided further that if the member of Service occupies more than one post, the Government shall identify the post (substantive or additional charge) to report or review, well in advance of the relevant assessment year.
(3A) In general one person shall write the performance appraisal reports in the capacity of reporting, reviewing or accepting authority for a given period of time:
2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 35 OA No. 3636/2024 Provided that if more than one person supervises the performance of the member of Service for a given period of time, the Government shall identify the persons to report or review well in advance of the relevant assessment year.
(4) Where the reporting authority has not seen, but the reviewing authority has seen the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report is to be written the reviewing authority shall write the performance appraisal report of any such member for any such period.
(5) Where, both the reporting authority and the reviewing authority have not seen and the accepting authority has seen, as referred to in sub-rule (4), the performance of any such member, the accepting authority shall write the performance appraisal of any such member during such period.
(6) Where the reporting authority, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority have not seen the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the report is to be written, the Government shall make an entry to that effect in the performance appraisal report for any such period.
(7) Omitted.
6. Review of the performance appraisal report. - (1) The reviewing authority shall record his remarks on the performance appraisal report, within the timeframe specified in the Schedule 2.
(2) Where the report is written by the reviewing authority under sub-rule (4) of rule 5, or where the reviewing authority has not seen, and the accepting authority has seen, the performance of a member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report is written, the accepting authority shall review the performance appraisal report of any such member for any such period within the timeframe specified in the Schedule 2.
(3) It shall not be competent for the reviewing authority, or the accepting authority, to review any such performance appraisal report unless it has seen the performance of the member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the report has been written, and in every such case an entry to that effect shall be made in the performance appraisal report.
(4) Omitted.
7. Acceptance of the Performance Appraisal Report. - (1) The accepting authority shall within the timeframe specified in Schedule 2, record his remarks on the performance appraisal report and may accept it, with such modifications as may be considered necessary, and countersign the report:
Provided that where the accepting authority has not seen the performance of any member of the Service for at least three months during the period for which the performance appraisal report has been written, it shall not be necessary for the accepting authority to accept any such report and an entry to this effect shall be made in the performance appraisal report.
(2) Omitted.
2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 36 OA No. 3636/2024 (3) When the performance appraisal report be not written or revised.- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 5 or rule 6, where the accepting authority writes or reviews the performance appraisal report of any member of the Service, it shall not be necessary to review or accept any such report."
(emphasis supplied) 18.1 We further observe that in respect of several periods under review, the Review Committee itself has recorded that the supervisory authorities failed to adhere to the time-frame prescribed under the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (earlier known as AIS (CR) Rules, 1970). In certain instances, the appraisal reports were recorded by the supervisory authorities well beyond the stipulated time; in some cases, the dates of recording were not appended by the concerned authorities; and in others, no appraisal was recorded at all by the reporting or reviewing authorities. There were also instances where the accepting authority recorded the appraisal beyond the permissible time limit. Additionally, although the applicant had submitted her self-appraisal within the prescribed time, the supervisory authorities delayed their assessment, rendering the appraisal time-barred under the rules. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be faulted or held accountable for lapses committed by the reporting, reviewing, or accepting authorities in not adhering to the statutory timelines. The respondents' authorities should have identified such authorities and initiated relevant action against them. The legal position is well settled that where ACRs/APARs are written belatedly or in contravention of the prescribed procedure, they cannot be relied upon to the prejudice of the officer concerned. Thus, any adverse inference drawn from such irregularly recorded appraisals would be legally untenable and vitiated in law.
18.2 It is also apt to note that the Review Committee, in its assessment, referred to certain observations recorded by Shri Najeeb Jung, the then Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, and Shri Arvind Kejriwal, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi, 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 37 OA No. 3636/2024 regarding the applicant's performance. However, despite citing such instances, the respondents have failed to place on record any material evidence to demonstrate that any warning, advisory, or memorandum was ever issued to the applicant, affording her an opportunity to improve her performance before recording such adverse remarks on the assessment of the applicant. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that if an officer's performance is found to be unsatisfactory at any point, it is incumbent upon the concerned authorities to communicate such dissatisfaction through appropriate means, such as a written warning, advisory, or counseling so as to put the officer on notice and provide an opportunity for corrective action. The absence of any such communication brought on record by the respondents in the instant case weakens the respondents' reliance on those remarks and militates against the principles of natural justice and fair play. Further, while making overall assessment of complete service record for the purpose of and under the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid, such exceptions do not reflect the correct position on various attributes. This becomes important when same accepting authority is rating the applicant with much higher grading in the immediate next year.
18.3 We also find that while the Review Committee considered the gradings awarded to the applicant for the years 2007-08, 2008-09, and from 2014-15 to 2021-22, however, it conspicuously omitted any reference to her performance from 1994 to 31.03.2007, except for the brief remarks already discussed above. No reasons have been provided for excluding this significant portion of applicant's service. Such selective consideration, without any cogent justification, appears arbitrary and reflects non-application of mind, thereby rendering the overall assessment incomplete and legally unsustainable. Therefore, the observations arrived at by the said Review Committee under para 7.1 of the Review Committee's minutes dated 21.3.2023 could not 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 38 OA No. 3636/2024 be held as objective and fair assessment of performance of the applicant 18.4 In the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 529, i.e., a case where the State Government had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in which it has been held that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent therein was bad, as there were no adverse entries in his Confidential Report and his integrity was not doubtful at any stage, The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"28. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll entries subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest."
18.5 Further in a judgment dated 01.02.2012 in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has once again highlighted the permissibility of ascertaining the existence of valid material by a court for the authorities to pass an order of compulsory retirement and observed as under:-
"34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy."
(emphasis supplied) 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 39 OA No. 3636/2024
19. With regard to point at para 17 (ii) dealing with i.e. the applicant's leave record, it is noted that in first part of paragraph 7.2 of the minutes of the Review Committee refers to various periods of leave availed of by the applicant. However, it is admitted fact that all such leaves were duly sanctioned by the competent authority. Once leaves have been granted in accordance with the rules and with the prior approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be treated adversely or used to the detriment of the employee. Inclusion of approved leave periods as a factor in the adverse assessment of the applicant's service lacks legal justification and is wholly untenable. There was no need to refer to such leave periods. Rather, it confirms that the applicant has travelled abroad after taking Ex-India leave during the periods.
19.1 As regards the observations in second part of paragraph 7.2 of the Review Committee minutes dated 21.3.2023 pertaining to the applicant's alleged Ex-India leave without prior approval or clearance of the competent authority, it is noted that the periods referred to relate to the years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2021-22 also. However, the respondents have not placed on record any evidence to show that any disciplinary or administrative action was initiated or contemplated against the applicant for undertaking such leaves without approval, if at all. The specific periods involved include: 6 days in 2016-17; 4 days each in two spells in 2017-18; 35 days and 13 days in 2019-20; and 28 days and 9 days in 2021-
22. In the absence of any contemporaneous action or adverse entry in this regard, the belated reliance on these instances by the Review Committee appears unjustified and cannot be accepted as a valid ground for premature retirement of the applicant.
19.2 It is a settled proposition of law that approved leave, by itself, cannot be the primary ground for invoking compulsory retirement. The provisions relating to compulsory retirement are intended to weed out employees who have either become inefficient, are of doubtful integrity, or whose continuation in 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 40 OA No. 3636/2024 service is no longer in public interest. The mere fact that an employee had availed approved leave cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be construed as evidence of unsuitability or public interest unfitness. While an employee's leave record may form part of a holistic assessment of overall performance, it cannot, in isolation, justify an order of compulsory retirement. Availing approved leave is a recognized and lawful entitlement of an employee under service jurisprudence, and the exercise of such entitlement cannot be treated as misconduct or inefficiency warranting premature retirement. Therefore, unless there are other cogent materials, indicating that the continued service of the employee is prejudicial to public interest, the mere availing of sanctioned leave cannot be a determinative factor for compulsorily retiring an employee.
19.3 So far as further period from 30.6.2022 till 23.4.2023 is concerned, the respondents have issued a charge Memorandum dated 27.2.2023 qua the period from 29.7.2022 to 15.9.2022 and again for the period from 25.1.2023 that was the date when the applicant again proceeded on leave on the alleged without prior intimation and approval of the competent authority, the said Charge Memorandum was challenged by the applicant by way of OA No.681/2024, titled Rinku Dhugga vs. Union of India and others, before this Tribunal and this Tribunal had quashed the said charge Memorandum vide order dated 7.5.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under:-
"10. In above circumstances, the impugned charge memorandum deserves to be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that Ministry of Home Affairs is not the competent authority to initiate departmental inquiry against the applicant who was transferred to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside."
19.4 It is further pertinent to note that although there is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant was serving under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, i.e., respondent no.4, yet the said respondent, despite filing a reply, has failed to indicate any 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 41 OA No. 3636/2024 specific action taken by it in relation to the applicant's alleged unauthorized Ex-India leave. Rather, respondent no.4, in its reply, has admitted that "In the purported „copy of approval of leave application‟, the remark „approved‟ was merely a recommendation made by the Controlling Officer, who had forwarded the file to the Secretary (Personnel) for obtaining formal approval from the Competent Authority." This statement clearly indicates that the leave was recommended by the applicant's Controlling Officer; however, due to non-availability of her service record, the same could not be formally approved or verified.
19.5 It is also apt to note that the applicant had submitted the said leave application on 28.06.2022, wherein she sought leave for the period from 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022. However, having not received any formal order of approval from the Competent Authority, and relying on the recommendations made by her Controlling Officer, the applicant proceeded on leave and eventually left for abroad only on 07.08.2022, i.e., after waiting for 8 (eight) days.
19.6 Subsequently, based on another Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the same very day when the aforesaid Charge Memorandum was issued, the respondent no.4 passed an order dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure-F to the reply of respondent no.4), whereby the entire period of absence of the applicant from 07.08.2022 to 23.04.2023 was treated as „dies non‟, meaning that the said period shall not be counted as qualifying service for any purpose, including increment, leave, or pension. However, it was clarified that this period shall not be treated as a break in service or result in forfeiture of past service, nor shall it be construed as a penalty under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 42 OA No. 3636/2024
19.7 At this stage, we consider it apt to reproduce the contents of
the Memorandum dated 27.02.2023, which reads as under:
"MEMORANDUM Sub: Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) - reg.
WHEREAS, a report was sought from the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in earned leave/half-pay leave/ex-India leave November, 2022 regarding earned availed/sanctioned to Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) during her tenure in Arunachal Pradesh.
2. WHEREAS, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has informed this Ministry that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS proceeded on Leave from 30.06.2022 to 16.09.2022, immediately after joining the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on 27.06.2022.
3. WHEREAS, Ms., Rinku Dhugga, IAS applied for ex- India leave from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022 for personal visit to the USA. However, the ex-India leave was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority.
4. WHEREAS, in terms of the existing provisions of the Govt. of India, prior approval/clearance of the Competent Authority is required for proceeding on ex-India leave.
5. WHEREAS, it has been noticed that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS has left the country on 07.08.2022 without obtaining prior approval of the Competent Authority.
6. WHEREAS, by proceeding on ex-India leave on personal grounds without prior approval of the Competent Authority, Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in terms of Rule 3 of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968, thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. servant.
7. WHEREAS, a Memorandum dated 30.12.2022 was issued to Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS directing her to show cause within 15 days from the date of the Memorandum as to why disciplinary action should not initiated against her, for the aforesaid misconduct, including treatment of period of her foreign visit as „dies-non‟ within the meaning of para 3(c) of DoP&T's letter No.11019/06/2001-AIS-III dated 05.12.2007.
8. WHEREAS, Government of Arunachal Pradesh has informed that the show cause issued by MHA could not be served to Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS as the officer is said to be no longer residing at the address declared by her.
9. WHEREAS, it has also come to the notice of MHA that Ms. Rinku Dhugga IAS left the country on 07.08.2022 and returned to the country on 01.01.2023. However, she did not report for duty in Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, she again left the country on 25.01.2023 without any prior intimation or approval of the Competent Authority.
10. WHEREAS, para 3(c) of the General Conditions for Ex- India leave laid down in DoP&T's letter dated 05.12.2007, provides that "in case where a member of the Service proceeds for a visit abroad without obtaining necessary cadre clearance, the period of his/her absence shall be treated as 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 43 OA No. 3636/2024 „dies non‟ apart from other consequences under the Service rules."
11. AND NOW THEREFORE, in terms of para 3(c) of the General Conditions for Ex-India leave laid down in DoP&T's letter dated 05.12.2007, the entire period of unauthorized ex- India leave from 07.08.2022 and till joining the cadre in respect of Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS is hereby treated as „dies non‟, which will not be counted as qualifying service for any purpose i.e., increments, leave and pension. Further, the period of „dies-non‟ will not be treated as break in service and forfeiture of past Service. It may also not be treated as penalty under AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.
12. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
19.8 In light of the above, we observe that although the MHA issued the Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 containing one article of charge specifically related to the alleged unauthorized Ex-India leave, yet on the very same date, it issued another Memorandum, the contents of which are reproduced above, treating the said period as „dies non‟. This sequence of action reflects a pre- determined and prejudicial approach adopted by the respondents, as the determination of misconduct and its consequences appears to have been pre-empted without awaiting the reply to the show cause notice issued to the applicant. As such, the subsequent Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 (doing what) amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.
19.9 There is yet another important aspect that requires consideration. The fact that no formal order was passed either granting or denying the applicant's Ex-India leave was attributed solely to the non-availability of her service record. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the applicant had sought Ex-India leave for the purpose of facilitating her son in the United States of America on account of new semester. Given the urgency and nature of the request, it was incumbent upon respondent no.4 to take prompt and appropriate steps to obtain the requisite approval or communicate the refusal of the said leave application in a timely manner. However, respondent no.4, for reasons best known to it, chose to remain passive and merely awaited the receipt of the 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 44 OA No. 3636/2024 applicant's service record, thereby allowing the matter to linger on without resolution. We are unable to appreciate and abhor such tactics of administrations of a welfare State.
20. With regard to point at para 17 (iii)dealing with Promotion and empanelment status is concerned, the said Review Committee had observed that ―the applicant has not been empanelled with the Govt. India till date. IAS officers are generally considered for empanelment to Joint Secretary or equivalent level posts after completion of 16 years of service and for empanelment to Additional Secretary equivalent level posts after completion of 25 years of service. All IAS officers of AGMUT cadre 1995 batch, except the applicant, have been empanelled to hold atleast Joint Secretary equivalent level posts with the Govt. of India. "
20.1 On this aspect, we deem it apt to quote the relevant portion of the DPC minutes of meetings (2019-2023). In the DPC meeting held on 11.12.2018 for preparation of panel for promotion of eligible IAS Officers of 1995 batch of AGMUT Cadre to HAG, in which the applicant's case was also under consideration, in para 6, the following has been recorded:
"6. The Selection Committee is informed that:
(i) No disciplinary proceedings/Criminal/Under Suspension case are pending against any of the above listed officers as mentioned in Para-4 above.
(ii) The Integrity in respect of all the officers mentioned at Para-4 above is certified.
(iii) No penalty has been imposed on any one of the officers mentioned at Para-4 above.
(iv) No adverse remarks in the ACRs/PARs of the officers mentioned at Para-4 above are pending communication/expunction.
(v) There is no court direction having a bearing on the promotion to HAG Grade."
20.1.1 Further in the DPC meeting held on 26.12.2019 for promotion to HAG grade, in para 5, the following has been recorded:
2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 45 OA No. 3636/2024 "The Selection Committee was informed that:
(i) No Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceeding/Under Suspension case is pending against any of the listed officers, as mentioned in Para-3 above.
(ii) The Integrity in respect of all the officers mentioned at Para-
3 above is certified.
(iii) No penalty has been imposed on any one of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above.
(iv) No adverse remarks in the ACRS/PARs of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above are pending communication/ expunction.
(v) There is no court direction having a bearing on the promotion to HAG Grade.
(vi) The IAS officers of AGMUT Cadre of 1994 Batch (except Ms. Rinku Dhugga) have been promoted to HAG with effect from 01.01.2019."
20.1.2 Still further in the next DPC meeting held on 28.12.2020 for promotion to HAG grade, in para 5, the following has been recorded:
"The Selection Committee was informed that:
(i) No Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceeding/Under Suspension case is pending against any of the listed officers, as mentioned in Para-3 above.
(ii) The Integrity in respect of all the officers mentioned at Para-
3 above is certified.
(iii) No penalty has been imposed on any one of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above.
(iv) No adverse remarks in the ACRS/PARs of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above are pending communication/ expunction.
(v) There is no court direction having a bearing on the promotion to HAG Grade.
(vi) The IAS officers of AGMUT Cadre of 1995 Batch (except Ms. Rinku Dhugga) have been promoted to HAG. The Screening Committee held on 11.12.2018 and 26.12.2019 had considered the case of Smt. Rinku Dhugga and found „UNFIT‟ for promotion to HAG Grade."
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 46 OA No. 3636/2024
20.1.3 In the DPC meeting held on 24.12.2021 for promotion to HAG grade, in para 5, the following has been recorded:
"The Selection Committee was informed that:
(i) No Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceeding/Under Suspension case is pending against any of the listed officers, as mentioned in Para-3 above.
(ii) The Integrity in respect of all the officers mentioned at Para-3 above is certified.
(iii) No penalty has been imposed on any one of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above.
(iv) No adverse remarks in the ACRS/PARs of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above are pending communication/ expunction.
(v) There is no court direction having a bearing on the promotion to HAG Grade.
(vi) The IAS officers of AGMUT Cadre of 1995 Batch (except Ms. Rinku Dhugga) have been promoted to HAG. The Screening Committee held on 11.12.2018, 26.12.2019 and 28.12.2020 had considered the case of Smt. Rinku Dhugga and found „UNFIT‟ due to below Bench-mark grading in her APARs for promotion to HAG Grade for panel years 2019, 2020 and 2021 respectively.
for promotion to HAG Grade."
20.1.4 In the next DPC meeting held on 27.12.2022 for promotion to HAG grade, in para 5, the following has been recorded:
"The Selection Committee was informed that:
(i) No Disciplinary Proceeding/Criminal Proceeding/Under Suspension case is pending against any of the listed officers, as mentioned in Para-3 above.
(ii) The Integrity in respect of all the officers mentioned at Para-
3 above is certified.
(iii) No penalty has been imposed on any one of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above.
(iv) No adverse remarks in the ACRS/PARs of the officers mentioned at Para-3 above are pending communication/ expunction.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 47 OA No. 3636/2024
(v) There is no court direction having a bearing on the promotion to HAG Grade.
(vi) The IAS officers of AGMUT Cadre of 1995 Batch (except Ms. Rinku Dhugga) have been promoted to HAG. The Screening Committee held on 11.12.2018 and 26.12.2019, 28.12.2020 and 24.12.2021 had considered the case of Smt. Rinku Dhugga and found „UNFIT‟ due to below Bench-mark grading in her APARs for promotion to HAG Grade for panel years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively."
20.2 As a general rule, promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) requires a minimum qualifying service of 17 years in Group ‗A', with at least 3 years of service in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). In addition, the prescribed benchmark in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the relevant years is ordinarily ‗Very Good'. It is significant to note that from the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in 1998 up to the DPC convened in 2022, the respondents have consistently recorded that the benchmark adopted by the Screening Committee for assessing the ACRs/APARs for promotion to HAG is ‗7 (seven)' grading.
20.3 It is an admitted position that in the case of the applicant, the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs) for the years 2015-16 to 2021-22 reflect a grading of 7.10, 8 and 9. This indicates that the applicant has consistently met or exceeded the prescribed benchmark of 7 for six consecutive years. In view of the above, the decision to declare the applicant as ‗Unfit' for promotion appears prima facie incongruous with the established benchmark criteria as adopted by the DPCs and with the applicant's consistent performance reflected in the PARs during the relevant period. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Review Committee has not assessed the ACRs/APARs gradings in the correct perspective. From the above, it is evidently clear that the applicant was found clear from the vigilance angle, and her integrity was never in doubt at any stage, as is apparent from the findings of the DPCs.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 48 OA No. 3636/2024
20.4 It is well settled that mere holding of the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) does not entitle an officer to promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) as a matter of right. Promotion is not automatic and depends on eligibility, availability of vacancies, and suitability as assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). HAG is a limited, functional post linked with higher responsibilities, and not all eligible SAG officers can be accommodated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that promotion to a higher post is not a matter of right unless governed by statutory rules that mandate promotion on mere eligibility. In the absence of such a mandate, promotion remains a matter of selection, subject to organizational exigencies and the discretion of the competent authority. Thus, the non-promotion of the applicant to the HAG, despite being in the SAG and having met the prescribed benchmark in her performance from 2015-16 to 2021-22, with no adverse remarks on her integrity and a clear vigilance record, cannot be construed as a reflection of inefficiency or being classified as ‗deadwood'.
20.5 In so far as issue of empanelment of the applicant with the Govt. of India is concerned, it is apt to mention that the applicant belongs to All India Service and has a service liability to serve in the State as well as Union. Although, the empanelment with the Govt. of India is carried out by the Govt. of India after every year, however, it is not necessary that every officers of All India Services is empanelled with the Govt. of India. If the ground of non- empanelment is used against the applicant as an adverse point to invoke the provisions of Rule 16(3) of theRules ibid, it would have dare effect on the officers of All India Services, who is/are not empanelled with the Govt. of India to serve under the Union. Therefore, the ground of non-empanelled used as a weapon by the Review Committee to invoke the provisions of Rule 16 (3) of the Rules ibid. Hence, the same is not tenable.
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 49 OA No. 3636/2024
20.5 Insofar as the issue of non-empanelment of the applicant
with the Government of India is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the applicant belongs to an All India Service and, as such, carries a service liability to serve both under the State Government and the Union. While the process of empanelment with the Government of India is undertaken annually by the Central Government, it is not obligatory that every officer of the All India Services be empanelled for central deputation. If the ground of non-empanelment is treated as an adverse factor to invoke the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid, it would set an untenable precedent with potentially serious implications for numerous officers of the All India Services who, despite otherwise satisfactory service records, may not be empanelled for Central deputation. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Review Committee on the applicant's non-empanelment with the Government of India as a ground to invoke Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid is misplaced and cannot be sustained.
21. With regard to point at para 17 (iv) dealing with Vigilance status, the Review Committee had taken into consideration two instances, one relating to alleged misused of her official position to enter the Thyagraj Stadium, New Delhi with her pet after visiting hours in May 2022. The officer has been charge-sheeted for imposition of minor penalty vide MHA's Memorandum dated 27.2.2023. So far as another instance is concerned, the another charge sheet dated 27.2.2023 (same date) was issued on the alleged unauthorized absence for the period from 29.07.2022 to 15.09.2022 for leaving the country on 7.8.2022 and returning on 1.1.2023 and not reporting for duty at Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter again she left the country on 25.01.2023 without prior intimation and approval of the Competent Authority.
21.1 With regard to the charge sheet issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 27.02.2023, containing one article of charge alleging that the applicant, while posted 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 50 OA No. 3636/2024 with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, committed gross misconduct by travelling abroad without the approval of the competent authority during the period from August 2022 to February 2023, it is noted that the said charge sheet was challenged by the applicant by filing OA No.681/2024. This Tribunal, vide Order/Judgment dated 07.05.2025, quashed and set aside the said charge sheet on the ground that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), i.e., Respondent No.1, was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant after her transfer to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Insofar as another charge memorandum dated 27.02.2023, (i.e. of the same date), relating to the alleged incident of the applicant's visit to Thyagraj Stadium, is concerned, as annexed with the additional affidavit at pages 139 to 142 and again at pages 143 to 146, it is apt to state that the said charge sheet was issued by the MHA while the applicant was serving in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As noted earlier, this Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the same issue in OA No.681/2024 and held that the MHA lacks the competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer transferred to the State Government. As such we are of the considered view that the said charge Memorandum dated 27.02.2023 is irrelevant on the said instance. So far as second instance is concerned, since we have already delved upon the said issue in the preceding paras, we find that the same is also not relevant.
21.2 As noted earlier, the information placed before the Screening Committee for the DPCs held from 1998 to 2022 does not reflect any vigilance clearance issue in respect of the applicant. It is evident from paragraph 3 of the DPCs minutes that no departmental proceedings, criminal proceedings, or suspension was pending against the applicant. While paragraph 6 of the 2022 2025.08.11 RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42 +05'30' Item No. 33/C-1 51 OA No. 3636/2024 DPC minutes records that a show cause notice had been issued, and a proposal was under consideration by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the applicant's alleged Ex-India visit without prior approval of the Competent Authority, such observations, in isolation, cannot be treated as an adverse vigilance input. The mere issuance or contemplation of a show cause notice, without initiation of formal disciplinary or criminal proceedings, is not sufficient to declare an officer as lacking vigilance clearance adversely impacting the promotional prospects of the applicant as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. K.V.Jankiraman etc., AIR 1991 SC 2010 and DoP&T OM dated 14.9.1992.
22. To invoke the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Rules ibid, or the equivalent rules governing premature retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (supra), has clearly enunciated the principles to be followed while considering a case for premature retirement. Although the citation of the aforesaid judgment finds mention in the minutes of the Review Committee dated 21.03.2023, we are of the considered view that the said Review Committee has not adhered to, nor given due effect to, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein. The decision-making process appears to have fallen short of the judicially mandated safeguards prescribed in the said precedent.
23. In the above facts and circumstances and for the forgoing analysis, we allow the present OA in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 26.03.2024, 07.08.2023, 08.08.2023 (Annexure A1 Colly.) are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith back in service with all consequential benefits;
and
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'
Item No. 33/C-1 52 OA No. 3636/2024
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
24. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand closed.
25. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/neetu/
2025.08.11
RAVI KANOJIA14:43:42
+05'30'