Manipur High Court
Ravindra Singh Rautela vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 22 September, 2022
Author: Mv Muralidaran
Bench: Mv Muralidaran
Digitally
signed by
KABOR KABORAMBA
M LARSON
AMBAM Date:
Item - 3
LARSON 2022.11.08
12:20:31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
+05'30' AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C)No.793 of 2022
Ravindra Singh Rautela, aged about 55 years, S/o (L) Dhyan Singh, a
resident of 36/2A Suresh Nagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243006
presently at CRPF Station Officer's Mess, Room No.5, Langjing Camp,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795113.
.... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001;
2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110003;
3. The Inspector General of Police, M&N Sector, CRPF, Langjing,
Imphal, Manipur - 795113.
.... Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
22.09.2022
Heard Mr. S. Biswajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the records.
[2] Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG takes notice for the Respondents.
[3] Both the counsels for the parties agreed for disposing the Writ
Petition at the admission stage on the only ground of Office Memorandum
dated 28th August, 2020 for Periodic Review of Central Government
Employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule
(FR) 56(j)/(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads as
follows:-
No.25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment A-IV Desk
..............
North Block, New Delhi-1 Dated : 28th August, 2020 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: - Periodic Review of Central Government Employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j)/(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Instructions have been issued from time to time for undertaking periodic review of performance of Government servants with a view to ascertain whether the Government servant should be retained in service or retired from service prematurely, in public interest, as per Fundamental provisions/Rule referred in the subject cited above. In order to bring in better clarity to the existing instructions and enable uniform implementation, an effort has been made to review, consolidate and reiterate the guidelines so far issued on the subject at one place.
2. The objective of Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j)/(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, is to strengthen the administrative machinery by developing responsible and efficient administrative at all levels and to achieve efficiency, economy and speed in the disposal of Government functions. It is clarified that premature retirement of Government servants under these rules is not a penalty. It is distinct from 'Compulsory Retirement', which is one of prescribed penalties under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Provisions relating to pre-mature retirement in the Fundamental Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
3.1 The Appropriate Authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant under FR 56 (j), FR 56(l) or Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the case may be, if it is necessary to do so in the public interest.
[4] As per the above Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner ought to have sent his representation against the order of pre-mature retirement dated 13th July, 2022. [5] Admittedly, the petitioner sent representation on 20th July, 2022 and the same was returned by directing the petitioner to send his representation to the authority concerned. Therefore, the petitioner has given his representation on 20th August, 2022. [6] Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned ASG fairly submitted that since the petitioner has submitted his representation on 20.08.2022, the same should be considered on or before 10.10.2022. Accordingly, the Respondent authority also proceeded for passing necessary orders. Till such time, the petitioner ought to wait for the same and after that only, he can approach this Court.
[7] Mr. S. Biswajit, learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed for the same and prayed this Court to give liberty to approach this Court, challenging the orders if any passed by the authority concerned on his representation dated 20.08.2022.
[8] Recording the submission, I am inclined to pass the following orders:-
a) This Writ Petition is disposed of.
b) The Respondents are directed to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2022 within the time stipulated.
c) If the petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court, if he is aggrieved by any order to be passed by the Respondents on his Representation dated 20.08.2022.
[9] With above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
- Larson