Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjeev Kumar vs Externel Affairs on 26 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2395/2022
Orders reserved on: 13.02.2026
Orders pronounced on: 26.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan,
R/o. House No. 247, Village and
Post Office Mitraon, New Delhi-110043
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V. C. Shukla with Mr. Tarun Gupta)
VERSUS
Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Add- Room No. 1024, Jawahar
Lal Nhru Bhawan, 23D,
Janpath New Delhi-11 ....Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava, Ms. Risha Oberai, Under Secretary,
MEA)
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 2 OA No. 2395/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"A. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to set aside/quash the order No. Q/PA-I/551/01/2020, dated 02.06.2022 declaring the same to be arbitrary and without any cogent reasons;
B. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to set aside/quash the Order No. PA-I/551/01/2020 dated 19.07.2022 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on the recommendations of the Representation Committee;
C. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to bring on record the documents which were considered by the Ministry while passing the order No. Q/PA_I/551/01/2020, dated 02.06.2022;
D. Pass any other order/directions in favour of the Applicant in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, he joined the Ministry of External Affairs in November, 1996 as Assistant (now „Assistant Section Officer‟) after qualifying the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. He qualified the Limited Departmental Examination conducted by UPSC in December, 2004 and was promoted as Section Officer in March, 2006 on the basis of merit and his service record. In November, 2012, he was further promoted as Under Secretary on the basis of his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and overall service record. Throughout his career, the applicant earned predominantly "Outstanding" gradings in his APARs. For several years including 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, September, NEETU 2020 - March, 2021 and April, 2021 - March, 2022, he was graded Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 3 OA No. 2395/2022 "Outstanding", with reporting officers recording remarks regarding his integrity being beyond doubt, high security consciousness, dedication, and efficiency. During his tenure at the Consulate General of India, Guangzhou, he allegedly raised concerns regarding misuse of staff car by the then Consul General. According to the applicant, thereafter, retaliatory complaints were made against him. After completion of his tenure in Guangzhou, he was transferred to the Embassy of India, Rome in July, 2017. In November, 2017, he was issued a Memorandum by the Vigilance Division alleging misconduct relating to his tenure at Guangzhou. Several memoranda followed seeking explanations on multiple counts under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On 01.08.2018, a charge memorandum was issued proposing action against the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted detailed replies denying all allegations and asserting mala fides. The matter was referred to UPSC for advice. Vide advice dated 16.03.2020, UPSC held certain components of the charge fully/partly proved and recommended penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. Based on the aforesaid UPSC advice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty vide order dated 06.08.2020. The applicant challenged the said penalty order before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1563/2020 (Annexure-A/4), which is stated to be pending at the time of filing this O.A., however as of now, it has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2024. The applicant also challenged certain APAR gradings for 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 (graded "Good") by filing O.A. No. NEETU833/2022, which is also pending at the time of filing this O.A., however Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 4 OA No. 2395/2022 as of now, it has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2024. On 04.02.2022 (Annexure-A/8), a notification was issued promoting certain officers to Grade III of IFS (B). According to the applicant, some officers, who had been declared "unfit" for promotion continued in service. However, vide order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1), issued under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, the President ordered premature retirement of the applicant in public interest upon his attaining the age of 50 years, with three months‟ pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-A/7) before the Representation Committee under the applicable Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2020. The Representation Committee rejected his representation and upheld the premature retirement vide order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure-A/2).
2.1 Aggrieved by the premature retirement order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) and rejection of his representation dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure-A/2), the applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder refuting the contents of the reply filed by the respondents.
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 5 OA No. 2395/2022
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned orders passed by the respondents retiring the applicant as well as rejecting the applicant's aforesaid representation are arbitrary and show non-application of mind. On the one hand, in the latest APARs of the applicant for the period between April, 2021 and March, 2022, the applicant has been graded "OUTSTANDING" and on the other hand, the respondents have retired him citing public interest. 4.1 Learned counsel also argued that no public interest can be served in retiring the applicant, as the applicant has an impeccable service record and has been graded "OUTSTANDING" in most of the years barring a short, limited stint in Rome, which was challenged before this Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 890/2021, which was ultimately disposed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 04.07.2023 and the respondents were directed to treat the APARs for the periods April 2017
- March 2018, April 2018 - March 2019 and April - July 2019 as non est and be removed from the APAR dossier of the applicant, the relevant extract of the same reads as under:-
"29. We are certainly not holding them responsible for the same and would like to accept the justification and reasoning for such a non adherence, explained by the learned counsel for the respondents. But we have to take into consideration the fact that even if there may be more than sufficient justification, however, the fact remains that the timelines and the instructions have not been kept. The Ministry of External Affairs instructions dated 27.03.2018 which have been quoted earlier clearly state that "The RvO shall also forfeit her/his right to enter any remarks in the APAR beyond August 31, 2018." "In case the remarks of the RO or RvO, as the case may be, have not been entered in the APAR due to the concerned officers forfeiting her/his right to make any entry as per the provision mentioned above, a certificate to this effect shall be added in the APAR of the ORU for the relevant Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 6 OA No. 2395/2022 period. In such a case, ORU will be request to share a copy of their self appraisal with APAR Section."
30. Why we have repeated these instructions is that they leave absolutely no scope for ambiguity. Not only do they categorically mention that if APAR is not written within the stipulated time, the Reporting and Reviewing Officers shall forfeit their right to enter any remarks, these instructions do not stop there. They also state that non submission and non writing of the APAR will be treated as negligence of duty and will be viewed very seriously. It goes on to highlight that non adherence to the timelines and instructions could also result in other adverse consequences such as withholding of pension/MACP/ leave/several other privileges etc.
31. We cannot accept the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents that these instructions do not carry any statutory force. If we were to accept the contention that executive instructions are only directional in nature and hence, they would not be binding on an executive authority, we may be setting a very worrisome precedent which may result in each and every executive authority making its own choice whether to adhere to instructions or not. We do appreciate that there may be some practical difficulties in strict adherence to the instructions especially with respect to the timelines, however, the remedy lies in an appropriate amendment in the instructions or outlining such circumstances wherein deviation from same could be made. However, in the absence of an enabling provision or power to relax, we can certainly not accept a situation wherein this court absolves an executive authority from non adherence to instructions which have been unambiguously outlines. Such an approach would strike at the roots of justice.
32. Therefore, without making any comment or observation with respect to what has been recorded as assessment of the applicant in his APAR, we allow the OA and direct that the APARs for the periods April 2017 -March 2018, April 2018 - March 2019 and April - July2019 shall be non est and shall be removed from the APAR dossier of the applicant. To clarify, these APARs shall not have any value and shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose."
(emphasis supplied) 4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had also filed O.A. No. 833/2022 challenging the grading awarding in his APAR for the period from 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.08.2020 in which the applicant has demonstrated to this Tribunal that lower grades were allotted to him deliberately in connivance of some officers because of personal enmity, which was disposed of by this Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 7 OA No. 2395/2022 Tribunal vide Order dated 01.05.2024, the relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"24. We have given due consideration to the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court in WP(C) No.725/2020, which has been quoted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that there is hardly any scope for interference by the court in the APAR and that performance of a person in a particular year cannot be judged on the basis of his performance in earlier or later period. However, we cannot ignore the fact, as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the dip in the performance as evaluated is stark in certain attributes, which fails to reason. It is quite obvious that something more than just the work performance could have influenced while grading the performance of the applicant in the impugned APARs. Further, the pen picture drawn by the reporting officer certainly describes a person with sterling qualities. We illustrate that he is described as "a soft spoken officer with a positive attitude". He is said to have "a nice & productivity personality" and that again "he successfully contributed his services to the Embassy"; "acquainted with the areas of work and handled all the tasks assigned in a timely manner"; "The Officer is diligent & has a good sense of responsibility etc.".
25. Curiously, the pen picture drawn by the reviewing officer in both the impugned APARs is the same. Thus, we can only draw one inference that the APARs may have been written in a mechanical manner.
26. Against the background of what has been outlined above, we are of the opinion that two impugned APARs for a total period from 01.08.2019 till 31.08.2020 are odds with the rest of the APARs of the applicant and even though he has been graded as a "Good", they do have an adverse implication upon the prospects of the applicant. Since it is not for us to give a grading to the applicant as he prays for, we confine our direction to quashing the impugned APARs and directing that these shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose when it comes to the service entitlements of the applicant.
27. During the period of the consideration of impugned APARs, if any benefits in terms of the promotion or otherwise have been denied to the applicant on account of the grading made in these two APARs, the same shall be reviewed and decision taken afresh without taking into account the APARs which have been quashed vide this order.
28. With the above directions, the OA stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
4.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the O.M. dated 28.08.2020 categorically states that the premature retirement under Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules cannot be passed against a Government employee to punish him. The applicant herein Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 8 OA No. 2395/2022 has already been awarded a minor penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for increment for three years without cumulative effect and without effecting pensionary benefits. 4.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the Review Committee was bound by the guidelines/criteria/parameters set out in the O.M. dated28.08.2020, while considering cases for premature retirement. A bare perusal of said criteria/parameters would show that the applicant‟s case was not one of doubtful integrity or ineffectiveness. As such, there was no ground, whatsoever for retiring the applicant in "public interest".
4.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the UPSC‟s advice dated 16.03.2020 itself notes that "ends of justice would be met" by imposing such penalty. Hence, the respondents cannot in any event rely on any of these considerations to invoke Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. Rather, the aforesaid punishment awarded upon the applicant which was based on the advice of the UPSC was challenged by the applicant by way of O.A. No.1563/2020 before this Tribunal and the same is allowed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 23.01.2024, vide which the said penalty order as well as appellate authority's orders were quashed by this Tribunal with all consequential benefits.
4.7 Learned counsel also argued that the applicant had been transferred to the headquarters in Delhi since August, 2020, and even in this assignment, his grading has been "OUTSTANDING" and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 9 OA No. 2395/2022 integrity "beyond doubt". This shows that the performance of the applicant has been up to the mark and his Reporting and Reviewing officers have complete faith in the integrity and productivity of the applicant.
4.8 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant received the latest APAR on17.06.2022, which was graded 'OUTSTANDING' by his Reporting and Reviewing Officers despite knowing of the order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) whereby the applicant has been retired by the Ministry under Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.
4.9 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has not been given any reason whatsoever by any authority for retiring him prematurely. This shows that the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) has been passed without application of mind. 4.10 It is also submitted that he sent a detailed representation dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-A/7) before the Representation Committee, which was not considered properly since the applicant has expressly mentioned that the OM dated 23.08.2020 has not been followed in letter and spirit while passing the order dated 02.06.2022. 4.11 Learned counsel submitted that, in terms of the applicable service rules, every Government servant is liable to be reviewed upon attaining the age of 50 years. In the present case, such review ought to have been conducted two years earlier. However, no such review was undertaken, and the applicant has continued to discharge his duties thereafter Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 10 OA No. 2395/2022 without any objection, adverse communication, or instruction from the respondents in this regard.
4.12 Learned counsel also submitted that ever since the applicant has been transferred back to India in August, 2020, no such incident has occurred or the applicant has not taken any action which can be called in question. In such an eventuality, the respondents' decision that the continuance of the applicant would be contrary to public interest is not only incorrect but without any rationale.
4.13 Learned counsel also argued that there is no rationale whatsoever in retiring the applicant at this stage as the service record of the applicant has been excellent throughout barring a small period of 3 years. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S. R. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 491, has held as follows:-
"9. The influence of extraneous matters will undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore he a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of government servants only in the "public interest", to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must therefore be held to be infected with an abuse of power."
4.14 The O.M. dated 28.08.2020 itself noted the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in case of Union of India Vs. Col. J. N. Singh, reported in (1971) 1 SCR 791,which clearly holds that:-
"Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j) it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so.
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 11 OA No. 2395/2022
If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been farmed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision."
4.15 Learned counsel further submitted that before passing an order of the premature retirement under Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the Respondents ought to have considered the entire service record of the applicant and only upon consideration of the entire service record, such an order could be passed. In case, the entire service record of the applicant along with the APARs be called for, from which it would be evident that the service record of the applicant has been excellent/outstanding and applicant‟s service has not been even remotely detrimental to public interest.
4.16 Learned counsel also submitted that the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions issued a notification No. 8/6/2021-EO (SMII) in which a list is published of the officers who would be promoted to the Grade III of the Indian Foreign Service in Level 14 of the Pay Matrix against the panel year 2022 w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge of the post. In the said list, there are names of officers, who have been declared unfit for promotion for last year and in one case, continuously for the last nine years (Shri Raj Kumar Singh, IFS 1996). However, the applicant herein has never been declared unfit for promotion yet the respondents have retired him citing public interest whereas the officers, who have been declared unfit, are continuing in the service under the respondents. This list pertains to one year in one cadre. The applicant submits that under NEETUthe aegis of the Ministry, there would be several such lists for different Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 12 OA No. 2395/2022 cadres in different years, but the applicant has been meted this arbitrary treatment by the Ministry.
4.17 Learned counsel also argued that there are several other officers in the Ministry, who have been graded below the applicant and yet have not been retired under Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The applicant's case has been treated in a different manner, as he has been retired under Clause (j) of the Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, despite having better grades than most of his companions in the Ministry. Such „pick and choose‟ process for retiring the applicant, smacks of mala fide.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 04.05.2023 on behalf of respondents, submitted that the applicant is chronic litigant and in habitual of filing the frivolous cases, as it reveals from face of records that the present is the 5th round of litigation. It is further stated that the applicant is claiming that he was promoted due to his "excellent" service records; however, it is unclear what the applicant is judging to be "excellent", as there is no such characterisation provided for in extant Government rules and regulations. It is stated that officers in MEA are promoted based on assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committees against benchmarks prescribed for promotion to respective grades. Out of the record of 132 months of APARs provided by the applicant, only 75 months of APARs have been graded as 'outstanding'. Hence, the NEETU applicant‟s claim that he has been graded "mostly outstanding" is Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 13 OA No. 2395/2022 fallacious to say the least. It is further stated that the complaints regarding misuse of his position, including of obtaining personal favours for his son and relatives and of misrepresenting himself as the final authority for issuance of visa and passports during the applicant‟s tenure in CGI, Guangzhou in China were received by the Ministry. An impartial enquiry was conducted and the UPSC‟s advice was sought. The charges were proven and a penalty was imposed on the applicant vide its order dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-R/1). Thus, the applicant labelling his tenure in China as "unblemished" is a mischievous and malicious attempt to mislead the Tribunal. It is denied that false allegations had been made against the applicant to seek revenge as alleged by the applicant. The said complaint against the applicant was examined by the Ministry in unbiased manner in light of the facts and circumstances as mentioned in detail in the penalty order dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-R/1) issued to the applicant. However, the contention of the applicant that none of the allegations against him was raised during his tenure at CGI, Guangzhou has no bearing on the disciplinary action against him. The examination of relevant documents including his own written submissions revealed that during his tenure at CGI, Guangzhou, the applicant had exhibited conduct unbecoming of Govt. servant thereby violating relevant conduct rules. 5.1 It is also submitted that the applicant‟s APAR‟s have been inconsistent. The applicant since his promotion to Attaché in 2006, has had APAR grading below benchmark including „Average‟ and „Good‟, which has continued till the recent past, including from July, 2017 to NEETUAugust, 2020. The applicant has not been able to uniformly get above Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 14 OA No. 2395/2022 benchmark APARs. The applicant also refused to abide by the transfer orders of the Ministry after the completion of his tenure in Embassy of India, Rome. He approached this Tribunal in July, 2020 to stay his transfer back to India, when asked to return back to Ministry. The Tribunal disposed off the petition and instructed the Ministry to issue a speaking order on the issue. Further, an examination of his service records brought out that the applicant‟s misconduct of different kinds including allegations of sexual harassment, complaints about rude and aggressive behavior towards staff, altercation with colleagues, misbehaving with Indian Community, complaints of rudeness, aggressive behavior and delays from consular visitors etc. Charges of misuse of his position, including of obtaining personal favours for his son and relatives and misrepresenting himself as the final authority for issuance of visa and passports while being posted in CGI, Guangzhou were also brought to the notice of the Ministry. An impartial enquiry was conducted and the UPSC‟s advice was sought. The charges were proven and a penalty was imposed on the applicant after due process. While examining the applicant‟s case, the competent authority in the Ministry noted that anyone dealing with external governments should have integrity beyond doubt and must maintain the highest ethical standards expected of an official of the Indian Government and therefore, based on the applicant‟s APARs, Personal Files, Service Records and Disciplinary actions, decided to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56 (j) on grounds of doubtful integrity and ineffectiveness. The applicant is making assumptions and trying to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 15 OA No. 2395/2022 mislead the Court on these assumptions. Ministry follows all guidelines set by DoP&T and processes before taking action.
5.2 It is also submitted that while considering the aspect of integrity of an employee, all material on record, including the actions or decisions taken by the employee, which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may also be taken into account. The judgement of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union Of India & Anr., reported in 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6) 162 is relevant here. In this case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the Government and held that "The rights-constitutional or statutory - carry with them corollary duty to maintain efficiency, integrity and dedication to public service. Unfortunately, the latter is being overlooked and neglected and the former unduly gets emphasised. The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest." 5.3 It is submitted that similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of2002,"If a conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 16 OA No. 2395/2022 government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest."
5.4 It is also submitted that in addition to the applicant‟s poor performance, the charges levelled upon the applicant are of very serious nature, including misuse of his official position to derive benefits for his sons and relatives. An officer, who uses his official position to gain favour in any country, cannot be relied upon to safeguard national interests. It is also submitted that Shri Shashank Vikram has been promoted in 2022 to Grade III of IPS. Shri Vivek Jeph stands retired. Shri Sanjeev Kumar is unnecessarily wasting time of the Court without having understanding of the entire context or having access to the entire records.
5.5 It is submitted that the orders mentioned have been issued after following due process and approval of the competent authority in the Ministry. In addition, Representation Committee has also examined the orders along with representation submitted by the applicant and stood by Ministry's decision. Hence, applicant‟s allegations that the orders have been issued without any basis deserve to be rejected out rightly. 5.6 Learned counsel for the respondents, while replying to grounds raised by the applicant, contended as under:-
(i) It may be re-iterated that of the less than 9 years of Group A service, he has been awarded penalty for 3 years of his Service in CGI, Guangzhou due to doubtful integrity and has been found ineffective for 3years during his tenure in EoI, Rome, The charges proved against the applicant which led to imposition of penalty reflect that his integrity is NEETUdoubtful. An officer who misuses his official position, to gain personal Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 17 OA No. 2395/2022 favours, that too in a foreign country, cannot be relied upon to safeguard national interest. The Ministry cannot entrust such an officer with critical/sensitive assignments given to Group 'A' officers in the Ministry of External Affairs.
(ii) It is submitted that the meeting of the Representation Committee, which reviewed applicant‟s representation and his entire service records was held on 07.07.2022 under the chairmanship of Ms. Arti Ahuja, Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. The Representation Committee observed that applicant‟s APAR‟s have been inconsistent. The applicant, since his promotion to Attaché in 2006, has had APARs below benchmark including „Average‟ and „Good‟, which has continued till the recent past, including from July, 2017 to August, 2020. He has not been able to uniformly get above benchmark APARs.
The Representation Committee also further observed that the applicant refused to abide by the transfer orders of the Ministry after the completion of his tenure in Embassy of India, Rome. He approached the Tribunal in July, 2020 to stay his transfer back to India, when asked to return back to Ministry. The Tribunal disposed off the petition and instructed the Ministry to issue a speaking order on the issue. The examination of the service records in Bratislava, including the report of the then Indian Ambassador brought out applicant's misconduct of different kinds including allegations of sexual harassment, complaints about rude and aggressive behavior towards staff, altercation with colleagues, misbehaving with Indian Community, complaints of rudeness, aggressive behavior, and delays from consular visitors etc. He NEETUwas prematurely recalled back to the Ministry. The Representation Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 18 OA No. 2395/2022 Committee also examined the charges of misuse of his position, including of obtaining personal favours for his son and relatives while being posted in Guangzhou and of misrepresenting himself as the final authority for issuance of visa and passports. An impartial enquiry was conducted and the UPSC‟s advice was sought. The charges were proven and a penalty was imposed on him after due process. The Committee also noted that anyone dealing with external governments should have integrity beyond doubt and must maintain the highest ethical standards expected of an official of the Indian Government. The Representation Committee, therefore, based on the applicant‟s APARs, Personal Files, Service Records and Disciplinary Proceedings agreed with the recommendations of the Review Committee to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56 (j) on grounds of doubtful integrity and ineffectiveness. Ministry has followed the broad criteria laid down in para 10 of DoP&T's OM dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure-R/4) for its decision. In the judgement in the case of Union of India Vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr., [1971 AIR 40. 1971 SCR (1) 791], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not only upheld the validity of FR 56 (j), but also held that no show-cause notice needs to be issued to any Government servant before a notice of retirement is issued to him under the aforesaid provisions. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that:-
"Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule56 (j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule. One of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts."Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 19 OA No. 2395/2022
(iii) Further, It is submitted that in order/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:-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised 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."
(iv) It is also submitted that the applicant is making false allegations on senior functionaries of Government of India, including members of the Representation Committee. The meeting of the Representation Committee, which reviewed applicant‟s representation and his entire service records was held on 07.07.2022 under the chairmanship of Ms. Arti Ahuja, Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals. Just because the applicant is aggrieved, he cannot judge that his representation was not considered properly. Order dated 02.06.2022 retiring the applicant was passed after the Appointing Authority having Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 20 OA No. 2395/2022 accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee constituted under the provisions of clause (j) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. The applicant cannot call the decision of the Ministry as arbitrary just because it is against him. The applicant was retired considering his entire service records. Under FR 56 (j), 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 public interest. The applicant‟s representation dated 20.06.2022 was brought to the notice of the Representation Committee which met on 07.07.2022. The Representation Committee considered the Representation of the applicant and perused the order dated 02.06.2022,minutes of the Review Committee, the entire service records of the officer, and other documents/records to arrive at the conclusion that no interference is required to be made in the order dated 02.06.2022. The applicant cannot claim that the representation was not considered properly, only because the Representation Committee decided against the applicant.
(v) It is submitted that as per DoPT‟s OM dated28.08.2020 (Annexure-R/4), non-adherence to the timelines of review due to administrative exigencies, shall not take away the powers of Appropriate Authority to pre-maturely retire a Government servant under FR 56 (j), 56 (l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant cannot claim that since he was not reviewed in 2020, he could not be considered for review in 2022. Para 6 of the said OM states "Government may, at any time after a Government servant has NEETUattained the age of 50/55 years or completed 30 years of service, as the Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 21 OA No. 2395/2022 case may be, retire him pre-maturely in public interest. However, nonadherence to the time-lines as indicated in above para due to certain administrative exigencies shall not take away the powers of Appropriate Authority to pre-maturely retire a Government servant under FR 56 (j), 56 (l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, review of a Government servant for the purposes of these Rules can be undertaken even after he has attained the age of 50/55years in cases covered by FR 56 (j) or after he has completed 30 years of qualifying service under FR 56 (l) /Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972."
(vi) It is further submitted that the order of premature retirement is based on facts, examination of the entire service record and due process has been followed. The applicant seems to have a false understanding of his integrity and effectiveness, when he has clearly been awarded a penalty and has been awarded below benchmark APAR over several years. The decision to prematurely retire the applicant under FR 56(j) is based one valuation of applicant's entire service record, loss of trust on the individual and his inability to serve as a Group 'A' Officer and has not been limited to the penalty as alleged by him. Not only information on his personal file, but all other records have been examined for arriving at the decision by the Appointing Authority. As per DoP&T's OM dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure-R/4), it is clear that premature retirement cannot be treated as punishment and this along with punishment for misconduct or misbehaviour does not constitute double jeopardy, as these are two separate issues. The officers are considered NEETUfor promotion based on several criteria, including completion of Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 22 OA No. 2395/2022 minimum qualifying service, completion of mandatory training, APAR gradings, etc. and thus, there can be several reasons for denial of promotion and every case of denial of promotion needs to be dealt with separately on merits.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 30.05.2023 besides reiterating the averments and submissions, as made in the O.A., submitted that, in the counter reply, the respondents have called the applicant a "Chronic Litigant" without realizing that the matter is sub-judice before this Tribunal. He further submitted that such remarks apart from being personal are also contemptuous for this Tribunal, as the Tribunal has entertained the O.As. filed by the applicant. In addition to the above, all the O.As. filed before this Tribunal by the applicant have arisen out of separate cause of action. He also contended that the facts stated by the respondents in the counter reply that the "excellent" service record of the applicant is of no consequence in his promotion. The Answering Respondent has portrayed a picture as if the exercise of the APAR is in vain and is of no substance. This statement again is a very casual averment made by the Answering Respondent in the Counter Affidavit. He further contended that the submission of the respondents in the counter reply by replying that out of the 132 months APARs, 41 months APARs are still sub-judice before this Tribunal where this Tribunal has heard the arguments and reserved it for pronouncement of judgments vide order dated 24.04.2023. He also stated that the applicant most Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 23 OA No. 2395/2022 humbly submits that out of the 91 months APARs, the applicant has „Outstanding‟ APARS and 16 „Very Good‟ APARs. It is pertinent to mention that „Very Good‟ grading of APAR is the benchmark for the purposes of grant of promotion.
6.1 It is also stated that if for the sake of arguments, the contents of the counter reply are considered correct, then the respondent claiming that the order under Rule 56 (j) in the instant case has been passed against the applicant as measure of punishment. In such eventuality, the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law, as the same cannot be passed as punishment lest in a case where the applicant has already been inflicted with a penalty, which was under challenge before this Tribunal and during the pendency of this O.A., the said penalty order was quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed in O.A. No. 1563/2020.
6.2 He further submitted that the normal tenure of the applicant in Rome was for three years and applicant had requested for extension of tenure on educational ground of his daughter, which is normal feature of posting transfer in the Ministry of External Affairs. In all transfer related meetings, many officials/officers get their tenure extended on educational ground only. After completion of the normal tenure, the applicant returned to the Headquarter as per Ministry‟s order. 6.3 He also submitted that the respondent has again stated contrary to the records with regard to grading granted to the applicant in is APAR, which is evident from the following table:-
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 24 OA No. 2395/2022
S. PERIOD GRADINGS
No.
1 April, 2011 to August, 2011 OUTSTANDING
2 September, 2011 to March, 2012 OUTSTANDING
3 April, 2012 to March, 2013 OUTSTANDING
4 April, 2013 to March, 2014 VERY GOOD
5 April, 2014 to March, 2015 OUTSTANDING
6 April-July, 2015 VERY GOOD
7 August, 2015 to March, 2016 OUTSTANDING
8 April, 2016 to March, 2017 OUTSTANDING
9 April, 2017 to March, 2018 GOOD*
10 April, 2018 to March, 2019 GOOD*
11 April, 2019 to March, 2020 and April to GOOD*
August, 2020
12 September, 2020 to March, 2021 OUTSTANDING
13 April, 2021 to March, 2022 OUTSTANDING
6.4 Learned counsel argued that the grading of 'Good' granted for the period from August 2019 to August 2020 was also challenged by the applicant before this Tribunal vide O.A. No. 833/2022, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 01.05.2024, the relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"26. Against the background of what has been outlined above, we are of the opinion that two impugned APARs for a total period from 01.08.2019 till 31.08.2020 are odds with the rest of the APARs of the applicant and even though he has been graded as a "Good", they do not have an adverse implication upon the prospects of the applicant. Since it is not for us to give a grading to the applicant as he prays for, we confine our direction to quashing the impugned APARs and directing that these shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose when it comes to the service entitlements of the applicant.
27. During the period of the consideration of impugned APARs, if any benefits in terms of the promotion or otherwise have been denied to the applicant on account of the grading made in these two APARs, the same shall be reviewed and decision taken afresh without taking into account the APARs which have been quashed vide this order."
6.5 It is further stated that the respondent is put to strict test to bring on record any document/memorandum/reply/complaint etc. received or issued against the applicant in relation to allegations of sexual harassment, complaints about rude and aggressive behavior towards staff, altercation with colleagues, misbehaving with Indian NEETU Community, complaints or rudeness and aggressive behavior etc. It is Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 25 OA No. 2395/2022 submitted that the reply of the respondent is evident to show that the respondent even before this Court has filed a reply full of vengeance and baseless allegations against the applicant, as he is pursuing his rights before this Tribunal. In addition to the above, the respondents have again made remarks on the subject, which was sub-judiced before this Tribunal. This goes on to show the apprehension of the applicant to be true that the applicant has been unnecessarily punished by the respondents by granting him the compulsory retirement. Also, in each APAR form there is column about „Integrity‟ of the official in question. Since joining till compulsory retirement of the applicant, all ROs and RVOs of the applicant has commented as "Beyond Doubt" in integrity column of the applicant. He also stated that Sh. Raj Kumar Singh, IPS (1996), who has been consistently unfit for promotion for more than 10 years, is still in service, for the reasons best known to the respondents. ANALYSIS
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record.
8. The following issues arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the order of premature retirement under FR 56(j) is arbitrary, mala fide or punitive in nature?
2. Whether the respondents have considered the entire service record of the applicant in accordance with the governing Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020?
3. Whether interference is warranted in exercise of judicial review?Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 26 OA No. 2395/2022
9. Before adverting on above issue, we deem it appropriate to note the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1), which reads as under:-
"WHEREAS the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so;
Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the President hereby retires Shri Sanjeev Kumar (Grade-I of IFS B), Under Secretary (OIA-I) who attained the age of 50 years on 04.08.2002 with immediate effect from the forenoon of 02.06.2022. The President also directs that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was supposed to be drawing them immediately before his retirement."
9.1 The impugned order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure-A-2) reads as under:-
"ORDER Fundamental Rule (FR) 56 (j) empowers an Appropriate Authority to compulsory retire an employee in Group „A‟ service after he has attained the age of 50 years.
2. The Review Committee constituted for periodic review in terms of FR 56 (j) considered the entire service record of Shri Sanjeev Kumar and recommended his premature retirement in public interest.
3. The Ministry of External Affairs considering the aforesaid recommendation of the Review Committee, prematurely retired Shri Sanjeev Kumar with effect from forenoon of June 02, 2022 vide its Order No. Q/PA-I/551/01/2020 dated June 02, 2022.
4. The Ministry of External Affairs received Shri Sanjeev Kumar‟s representation on June 20, 2022 against the said order dated June 02, 2022.
5. The aforesaid representation and Ministry‟s examination of the same was forwarded on July 01, 2022 to the Representation Committee constituted in terms of DoP&T‟s OM No. 25013/01/2013 Estt. A IV dated 15.06.2022 and subsequent OM No. Q/PA-I/551/01/2020 dated June 20, 2022.
6. On July 07, 2022 the Representation Committee considered the aforesaid Representation and perused the order dated June 02, 2022, minutes of the Review Committee, the entire service record of the aforesaid officer and other documents/records to arrive at the conclusion that no interference is required to be made in the order dated June 02, 2022 passed by the Ministry of External Affairs.Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 27 OA No. 2395/2022
7. Appropriate Authority has accepted the observations of Representation Committee as mentioned and disposed off your representation dated June 20, 2022 received in Ministry of External Affairs."
10. The scope of judicial review in cases of compulsory/premature retirement has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases, some of which includes Union of India Vs. Col. J. N. Sinha, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate authority has an absolute right to retire a Government servant if it forms a bona fide opinion that it is in public interest to do so, and such opinion cannot be interfered with unless shown to be mala fide, arbitrary or based on no material.
10.1 In State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, the Hon‟ble Apex Court crystallized the principles governing compulsory retirement, inter alia, which reads as under:-
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised 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."Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 28 OA No. 2395/2022
10.2 Similarly, in judgment dated 01.09.1995 of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the matter of K. Kandaswamy Vs. Union of India, reported in 1996 AIR 277, it was reiterated that integrity and efficiency are core considerations and the Government must consider the totality of circumstances while forming its opinion in public interest. The relevant paras of the same reads as under:-
"As seen in the light of documents and in the light of the specific permission sought by the appellant himself on the basis of the special report submitted by the State Government, the Government of India through its appropriate Committee reached the conclusion that in view of the doubtful integrity it would not be desirable in the public interest to retain the appellant in service. Accordingly, they have compulsorily retired the appellant from service. Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is neither punishment nor visits with loss of retiral benefits; nor does it cast stigma. The officer would be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned and there is no diminution of the accrued benefits. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government employee is public interest. If the appropriate authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it. But the same may be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not been formed or the decision is based for collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.
While exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to weigh several circumstances in arriving at the conclusion that the employee requires to be compulsorily retired in public interest. The Government is given power to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service, when the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in the public interest, court would not interfere with the order. In S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC 424], a Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a member, considered the entire case law and held that "the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 29 OA No. 2395/2022 Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone; the Government should form the opinion that the Government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer."
Higher the ladder the officer scales in the echolons of service, greater should be the transperancy of integrity, honesty, character and dedication to duty. Work culture and self-discipline augment his experience. Security of service gives fillip to accelerate assiduity to stay in line and measure up to the expected standards of efficiency by the Government employee. Thereby, they ultimately aid to achieve excellence in public service. The security of service provided by Article 311 of the Constitution and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 would thus ensure to remove deficiency and incompetence and augment efficiency of public administration. The rights - constitutional or statutory - carry with them corollary duty to maintain efficiency, integrity and dedication to public service. Unfortunately, the latter is being overlooked and neglected and the former unduly gets emphasised. The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material on record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power."
10.3 Further, it apt to state that recently, in the case of Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. Commissioner, SDMC & Anr. and connected cases in W.P. (C) 1823/2021 & W.P. (C) 6590/2021 decided on 18.05.2025, had an occasion to consider the issue relating to invocation of provisions of FR 56 (j), in the said case in which the Hon'ble High Court extensively noted the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court relating to premature retirement of Govt. servant by invoking the provisions of FR 56 (j), the writ petitions challenged orders of compulsory retirement issued in 2019 under FR 56 (j) read with Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 by the South and North Delhi Municipal Corporations (SDMC & NDMC) against two municipal engineers. The said orders prematurely ended their service on the ground of alleged doubtful integrity. However, the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court NEETU quashed the compulsory retirement orders as without justification, Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 30 OA No. 2395/2022 holding that mere suspicion or purported doubts about integrity without cogent material cannot justify compulsory retirement. The Hon‟ble High Court observed that the authorities failed to properly consider the full service records and no valid basis was made out for concluding that the petitioners‟ integrity was doubtful. The Hon‟ble High Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioners with all consequential benefits, if they had not yet reached superannuation. If they had crossed the age of superannuation, the Hon'ble High Court directed notional fixation of pay and computation of retiral benefits accordingly. The aforesaid judgment reinforces that Fundamental Rule 56 (j), often invoked for compulsory retirement on "integrity grounds"
cannot be used arbitrarily and requires cogent material to justify denial of continued service. It underscores judicial review over administrative decisions under FR 56 (j) when they lack substantive justification and procedural fairness. After extensively noted the plethora of judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue of invocation of provisions of FR 56 (j), the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court noted the principles emerge in the matter of compulsory retirement, the same are reproduced as under:-
"22.5 The Takeaway:-
From the above judgments, the following principles emerge, in the matter of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment:
(i) The scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory retirement, is fairly limited.
(ii) Compulsory retirement involves no penal consequences.
(iii) At the same time, if unlimited discretion is permitted to the administration in the matter of passing orders of compulsory Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 31 OA No. 2395/2022 retirement, it would be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonable, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal.
(iv) The exercise of power to compulsory retire an officer must be bona fide and to promote public interest.
(v) It is permissible to lift the veil in order to ascertain whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant and whether the order has been made bona fide without any oblique and extraneous purpose.
(vi) A bona fide order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion has not been informed, the decision is based on collateral factors or is arbitrary.
(vii) The court cannot sit in appeal over an order of compulsory retirement, but can interfere if it is satisfied that the order is passed mala fide, or is based on no evidence, or is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion in the given material.
(viii) The object of compulsory retirement, where it is not awarded as a punishment, aims at weeding out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service, and dispensing with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.
(ix) If the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the government servant or contains any statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, it would be treated as an order of punishment, attracting Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. If, however, the order of compulsory retirement refers only to an assessment of his work and does not cast an aspersion on his conduct or character, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be treated as an order of punishment. The test would be the manner in which a reasonable person would read or understand the order of compulsory retirement.
(x) FR 56 (j) does not require any opportunity to show cause to be provided before an order of compulsory retirement is passed.
(xi) Before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into account.
(xii) The gradings in the ACRs of the officer are relevant. The performance of the officer in later years, including the gradings granted in later years, would be of greater relevance than those in earlier years. Where the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as being "beyond doubt", or grade him "outstanding" or "very good", it is an important factor in favour of the officer, and would, in a given case, vitiate the order of compulsory retirement, unless it is shown that, between the last such entry and the passing of the order of compulsory retirement, there was sudden and unexplained deterioration in the performance of the officer.
(xiii) Uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACRs of the officer can also be taken into account before passing an order of compulsory retirement.Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 32 OA No. 2395/2022
(xiv) Grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record is a factor operating in favour of the officer.
Promotion to a higher post notwithstanding adverse remarks result in the adverse remarks losing their sting.
(xv) The fact that the officer was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, or was granted promotion after the events which formed the basis of the order of compulsory retirement, is also a relevant consideration.
(xvi) The subjective satisfaction of the authority passing an order of compulsory retirement must be based on valid material. (xvii) Compulsory retirement is not required to be by a speaking order (xviii)The principle of audi alteram partem has no application in the case of compulsory retirement."
10.4 Subsequently, also the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in a similar challenge to compulsory retirement of a Govt. employee by invoking the provisions of FR 56 (j), as in aforesaid judgment, in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. South DMC & Anr., in Writ Petition No. 12099/2021 decided on 26.09.2025, explicitly relied on the framework and principles articulated in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) regarding orders passed under FR 56 (j) held that before issuing a compulsory retirement order, the entire service record must be considered. Confidential Reports (ACRs) reflecting "integrity beyond doubt" and consistently "very good/outstanding" performance in later years are highly relevant. Adverse actions from remote past cannot alone justify compulsory retirement, if later service shows unblemished conduct. Promotion despite earlier adverse entries is an important factor weighing in favour of the officer. An order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with if it is arbitrary, mala fide, based on irrelevant material, or contrary to established principles. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 33 OA No. 2395/2022
"12. In the present case, though it is not denied that the petitioner was visited with seven penalties between 2005 to 2010, one of which has been quashed by the learned Tribunal, it also remains undisputed that he was later promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by an Order dated 25.07.2012. Further, his ACR gradings for the period from 2008-09 to 2018-19 were also either „Very Good‟ or „Outstanding‟ and his integrity was reported as „Beyond Doubt‟.
13. As held in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), before passing an order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer has to be taken into consideration, including the grading in the ACRs. The performance of the officer in the later years is of greater relevance than reliance on old and historical punishments. Once the ACRs continuously record the integrity of the officer as 'Beyond Doubt' and grade him as 'Outstanding' or 'Very Good,' the order of compulsory retirement, if based on events that occurred much prior to the decision, may stand vitiated. The grant of promotion to an officer despite adverse entries in his confidential record, is also a significant factor.
14. What is most important in the present case is that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner for a period of about nine years, that is, from 2010 to 2019. In fact, as noted hereinabove, in the said period he had been promoted; his ACRs were either „Very Good‟ or „Outstanding‟, and; his integrity was reported as „Beyond Doubt‟. These factors should also have been considered by the Screening/Reviewing Authority before taking the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner.
15. Given the above factors, we are unable to sustain the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, and equally are unable to sustain the Order dated 13.09.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as also the Order dated 30.12.2019 rejecting the representation of the petitioner the reagainst.
16. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with immediate effect from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including deemed continuous service from the date of the order of compulsory retirement, fixation of pay, annual increments, promotional benefits (if any), and all other service benefits, that would have accrued to him. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of service.
17. The consequential orders for reinstatement and restoration of benefits shall be passed by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today, and the petitioner shall be allowed to resume duties within the same period.
18. The petition is allowed in the above terms."
11. The crux of the above is that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) was not sustainable, because it over-relied on old departmental penalties and Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 34 OA No. 2395/2022 ignored relevant positive service records (including later ACRs and promotions) and in the above judgment, the same legal principles as in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) (i.e., the administrative action must be bona fide and supported by valid material), and struck down the retirement order, directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. This decision shows that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court is strengthening judicial review of FR 56 (j) as ruled in Ajay Kumar Sharma orders by ensuring that orders on doubtful integrity cannot be mechanical; material relevance (especially recent ACRs and promotions) is critical; courts will look beyond labels to substance in compulsory retirement actions.
12. It is apt to state that the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra) was challenged which was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 25954/2025 vide judgment dated 23.09.2025. Therefore, by dismissing the SLP, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court implicitly held that the matters raised did not disclose a substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 i.e., it did not find any legal error of sufficient gravity in the Hon‟ble High Court‟s application of principles governing compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j). As such, the dismissal effectively upheld the Hon'ble High Court‟s application of law on FR 56 (j), including considerations about service records, ACR gradings, and integrity assessments, as a valid exercise of judicial review within established jurisprudence.
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 35 OA No. 2395/2022
13. Keeping in view the above guiding principles, we careful consideration the pleadings and material placed on record, the following aspects emerge:-
i. The applicant‟s APARs reveal that for the majority of his career, he was graded "Outstanding" or "Very Good." Even immediately prior to the impugned order, for the period September 2020- March 2021 and April 2021-March 2022, he was graded "Outstanding," with integrity certified as "Beyond Doubt." These gradings were recorded by competent Reporting and Reviewing Authorities, who were fully aware of his service history.
ii. Although, the disciplinary proceedings which culminated into imposition of a minor penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale for three years without cumulative effect. The UPSC itself observed that the "ends of justice would be met" by such penalty. Once the misconduct stood concluded with a minor penalty, reliance upon the same set of allegations to invoke FR 56
(j), without any fresh material, renders the action punitive in substance. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the said penalty orders were challenged by the applicant by filing O.A. No. 1563/2020, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 23.01.2024 and the said impugned orders of penalty were quashed. The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"16. There is nothing on record to explain as to what favors the applicant had sought and what personal benefits he enjoyed, however, still the UPSC has proved his conduct to be unbecoming of a government servant.Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 36 OA No. 2395/2022
17. From the above noted discussion, it is clear that none of the charges have been proved or could be read against the applicant. The advice rendered by the UPSC has been relied upon and quoted verbatim by the Disciplinary Authority while issuing the impugned order and as analyzed above, the said advice suffers from serious infirmities. Moreso, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the competent authority while issuing the impugned order has not applied mind independently and has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of the advice of the UPSC, which too, has not been able to prove any of the components of the charges conclusively.
19. For the reasons detailed hereinabove, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.07.2020 and 06.08.2020 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to place the case of the applicant for consideration of promotion by conducting review DPC which was held in December, 2019, and if found fit, promote the applicant along with all consequential benefits including seniority and appropriate pay fixation to be further taken into consideration for computing the retrial dues afresh. The applicant shall be entitled to payment of arrears thereof. These directions shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
iii. The respondents have not produced any material showing that the applicant‟s continuance in service after 2020 was detrimental to public interest. On the contrary, after his posting at Headquarters, his performance was rated "Outstanding." No fresh adverse material has been brought on record for the relevant period preceding retirement.
iv. The impugned orders are cryptic and do not reflect objective evaluation of the applicant‟s overall service profile. While it is correct that reasons need not be recorded in detail in the order itself, the record must disclose objective satisfaction. The overwhelming recent positive APARs and integrity certification have not been meaningfully dealt with.
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'
Item No. 27/C-4 37 OA No. 2395/2022
v. The material relied upon pertains largely to incidents which were
already subject matter of disciplinary proceedings or related to periods for which APARs gradings were under challenge before this Tribunal. Invocation of FR 56(j) in such circumstances gives rise to a legitimate inference that the order operates as a measure of punishment rather than a bona fide exercise in public interest. vi. In both O.A. No. 833/2022 and O.A. No. 890/2021, the Tribunal has placed considerable emphasis on the applicant‟s Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) as a crucial indicator of his service record and suitability. A conjoint reading of the judgments reflects that the applicant‟s APARs over the relevant period did not disclose any consistent pattern of adverse remarks or performance deficiency warranting the impugned action. Rather, the gradings recorded in the APARs were within the benchmark required for continuation/promotion, and there was no material to show that any adverse entries had either been communicated in time or relied upon in a manner consistent with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that APARs constitute a contemporaneous assessment of an officer‟s work and conduct and, in the absence of duly communicated adverse entries or below-benchmark gradings, the respondents could not retrospectively justify their decision on vague or unsubstantiated grounds. Thus, the applicant‟s service profile, as reflected in his APAR dossier, did not support the adverse administrative action, and the failure of the respondents to objectively evaluate the NEETU NEETU SHARMA APAR record was found to vitiate the decision-making process.
Digitally signed by Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 38 OA No. 2395/2022 vii. The principle laid down in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai
M. Patel requires that compulsory retirement be resorted to when the officer‟s services are no longer useful to the administration. In the present case, the applicant was discharging his duties at Headquarters with "Outstanding" performance. There is no cogent material to demonstrate that he had become "dead wood" or ineffective.
viii. We have carefully perused the records produced by the respondents. It is evident that while passing the impugned orders dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) and 19.07.2022 (Annexure-A/2), the Review Committee as well as the Representation Committee failed to consider the material facts specifically brought to their notice by the applicant in his representation. It is pertinent to note that the punishment imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 20.07.2020, whereby he was inflicted with the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting his pension, had already been challenged before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1563/2020. The said Original Application came to be allowed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.01.2024, whereby the impugned penalty order was quashed and set aside. Further, insofar as the gradings recorded in the APARs for the periods 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 (graded as "Good") are concerned, the same were challenged by the applicant in O.A. No. NEETU NEETU SHARMA 833/2022, which was pending at the time of filing of the present Digitally signed by Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 39 OA No. 2395/2022 O.A. However, the said matter has since been decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2024. Likewise, the APARs for the periods April 2017-March 2018, April 2018-March 2019 and April 2019-July 2019 were assailed in O.A. No. 890/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.07.2023, whereby the respondents were directed to treat the said APARs as non est and to remove the same from the APAR dossier of the applicant. In view of the above developments, it is manifested that the foundational material which appears to have weighed with the Review Committee stood either quashed or rendered non est by judicial orders of this Tribunal. In view of above position, we are of the considered view that the decision of Review Committee and Representation Committee to impose FR 56 (j) on the applicant does not hold ground as the impugned orders are founded on material that no longer survives in the eyes of law.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) under FR 56 (j) is not supported by sufficient objective material demonstrating that the applicant‟s continuance was against public interest; the action appears to be founded substantially on past incidents, already dealt with through disciplinary proceedings; and the decision suffers from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Further, the said impugned orders are non-speaking and unreasoned.
15. In view of the above analysis of the case in hand and keeping in NEETU view the above guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30' Item No. 27/C-4 40 OA No. 2395/2022 Court as well as of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, we find that all the issues as framed in para 8 are to be answered in favour of the applicant. We do so accordingly.
16. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directions:-
i. The impugned orders dated 02.06.2022 (Annexure-A/1) and dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure-A/2) are quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and arrears of pay and allowances.
iii. The period from the date of premature retirement till reinstatement shall be treated as „on duty‟ for all purposes.
iv. The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.03
SHARMA 15:39:47+05'30'