Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ranvir Singh vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of ... on 22 October, 2020
1 OA No.153/2020 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No.153/2020 Today this the 22th day of October, 2020 Through video conferencing Hon'ble Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon'ble Ms. Aradhana Johri, Member (A) Ranvir Singh ...Applicant (By Advocate : Mr Rajeev Sharma) Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...Respondents (By Advocate : Mr Ravi Kant Jain) 2 OA No.153/2020 Order (Oral) Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant joined the service of the Delhi Municipal Corporation as Assistant Engineer in year 1998.In the year 2013 he was promoted as Executive Engineer, on adhoc basis, and on regular basis on selection by UPSC, on12.01.2017.He is attached to Eastern Delhi Municipal Corporation. Through an order dated 30.09.2019 the respondents retired the applicant on compulsory basis, by exercising power under Rule 56 (J) of the Fundamental Rules. A representation was made by the applicant to the competent authority for review. An office order was passed on 13.12.2019 rejecting the same. Hence this OA.
2. The applicant contends that his service was without any blemish and though he was imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments in the year 2006, nothing happened thereafter and that he was also promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He contends that there was not even a complaint during the period of five years, preceding the date of impugned order and the respondents have invoked the extraordinary power in an arbitrary and illegal manner. 3 OA No.153/2020
3. On behalf of the respondents a detailed reply is filed. It is stated that the Corporation constituted a Committee of five senior officials to examine the cases of various officials who have crossed the age of 50years, in the context of invoking Rule 56 (J) and on a consideration of the record of the applicant, they formed an opinion that his continuance in service is not at all in the public interest. It is stated that the review authority examined the matter in detail and rejected the same through order dated 13.12.2019.
4. We heard Sh. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh.Ravikanth Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The applicant, who joined the service of the Corporation as Assistant Engineer, was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on adhoc basis in the year 2013, and on regular basis, in the year 2017. His service record discloses that in the year 2006, punishment of stoppage of increments, with cumulative effect for one year, was imposed through two separate orders. It is thereafter, that he was promoted as Executive Engineer, be it on adhoc or regular basis. 4 OA No.153/2020
6. We are aware of the limitations in interfering with the orders of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 56 (J). Time and again Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (J) does not constitute punishment, particularly when the employee gets all possible benefits, which he would get on superannuation. At the same time the premature retirement of an employee visits him with some civil consequences and obviously for that reason, scrutiny can certainly be undertaken, but with certain care and caution. The DOPT issued OM dated 05.11.2015 incorporating the guidelines to be kept in mind, while processing the cases for invocation under Rule 56 (J). One such guide-line is that the record of the employee for a period of five years, preceding the year of consideration must be scrutinized.
7. In the case of the applicant not a single complaint was received after 2006, much less any disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have furnished the minutes of the Committee, which scrutinized the case of the applicant. It is as under :
1. RDA Penalty of reduction in present time scale No.1/364/2006 of pay stopped by one stage for a period of 5 OA No.153/2020 Charge Sheet issued one year with cumulative effect vide on 31.08.2006 O.O.No.1/ 364/2006/ Vig.P/AM/ 2007/ 2773 dt.19.06.2007
2.RDA Penalty of reduction in present time scale No.1/393/2006 of pay stopped by one stage for a period of Charge Sheet issued one year with cumulative effect vide on22.08.2006 O.O.No.1/ 392/2006/Vig./P/AM/2007/2774 dt.19.06.2007 Recommendations The Service record of the official has been ofReview reviewed. He has entered in the Committee Municipal Service prior to attaining the age of 35 years and has completed 50 years of mandatory age for review as per provisions of FR 56 (j). As per entries recorded in his service book & Personal File, aforesaid penalties his integrity during his service. In view of aforesaid penalties his integrity indeed doubtful and therefore, he is a fit case for premature retirement. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the official be retired prematurely as per FR 56 (j) with immediate effect by giving three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice.
8. It is evident that the only reference isto the punishment imposed upon the applicant in the year 2006. Barring that no other factor is mentioned.
9. Once the applicant was promoted, that too on the recommendations of the UPSC as recently as in the year 2017, we find it difficult to concur with the opinion expressed by the Review Committee. The Provision cannot be invoked just at the wish of the authorities.There must exist at least some material, 6 OA No.153/2020 though not in the form of any concrete proof. Even if any remote indication exists, to suggest the lack of integrity on the part of the employee, the authority would be justified in invoking rule. However, in the absence of such a material, retiring an employee under that provision tends to become, a mechanism to get rid of an employee, otherwise then through disciplinary proceedings.
10. Sri R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgement of this Tribunal in OA.2944/2019 dated 28.01.2020. That was also case of an Executive Engineer from the Municipal Corporation. In that case the record disclosed that the applicant was imposed punishment on three different occasions i.e. in 2004, 2006 and 2008 and after he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, a charge memo was issued on 01.02.2019. Those aspects were taken into account and the discussion was undertaken in para-12 of the order. It reads as under :
Reverting to the facts of the case, the record of the applicant discloses that he was imposed major penalties on as many as three occasions. Assuming that the punishments were in relation to the charge sheets which were issued in the year 2006, and orders of punishments were imposed a bit later, it needs to be 7 OA No.153/2020 seen as to whether the record of the applicant sub sequent to his promotion in the year 2017 was free from any blemish. Though a charge sheet is not issued to him as yet, the matter is under consideration of CVC in RDA No.1/2/2019. The guidelines, or for that matter, the rules, do not insist that the blemish against an officer must be in the form of any punishment or charge memo subsequent to the promotion. The disciplinary proceedings, even if in the pipeline, after promotion of an officer, and within a period of five years preceding the proposal would get strength from the orders of punishments imposed earlier. What is required to be verified for invoking FR 56(j) is the continued utility of the officer beyond the age of 50 years. The nature of service and the various developments that have taken place up to that period need to be taken into account. Viewed from this angle, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the applicant is without basis.
11. The case on hand is substantially different. Firstly nothing adverse was noticed against the applicant, after the punishment was imposed in 2006. Secondly there was not even a whisper about the lack of integrity, after the applicant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, be it on adhoc basis or regular basis. Therefore, the said judgement cannot apply to the facts of the present case.
8OA No.153/2020
12. We are of the view that there was no basis for invoking Rule 56 (J) against the applicant. We, however, make it clear that it cannot be said that we are laying down, any general proposition of law, in this OA, and the relief is granted, purely on the facts of the case.
13. The OA is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The applicant shall be reinstated into service within four weeks from the date of this order. However, he shall not be entitled to arrears of salary. He shall return the retirement benefits, if received by him. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Aradhana Johri) (Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) Member (Admn.) Chairman Sd/pinky/09/11