Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith pay the petitioner all arrears of salaries and allowances, to which he would have been entitled to, if not prematurely retired.

2. The petitioner was employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called the CISF) and at the relevant point of time he was posted at CISF Unit, Eastern Coal Field Limited, Seetalpur, District- Burdwan, performing his duties dedicatedly and devotedly, maintaining his dignity, being physically sound and mentally alert.

3. By Order dated 14th June, 2016 the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, North Eastern Zone prematurely retired the petitioner from services. The petitioner further stated claimed absence of provision of appeal against the said order of premature retirement, compelled him to submit a representation dated 28^th June 2016 before the Director General on the grounds as raised therein.

4. By order dated 10th October 2016 it was communicated the representation submitted by the petitioner had been rejected, stating the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, NEZ, Headquarters., Kolkata was of the opinion it was in the public interest and in exercise of power conferred by FUNDAMENTAL RULES and CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICE PENSION RULES , 1972, the petitioner was retired from service, since he had already completed 50 years of service.

5. The petitioner further stated as per the rule the matter of premature retirement should be decided by a Board presided over by the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department was the Director General, and the Deputy Inspector General was much inferior in rank than the Director General. Therefore the impugned order of premature retirement had been passed by an authority devoid of jurisdiction. The respondents had passed the order of premature retirement due to extraneous reason considering the petitioner to have become a dead wood in absence of plausibility. His past 5 years of grading in the ACR was either very good or outstanding and therefore the order of premature retirement had passed arbitrarily without application of mind. Apart from the ACR for the past five years, his ACR grading from the year 2006 to 2015 was either very good or outstanding. In the Rule there was direction only to consider the ACR and not the past penalties, whereas in the instant case the respondents had also considered the past penalties inflicted before and after promotion. The concerned respondents failed to appreciate in its proper perspective that the petitioner had been rewarded in cash for twenty three times.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted the order of premature retirement to have been issued mechanically contrary to the mandate of law considering the petitioner to have been a “dead wood” devoid of constructive contribution to his service warranting compulsory retirement in contravention with the provisions under Clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The order of compulsory/premature retirement was issued by a Review Board which lacked jurisdiction as the same was not presided over by the Head of the Department being a statutory requirement.

7. The petitioner had been granted 23 instances of cash rewards for commendable and gradings of “very good/outstanding” from the year 2006 to 2015 which demonstrated his active participation, adeptness, skill, vigour in discharging his duties and such an nomenclature of being “dead wood” had been biased, arbitrary and irrational