Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
D.N. Patel, V. Kameswar Rao, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another - Respondents
W.P.(C) 11177 of 2020 & CM APPL.34872 of 2020 (stay)
Decided On : 22-09-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 and 227 -Petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules by Respondents. This order has not been interfered with by the Tribunal, hence, the Original Applicant has preferred the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is absolutely a separate, distinct exercise under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and an independent decision has been arrived at by the Union of India through the recommendation of the Review Committee - even if the promotion has been granted to a Government employee he can be made compulsory retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. In the facts of the present case order under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules has been passed before grant of promotion to the Petitioner
Finding of the Court : - An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma to an employee - Petitioner. Subjective satisfaction of the Government in public interest, arrived at after considering the entire service record of the Petitioner, where principal of natural justice is not required to be observed while passing an order of compulsory retirement because order of compulsory retirement does not amount to punishment - Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an employee into the services of the Union of India, in the public interest such an employee can be made compulsorily retired - there is no malafide, no arbitrariness and no perversity on the part of the Review Committee while arriving at a subjective satisfaction of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Such compulsory retired Government servant does not loose any benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement.- corruption and of disproportionate assets including CBI cases - sanction was given for prosecution and the SLPs are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even if the employee has succeeded in one or two cases or in few cases against the Central Government, that does not make him “compulsory retirement proof” employee. Such type of employee can also be made compulsory retired if looking to the entire service record and overall performance of the employee, usefulness of the employee into further service is not in public interest. There can be water proof tents or heat proof houses but there cannot be “compulsory retirement proof
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
D. N. PATEL, J.
1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1835/2020 dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this petition), the present petition has been preferred by the Original Applicant. The learned Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.1835/2020 whereby order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure P-2 to the memo of this petition) passed by the Respondents of compulsorily retiring the petitioner was not interfered with. Similarly, order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-3 to the memo of this petition) passed by the Respondents rejecting the representation of the Petitioner was also not interfered with by the Tribunal. Thus, the order passed by the Respondents under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules of retiring the Petitioner with immediate effect from 10.06.2019 was not interfered with and since then the Petitioner already stands retired from services of the Respondents.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-
2.2 On 06.11.1996, the Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone) where he supervised the investigation of cases pertaining to Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).
2.3 On 01.01.1998, search was conducted by Enforcement Directorate officers at the business and residential premises of one hawala dealer, namely, Subhash Barjatya. Incriminating materials were seized including several documents and, thereafter Mr. Barjatya was arrested.
2.4 It is alleged by the Petitioner that he faced severe pressure from certain higher authorities of Enforcement Directorate in relation to the said case and, therefore, he made a representation in July 1998 to the Revenue Secretary in this regard.
2.5 Central Vigilance Commissioner ordered a CBI inquiry on 28.12.1998. The Petitioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone) and he was kept on “compulsory wait”.
2.6 It is alleged by the Petitioner that he has outstanding Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as ‘ACR’) from 1991 to 1996. Three ACRs from 1999 onwards were not given any gradation. There were allegations against the Petitioner and, therefore, the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 28.12.1999.
2.7 In a criminal case registered against the Petitioner by CBI, the charge sheet was filed on 28.06.2020.
2.8 One more criminal case was registered against the Petitioner of disproportionate assets of about Rs.12 crores on 26.11.2020.
2.9 The Petitioner preferred O.A. No.783/2000 challenging the order of suspension and the O.A. was allowed.
2.10 Another order of suspension was issued on 25.04.2003. The competent authority granted sanction for prosecution of the Petitioner in Criminal Case on 28.07.2007.
2.11 A criminal revision petition was preferred by the Petitioner before Delhi High Court and the Criminal Revision was allowed and the order for sanction of prosecution was set aside.
2.12 Special Leave Petition has been preferred by the Respondents before Hon’ble the Supreme Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 10112/2016, which is still pending.
2.13 The Petitioner filed one more O.A. No.495/2012 challenging the second order of suspension which was dated 25.04.2003. This OA was allowed against which writ petition preferred by the Respondents was dismissed by the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP preferred by the Respondents.
2.14 The suspension was revoked on 06.01.2014 immediately after the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The Petitioner was transferred to Kolkata
2.15 One more O.A.No.3971/2015 was preferred by the Petitioner claiming promotions at par with his juniors as no promotion was given to the Petitioner during suspension. Suspension continued from 1999 to 2014.
2.16 The petitioner was posted as Senior Departmental Representative at ITAT, New Delhi.
2.17
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
Compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) is permissible based on an assessment of the employee’s service record and public interest; it is not a punitive measure and does not attract the provisions of ....
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such order....
The order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide if it is ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
