IMPORTANT POINT
The unqualified right of the authority to retire any Government servant if it is in the public interest to do so, and the limited scope of judicial review of premature retirement orders.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

Whether an order passed under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, 2017 read with Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 could be judicially reviewed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is the question that is raised before us in this Original Petition.

2. The applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged an order by which the applicant was prematurely retired from service on 3.8.2022. The applicant joined the service of the Lakshadweep Administration as a stenographer in the year 1990. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to the office of the Deputy Collector. In 1996, the applicant was posted at Kochi, where she worked till 2000. Later, from 2000 to 2006, the applicant worked at Agricultural Department, Kavaratti. From 2007 onwards till 2011, the applicant worked at the office of the Enquiry Commissioner. Later, from 2011 to 2013, the applicant worked at PWD, Kalpeni, and later from 2013 to 2014, the applicant worked at the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Kavaratti. Still further, the applicant worked at the Industries Department from 2014 to 2015 and from 2015 to 2019 she worked at LPWD, Kochi. During November, 2019, the applicant was transferred and posted as Stenographer Grade-II (PA to DIG) at the Police Headquarters, Kavaratti. Before completing three years of service at the above station, the applicant was transferred to the office of LPWD, Amini as per Annexure-A2 order. Challenging the said order, the applicant preferred O.A.No.210/2022 and the said O.A. came up for hearing on 11.5.2022 and later adjourned to 25.5.2022. On 25.5.2022, it was adjourned to 16.6.2022. In the meantime, the applicant was served with Annexure-A1 order dated 3.8.2022 issued under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, wherein she was prematurely retired from service. Challenge to the said order was basically directed on the ground of mala fides, especially when the petitioners/respondents were required to sustain the order of transfer which was challenged in O.A.No.210/2022.

3. The petitioners/respondents entered appearance and filed their reply statement primarily raising the contention that it was at the interest of the administration that the applicant was prematurely retired from service. It was further pointed out that on 26.8.2021, a Committee was constituted under Rule 56(j)/(l) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for deciding the representations of affected employees. The Committee scrutinised the representation of the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal and the minutes was recorded on 01.04.2022. Based on the tentative decision so arrived, the affected persons were given an opportunity to file representation as per Ext.R1(e) proceedings. The representation committee did not find any merit in the representation of the applicant dated 22.6.2022, and the decision/recommendation of the review committee held on 1.4.2022 was confirmed and accordingly, the order was passed. It was further contended that the order so passed could not be subjected to judicial review and it is the interest of the administration that the employee was sought to be prematurely retired.

4. Based on the pleadings on record, by the order impugned in this Original Petition, the Tribunal concluded that the order of compulsory retirement could not have been imposed against the applicant based on the Office Memorandum dated 28.8.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pension. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP(C) No.11177/2020 : 2021 SCC Online Del 4453). According to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the case on hand was liable to be distinguished with the judgment in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) especially when there were no grave cases against the applicant unlike the case in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra). Therefore, the petitioners