Back
AMIT RAWAL, EASWARAN S.
Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Represented by the Administrator – Appellant
Versus
P. P. Hajarommabi – Respondent
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. Durin
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.
Premature retirement must not substitute for disciplinary action and should be based on clear evidence of public interest, not unsupported allegations.
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
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 based on mere allegations without substantial proof of misconduct violates due process and requires thorough evaluation of past performance.
Premature retirement under FR 56(j) quashed for ignoring recent outstanding APARs/integrity beyond doubt and relying on quashed penalty/non-est records; requires full service evaluation with later pe....
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
