The justification of compulsory retirement based on service records is a matter for consideration at the final hearing, not at the interim stage.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioner-in-person argued before the court assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) on 12.07.2022 by which his application for grant of interim relief has been rejected.

3. The petitioner-in-person would submit that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is per se illegal, arbitrary and does not stand the scrutiny of law. In his submission, his service records were excellent and there was absolutely no material available with the authority to compulsorily retire him. The petitioner-in-person has taken the court to various records of service including his annual appraisal reports of various years including those of the recent past.

4. We find that the learned Tribunal has rejected the application for grant of interim relief by recording a reason that directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service by way of interim relief would amount to allowing the original application at the interim stage.

5. Apart from anything else, in our considered opinion, the reason which has prevailed with the Tribunal to reject the application for interim relief cannot be said to be contrary to the settled principles of law in the matter of grant of interim relief. Admittedly, the petitioner stands compulsorily retired in the public interest and it is not a case of penalty as such.

6. Whether service records of the petitioner on a holistic consideration justifies the order of compulsory retirement, essentially would be a matter of consideration at the stage of final hearing and not at interim stage. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference of the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The petitioner-in-person would argue that despite repeated opportunities, respondents have not filed any reply before the Tribunal.

8. Considering the totality of circumstances, though, we are not inclined to interfere with the order rejecting application for interim relief, we consider it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose off the original application of the petitioner within a period of six months. We make it clear that if the department does not file reply despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal may proceed to draw adverse inference and in addition, it may also direct the production of the original records at the time of hearing to satisfy itself with regard to the correctness and validity of the order of compulsory retirement.

9. Subject to the above observations, the petition is accordingly dismissed.