Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
Md. Mobin Alam, son of SK. Qurban Ali – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2265 of 2023
Decided on : 25-04-2024
[Writ Petition] - [Compulsory Retirement] - [Fundamental Rule 56(J), CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] - [The court discussed the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(J), which allows for compulsory retirement of government servants if their service is deemed unsatisfactory. The court emphasized that the entire service record must be considered, including any adverse remarks, and that the decision must be in the public interest. The court found that the Screening Committee's recommendation for retirement was based on a thorough review of the petitioner's service record, including disciplinary actions and performance assessments, which justified the decision to retire him. The court upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming that the process followed was not arbitrary and adhered to legal standards.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Personal Assistant at the Employees Provident Fund Organization, was compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(J) after a Screening Committee deemed his service unsatisfactory, despite his acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner challenged the tribunal's dismissal of his appeal against the retirement order, arguing that his entire service record was not adequately considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal had correctly upheld the decision of the Screening Committee, which had reviewed the petitioner's entire service record, including adverse remarks and disciplinary actions. The court noted that the committee's recommendation was based on a comprehensive assessment of the petitioner's performance and integrity.
Issues: Whether the decision for compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(J) was justified based on the petitioner's entire service record and whether the tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the decision for compulsory retirement must consider the entire service record of the employee, including any adverse remarks, and that such decisions are not punitive but serve the public interest. The court emphasized that the Screening Committee's findings were based on substantial evidence and were not arbitrary.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's decision to uphold the order of compulsory retirement.
JUDGMENT :
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in Original Appeal No.051/00124/2022, whereby and whereunder, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent under Fundamental Rule 56(J) vide order dated 28.04.2021, has been refused to be interfered with.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition based upon the pleading of the original application filed on behalf of the applicant, the writ petitioner herein, needs to be referred which reads as under:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner/applicant that the petitioner joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) on 24/02/1992 as stenographer and promoted as Personal Assistant (PA) on 02/05/2008 retrospectively w.e.f. 14/07/1997. The petitioner was disciplined and dedicated employee of the Organization, worked with sincerity and devotion to duty. The petitioner, while in service, was never communicated any adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
4. Thereafter, one Smt. Dashma Bobonga filed an FIR No.0073 on 23/06/2017 with Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa alleging false allegation that the petitioner, her sister's son 'Sanjat Alda' and one Ram Chandra Mukhi have fraudulently withdrawn Rs.1,91,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety One Thousand Only) from her and her son and daughter's savings bank account. In consonance to the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 23/06/2017 and Rs.22,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only) was seized from him. The petitioner was released on bail on 04/09/2017. The petitioner was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 23/06/2017 vide order no. JH/RO/JSR/Vig./M.A./2017/08 dated 27/06/2017.
5. The Head Quarter of the petitioner during suspension was changed to District Office, Giridih as per order no. 12 dated 08/08/2017. However, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order no.JH/RO/JSR/Vig./M.A./2017/61 dated 29/11/2017.
6. The Ld. Magistrate West Singhbhum at Chaibasa acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2017.
7. Upon acquittal by the Ld. Court on 18/09/2017, the petitioner received the Charge Memorandum dated 20/12/2018 under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CC & A) Rules, 1971 for the same allegations of which the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner, issued by the Addl. Central Provident Fund Commissioner (ACC), Bihar and Jharkhand for which departmental proceeding against the petitioner is still continuing.
8. The petitioner under the Conduct Rules applied for permission to purchase a flat in the name of his wife on 11/12/2018. The petitioner, while submitting the aforesaid request, submitted that he shall finance the consideration money from (i) Personal savings Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs (ii) Withdrawal); from SPF Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) and (iii) Personal loan Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only). Upon which, the Competent Authority granted permission vide letter no.JH/RO/RNCAdm-I/immovable property/2018/9731 dated 01/01/2019. In consonance to aforesaid approval; the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 27,00,000/-(Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) to the seller of the flat by withdrawing Rs.23,92,611/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Only) from his PF Account and the balance from his Personal Savings. Subsequent to the transaction, the respondent no. 4 started putting queries through various letters regarding personal savings of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) proposed to be saved in the next two years.
9. The DOPT issued Office Memorandum dated 11/03/2016 bearing no.25013/1/2016-Estt.-A-IV that "where autonomous institutions have adopted the provisions of Ministry may ensure 56(J), FR Administrative that they are strictly followed in letter and spirit.
10. Thereafter, the Respond
The court established that compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(J) requires a comprehensive review of the employee's service record, and such decisions must be made in the public interest,....
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to reargue previously decided issues.
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 ....
Compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is justified based on subjective satisfaction regarding integrity, even with adverse entries, and judicial review is limited to the decision-making process....
An order of compulsory retirement must be based on a thorough assessment of the entire service record of the employee, and if it casts a stigma or is based solely on disciplinary actions without cons....
The court upheld the validity of the Government Order regarding compulsory retirement procedures, affirming that it does not violate natural justice and that the entire service record may be consider....
The judgment establishes the legal principle that the decision to compulsorily retire a Judicial Officer must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the entire service record, with limited scope f....
The importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the employer's right to remove 'dead wood' employees.
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
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
