IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Md. Mobin Alam, son of SK. Qurban Ali – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, PO/PS New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
Civil Review No.09 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Review petition against the order in W.P.(S) No.2265 of 2023 - The petitioner, a former employee of EPFO, sought review after being compulsorily retired based on performance assessments and a criminal acquittal - The court emphasized that review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue previously decided issues. (Paras 1, 39, 75)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to challenge the merits of a decision unless there is a clear error or new evidence. (Paras 41, 42, 70)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was acquitted of criminal charges but faced compulsory retirement based on performance assessments and allegations of misconduct. The review petition was filed after the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to seek review.
Findings of Court:
The court found no new grounds for review and upheld the previous decision, stating that all arguments had been previously considered.
Issues: The main issues included whether the grounds for review were valid and if the previous decision was based on errors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the review petition did not present new evidence or errors apparent on the record, thus affirming the previous ruling.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant review petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the order dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.2265 of 2023.
2. It needs to refer herein that the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2265 of 2023 has been carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal being S.L.P. (C) Diary No.42077 of 2024. The same, however, was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court seeking review. Accordingly, the said Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review, for ready reference, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court needs to be referred, as under:-
“1) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this special leave petition with liberty to approach the High Court seeking review.
2) As prayed, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”
3. The present review therefore has been filed in pursuant to the aforesaid liberty.
Facts
4. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition which also carried in the instant review petition, needs to be referred which reads as under:-
5. It is the case of the review petitioner/writ petition that the petitioner joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) on 24/02/1992 as stenographer and was promoted as Personal Assistant (PA) on 02/05/2008 retrospectively w.e.f. 14/07/1997. The review petitioner was disciplined and dedicated employee of the Organization, working with sincerity and devotion to duty. The petitioner, while in service, was never communicated about any adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The Ld. Magistrate West Singhbhum at Chaibasa acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 18.09.2017.
9. Upon acquittal by the Ld. Trial 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.
10. The review 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 H
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to reargue previously decided issues.
Court affirmed that compulsory retirement must follow procedural guidelines, with emphasis on subjective satisfaction of authorities based on the entire service record, highlighting narrow scope for ....
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 when it serves public interest and follows due administrative process; it is not a punitive measure.
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 ....
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 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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.