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. The court emphasized the importance of considering public interest in such decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as 'CAT') whereby Original Application bearing Number OA/100/703/2020 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

At this juncture itself, we may note that by filing the aforesaid Original Application before the CAT the petitioner had challenged the order dated 27.09.2019 passed under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) [hereinafter referred to as 'FR 56(j)'] whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. In the said OA the petitioner had also challenged the order dated 02.01.2020 whereby the Representation Committee, constituted in terms of Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DoPT') had rejected his representation preferred by him against the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.09.2019.

2. Heard Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Anupam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Hanu Bhashkar, learned counsel representing the respondents. We have also perused the records available before us.

3. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we may note the facts of the case in brief, which are as follows:-

4. Having served the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer, the petitioner appeared in the Civil Services Examination in the year 1989 and having been selected was allocated to the 1990 batch of Indian Revenue Service. He held various positions in the Income Tax Department and was regularly promoted on the higher posts. He is said to have been empanelled for being appointed as a Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT'), however, on account of several factors, he could not be appointed to the said post which led the petitioner to file OA 95/2016 before the CAT with the prayer to direct the respondents therein to appoint him to the post of Member, ITAT. The said OA was disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 10.02.2017 with the direction to the respondents to resubmit the alleged adverse IB Report to the Selection Committee for taking a final view in respect of his appointment as a Member of ITAT. The judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the CAT became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.8648 (S/B) of 2017 filed by the Union of India which was disposed of by means of an order dated 30.05.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court without any interference in the judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by the CAT. The Court further directed the Union of India to act in accordance with the directions of the Court and get the entire process of reconsideration by the Selection Committee completed within three months. Further direction was also issued by this Court directing that appropriate action and the recommendation of the Selection Committee shall be taken within four months thereafter.

5. The judgment and order dated 30.05.2017 passed by this Court was challenged by the Union of India by instituting Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.22596 of 2017 which too was missed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of an order dated 15.11.2017. The Selection Panel which comprised of Hon'ble Supreme Court judge is said to have reiterated the selection of the petitioner to the post of Member, ITAT on 26.04.2018. However, before the said reiteration by the Selection Panel, a vigilance inspection was conducted on 29.11.2017 and on the basis of the said inspection a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2018. Challenging the said show cause notice dated 31.01.2018, the petitioner instituted Original Application No.77 of 2018 wherein an interim order was granted by the CAT to the effect that the show cause notice will not come in the way of consideration of the petitioner for appointment t