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 judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition arises from the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in Original Application No. 332/00450/2019 Alok Kumar Mitra vs. Union of India , whereby the petitioner had challenged before the learned Tribunal the order dated 10.06.2019, by which he was compulsorily retired from the post of Commissioner of Income Tax in the Indian Revenue Service by invoking Fundamental Rule 56(j) as well as the order dated 16.08.2019, by which his representation against the order of compulsory retirement was rejected.

3. The petitioner was an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, 1992 Batch. After selection through the Union Public Service Commission, he was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Income Tax). Upon completion of his training, he was posted in the Income Tax Department and served there from 1995 to 2014. From 2014 to 2017, he was on deputation to the Government of Uttar Pradesh as Chief Executive Officer of the State Agency for Comprehensive Health and Integrated Services (SACHIS). Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (Senior Administrative Grade) vide order dated 16.09.2015.

4. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–III, Kochi (Kerala) vide order dated 10.06.2019, which was challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. The said order was served upon the petitioner on 11.06.2019. He submitted a representation dated 30.06.2019 against the order of compulsory retirement in terms of paragraph 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 11.10.1976, which was rejected vide order dated 16.08.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 passed under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is perverse, inasmuch as it is contrary to the guidelines contained in the Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015. It has been submitted that the due process prescribed therein was not followed and the petitioner’s representation was rejected by a non- speaking and unreasoned order, without adhering to the timeline provided in the Office Memorandum dated 11.10.1976.

6. It has further been submitted that neither approval from the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was obtained nor the Central Vigilance Commission was consulted before passing the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019, which is contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 10.05.1974.

7. It has also been submitted that the Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 21.03.2014 providing for periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56(j). Paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof prescribe the criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making recommendations for compulsory retirement.

8. It has been submitted that as per the Office Memorandum dated 21.03.2014, only those officers whose integrity is doubtful or who have become ineffective in the discharge of their duties ought to be considered for compulsory retirement. For this purpose, only the immediate preceding five years of the service record or the ser