Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Chandra Prakash Dubey - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 79 of 2019
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Service Review Board - Compulsory Retirement - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 48(1)(b) - FR-56 - The court discussed the petitioner's challenge to the impugned result of Service Review Board and the orders dated 18.11.2014 and 16.11.2018. The court examined the petitioner's service record, including the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the application of Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows for compulsory retirement in the public interest. The court found that the petitioner's service record, particularly the adverse ACRs for the years 2009 and 2013, justified the decision of the Service Review Board and the competent authority to not recommend further retention in service beyond 30 years' service. The court also emphasized that the decision of compulsory retirement should be based on material and the subjective satisfaction of the government, and in this case, the decision was not arbitrary or mala fide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Naib Subedar Clerk in the Assam Rifles, challenged the result of the Service Review Board and the orders not extending his service beyond 30 years' service, citing adverse remarks in the ACRs and compulsory retirement under Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's adverse ACRs for the years 2009 and 2013 justified the decision of the Service Review Board and the competent authority to not recommend further retention in service beyond 30 years' service. The court also emphasized that the decision of compulsory retirement should be based on material and the subjective satisfaction of the government, and in this case, the decision was not arbitrary or mala fide.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's challenge to the compulsory retirement decision based on adverse ACRs and the application of Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of compulsory retirement should be based on material and the subjective satisfaction of the government, and in this case, the decision was not arbitrary or mala fide. The court also emphasized that adverse remarks in the service record, including uncommunicated entries in the ACRs, can be considered in passing the order of compulsory retirement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the impugned orders.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned result of Service Board and the orders dated 18.11.2014 and 16.11.2018 and to direct the respondents to take back the petitioner into service with effect from 1.6.2015 with all the consequential benefits entitled to him. The petitioner also prays for a direction on the respondents to award interest on the arrears accrued for GPF, Pension etc. along with adequate costs of litigation.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as L.Naik Writer on regular basis in the Directorate of Assam Rifles on 25.5.1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to Naib Subedar Clerk on 18.9.2006. A service review of the petitioner was conducted upon completion of 30 years of service under the provision of Rule 48(1)(b) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR-56 and, vide result of Service Review Board dated 31.10.2014, the petitioner was not granted further retention in service on the ground that he has not meted out the ACR criteria. Thereafter, the office of the Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shilling-II issued an order dated 18.11.2014 stating that the petitioner, on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 25.5.2015, shall retire from service on the forenoon of 1.6.2015.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and by an order dated 27.8.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the appeal on 2.9.2018 before the second respondent. However, the second respondent issued the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner contrary to the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
4. Respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has served in various formations/units of Assam Rifles during his 30 years of service and his discipline and professional competence was not found up to the required standard and he was awarded various punishments for acts of omission on his part during his entire service. In fact, he was administered verbal warnings and counselling on a number of occasions by the unit authorities in writing. A per Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR-56(j), the case of all Government servants completing 30 years of service or 55 years of age, whichever is earlier, is subject to review to ascertain whether the Government servant is fit for retention in service or unfit for further retention in service in public interest.
5. It is stated that the petitioner's case was examined for service review on completing 30 years of qualifying service on 25.5.2015 and being Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), the Service Review Board of the petitioner was held at the Records Branch, Directorate General Assam Rifles on 31.10.2014 to ascertain whether he was fit for further retention in service beyond 30 years' service or otherwise. After examination, the petitioner was not recommended for further retention beyond 30 years' service by the Service Review Board and on 18.11.2014 the petitioner was issued notice to retire from service on retiring pension, thereby fixing the date of retirement on 1.6.2015. Challenging the order dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and the same was disposed of on 27.8.2018. Pursuant to the direction given in the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted an appeal and the same was considered and rejected vide order dated 16.11.2018 as the petitioner was graded 'below average' in the ACRs for the year 2008-2009 and 2012-2013. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
6. It is also stated that the petitioner be deemed to have retired from service on retiring pension with effect from 1.6.2015 and be directed to submit his pension
The decision of compulsory retirement should be based on material and the subjective satisfaction of the government, and adverse remarks in the service record, including uncommunicated entries in the....
Uncommunicated adverse remarks in ACRs can be considered for compulsory retirement under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Premature retirement must comply with jurisdictional authority and assessment procedures as per CCS Rules; failure to follow statutory guidelines renders such actions void.
The court upheld the authority's power to retire a government servant in public interest after 30 years of service, affirming that procedural safeguards do not always require a show cause notice.
The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and considering service records in cases of compulsory retirement, and held that arbitrary issuance of such orders without compliance with....
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....
Point of Law : Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment.
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
