Compulsory retirement in public service, justified by evidence of inefficiency and misconduct, does not equate to a punitive measure and is legally permissible despite procedural irregularities.

ORDER

BY JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No.1 to this original application with compilation No.1)

(ia) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the corrigendum order/letter dated 13.01.2022 passed by the respondent department.

(ii) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents department to reinstate the applicant in his service at the previous place of posting and also pay the regular salary as and when become due.

(iii) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the application to the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed in the department as Group ‘D’ employee on 20.06.1989. Since the applicant was an office bearer of Trade Union and he was duty bound to defend the interest of employees, respondents became annoyed, due to this reason a memorandum of chargesheet was issued to the applicant on 04.09.2017. Applicant demanded certain documents but it was not supplied to the applicant nor any information regarding the progress of the enquiry was given. Applicant became aware only after receiving the letter dated 30.01.2020 about the status of enquiry, thus, he was deprived to submit reply to the chargesheet. All of sudden, applicant has received an impugned letter dated 27.12.2021 issued from the office of respondent No.3 by which the applicant was retired forcibly with immediate effect under Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rule 1972. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant immediately submitted a detailed representation to the Higher Authority on 03.01.2022 regarding premature retirement order dated 27.12.2021, which was not decided.

3. Per contra, respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that applicant was appointed as Housekeeping Staff (erstwhile Safaiwala) on 20.06.1989. Prior to his premature retirement, he was working in the SWO Section. He has completed 30 years of service. He was a DCC Member at 24 Equipment Depot, Air Force. Against the applicant following disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and inquiries concluded:-

Respondents have also stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant was in the habit of making unsubstantiated complaints against the higher authority without any evidence. Applicant was not performing trade duties assigned to him by his Section Commander, which is in contravention to Rule 3 (1) (ii) & 3 (1) (xxi) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He roams around the depot during working hours on the pretext of being a DCC member. He also influences other employees of the station by instigating them toward infructuous correspondence/matters and in turn disturbs them in working hours in performing their duties. Due to aforesaid reason, applicant was issued show cause notices. He was habitual in not receiving any communication forwarded/sent to him by the organization either in the section in which he was working or the ones addressed to him at his permanent address by Post. Respondents further submitted that as per Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the services of the applicant was due for review for retention in service on completion of 30 years of service. In this regard an annual screening committee was formed vide Station Routine Order Sl. No. 58/2019 to review the performance of applicant and 17 others. The screening committee recommended that the applicant and one another empl