Premature retirement based on mere allegations without substantial proof of misconduct violates due process and requires thorough evaluation of past performance.

ORDER

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):

The Applicant was working as Accounts Officer/Enforcement Officer in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Rourkela and, while working as such, the Competent Authority, in exercise of power conferred under provisos of Rule 56 (J)(i) of the Fundamental Rules (FR) read with Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ordered to retire him from service prematurely, vide order No. AVS-2001418-HRM-IX/E/8735 dated 02.12.2024 (A/3). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he preferred memorial/representation dated 06.12.2024 which was considered and rejected and the rejection was communicated to him vide letter No. AVS-20014/3/2018-HRM-IX/E/809 dated 03.02.2025 (A/8) which orders have been challenged by the Applicant in this Original Application filed u/s.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with prayer as under:

“(i) To quash the order dated 02.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 under Annx.A/3&A/8 respectively;

(ii) And to direct the Respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 02.12.2024;

(iii) And to direct the Respondents to grant all consequential and financial benefits in view of reinstatement in service; And pass any other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The Respondents filed their counter contesting/opposing the stand taken by the Applicant in the pleadings based on which relief has been sought by him. The Applicant has also filed rejoinder. The points raised by them shall be dealt with while dealing with their arguments infra.

3. According to learned counsel for the Applicant, while the applicant was working as E.O./A.O., in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, at Rourkela, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, New Delhi initiated proceedings under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971 vide Memorandum dated 14th May, 2024; which has been challenged. While the matter stood thus, to avoid the tit-bit procedure provided to be followed in disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents adopted a shortcut method by retiring him compulsorily attaching stigma. It is stated that during course of service the applicant promoted upto the grade of Accounts Officer/Enforcement Officer and discharged his duty for the utmost satisfaction of the department, accordingly his APAR & Integrity recorded by the Controlling Officer & Reviewing Officer as "Very Good" and "nothing adverse" till the order of premature retirement. It is stated that the assessment report dated 08.11.2024 of the controlling officer/Respondent No.5 in respect to assessment report of cases review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension Rules 1972" has forwarded to Respondent No 4 with the following recommendation:-

"A criminal case vide No. RC0152015A0007 dated 13.03.2015 is pending before the CBI, Bhubaneswar. Further, a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CC&A) Rule 1971 against the official is initiated by H.O. and is now pending. However, no adverse remarks found in the last five years (2017-18 to 2022-23) of the APAR and APAR Gradings for the said period is also good and above. The Official is fit for continuation in job."

4. It is stated by that, DoP&T vide Office Memorandum dtd.28.08.2020 has issued the guideline regarding periodical review of Central Government employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(J)(1) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the O.M the criteria has been specified to be followed by the Review Committee at para-10, which is reproduced below:-

10. Broad Criteria to be followe