Compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) is permissible based on an assessment of the employee’s service record and public interest; it is not a punitive measure and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by order dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-A/2) retiring the applicant under clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, as also the order dated 14.07.2020 (Annexure-A/1) whereby appropriate authority while accepting the recommendation of the Representation Committee rejected the representation filed by the applicant against the order of compulsory retirement, the applicant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside the above orders with consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was appointed as Inspector of Income Tax on 25.01.1989 and was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer on 22.10.2002. The Review Committee held the meeting to review the cases of compulsory retirement. The Review Committee was assisted by the Internal Committee. The Review Committee discussed the guidelines and considering various aspects of each of the officers, it was of the opinion that inter alia Rajendra Kumar Bothra is fit case for compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j). The Committee noted three charge sheets against the applicant issued on 04.08.2017, 05.09.2018 and 13.03.2019 respectively. In addition to it, the Committee also considered five additional facts as under:-

“a. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly issued notice u/s 148 without any basis in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y 2009-10 and 2010-11.

b. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 271 for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd.

c. Shri R.K Bothra had allegedly wrongly levied penalty u/s 271 (1)(B) for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd.

d. Shri R.K Bothra allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 142(1) in the case of Shree Lal Singh Rathore prop. of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12.

e. Shri R.K Bothra allegedly wrongly issued notice u/s 271F, which has later modified to notice u/s 271 (1)(B) in the case of Shree Lal Singh Rathore prop. of M/s Shiv Shakti Granimarmo Pvt Ltd for A.Y. 2011-12 for failure to file return even though the assessee had already filed the return.”

2.2 While considering the pending charges against the applicant and other circumstances, the Committee while taking note of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP vs. Vijay Kumar Jain [ (2002) 3 SCC 641 ] and Shyam Lal vs. State of UP concluded that his conduct is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest and the services of applicant are no longer useful to general administration. His conduct is unbecoming to public interest and obstructs the efficiency in public services. Therefore, the Committee recommended that Shri R.K. Bothara be compulsorily retired in public interest under FR 56 (j). Notwithstanding the order of the compulsory retirement, the departmental inquiries otherwise will continue and as and when the charges proved in the departmental inquiries, the appropriate action may be taken by the disciplinary authority.

2.3 On the recommendations of the Review Committee, the impugned order No.B-1/2019 dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-A/2) was issued whereby Appointing Authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur in exercise of powers conferred by clause (j) Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, retired the applicant as Income Tax officer with effect from the forenoon of 26.11.2019 after he attained the age of 50 years. The applicant made representation dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure-A/8) against the above order, which is being reproduced as under:-

“Sub: Representation against order F.R.56(j) dated 25.11.2019-reg.

S