Premature retirement under FR 56(j) quashed for ignoring recent outstanding APARs/integrity beyond doubt and relying on quashed penalty/non-est records; requires full service evaluation with later performance prioritized; judicial review strikes arbitrary/punitive actions.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-

By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"A. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to set aside/quash the order No. Q/PA-I/551/01/2020, dated 02.06.2022 declaring the same to be arbitrary and without any cogent reasons;

B. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to set aside/quash the Order No. PA-I/551/01/2020 dated 19.07.2022 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on the recommendations of the Representation Committee;

C. Direct the Ministry of External Affairs to bring on record the documents which were considered by the Ministry while passing the order No. Q/PA_I/551/01/2020, dated 02.06.2022;

D. Pass any other order/directions in favour of the Applicant in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. As stated by the applicant, he joined the Ministry of External Affairs in November, 1996 as Assistant (now „Assistant Section Officer‟) after qualifying the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. He qualified the Limited Departmental Examination conducted by UPSC in December, 2004 and was promoted as Section Officer in March, 2006 on the basis of merit and his service record. In November, 2012, he was further promoted as Under Secretary on the basis of his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and overall service record. Throughout his career, the applicant earned predominantly “Outstanding” gradings in his APARs. For several years including 2012–2013, 2014–2015, 2015–2016, 2016–2017, September, 2020 – March, 2021 and April, 2021 – March, 2022, he was graded “Outstanding”, with reporting officers recording remarks regarding his integrity being beyond doubt, high security consciousness, dedication, and efficiency. During his tenure at the Consulate General of India, Guangzhou, he allegedly raised concerns regarding misuse of staff car by the then Consul General. According to the applicant, thereafter, retaliatory complaints were made against him. After completion of his tenure in Guangzhou, he was transferred to the Embassy of India, Rome in July, 2017. In November, 2017, he was issued a Memorandum by the Vigilance Division alleging misconduct relating to his tenure at Guangzhou. Several memoranda followed seeking explanations on multiple counts under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On 01.08.2018, a charge memorandum was issued proposing action against the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted detailed replies denying all allegations and asserting mala fides. The matter was referred to UPSC for advice. Vide advice dated 16.03.2020, UPSC held certain components of the charge fully/partly proved and recommended penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. Based on the aforesaid UPSC advice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty vide order dated 06.08.2020. The applicant challenged the said penalty order before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1563/2020 (Annexure-A/4) which is stated to be pending at the time of filing this O.A., however as of now, it has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2024. The applicant also challenged certain APAR gradings for 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 (graded “Good”) by filing O.A. No. 833/2022, which is also pending at the time of filing this O.A., however as of now, it has been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.05.2024. On 04.02.2022 (Annexure-A/8), a notification