CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The above writ petitions by the Union of India and its Authorities are directed against common order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, For short ‘CAT’, in OA No.170/01125/2019 and OA No.170/00588/2021, whereunder the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent dated 6.12.2021 and the endorsements/orders dated 26.11.2018 and 16.09.2019 rejecting the respondent’s request to expunge the adverse remarks are set-aside.

2. The respondent herein approached the CAT in OA No.170/01125/2019 with a prayer to set-aside APAR grading for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to set-aside the order rejecting his request to ignore the APAR grading. In OA No.170/00588/2021, the respondent approached the CAT with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 6.12.2021 at Annexure- A11 retiring the respondent compulsorily in exercise of power under Rule 56 (j)(i) of Fundamental Rules.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent joined the service in the Intelligence Bureau as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer-II in July 1994 and thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer in 2014. In April, 2017, the respondent was posted to Ballari Unit. On 17.11.2017, the respondent was transferred to SBI Headquarters, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the respondent was before the CAT in OA No.738/2017. The said OA was disposed of recording the statement of the petitioners that the respondent would be continued at Ballari. Subsequently, APAR grading of the respondent for the period 2017-18 was communicated to the respondent under communication dated 31.08.2018, against which the respondent made representation on 22.09.2018 seeking expunction of the said APAR grading. The said representation was rejected by the petitioners under impugned endorsement dated 26.11.2018. Thereafter, under communication dated 18.07.2019, APAR report for the period 2018-19 was communicated to the respondent, against which the respondent submitted representation dated 29.07.2019 seeking expunction of adverse APAR grading for the year 2018-19. The said representation was also rejected by the petitioners under order dated 18.09.2019. Aggrieved by the rejection of representation seeking expunction of APAR grading, the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.1125/2019. During the pendency of above said OA, the petitioners passed order dated 11.08.2020 compulsorily retiring the respondent from service under FR 56(j). Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.400/2020. The said OA came to be disposed of on 30.10.2020 reserving liberty to the respondent to submit representation before the Representation Committee with a direction to the Representation Committee to consider the representation of the respondent on merits. It is stated that before consideration of his representation by the Representation Committee, one more notice dated 17.11.2020 for compulsory retirement was issued to the respondent, against which the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.521/2020. It is stated that the petitioners by order dated 9.12.2020 withdrew the said notification and in view of withdrawal of the said notification of compulsory retirement, OA No.521/2020 was disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioners passed one more order dated 6.12.2021 compulsorily retiring the respondent under FR 56(j)(i). Being aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2021, the respondent filed OA No.588/2021. The Tribunal under impugned order allowed the OAs filed by the respondent and set-aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 6.12.2021 as well as orders/endorsements dated 26.11.2018 and 16.09.2019 rejecting the representations of the respondent seeking expunction of adverse remarks. While allowing the respondent’s OAs, the CAT observed that merely on the ground of insubordination with the seniors, the Committee could not