V K ISSAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined the Indian Army as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in 1968. In 1973 he was released from the Army and joined Central Industrial Security Force in the rank of Inspector. He was promoted in 1985 as Assistant Commandant with CISF. On the basis of his service profile, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant in the year 1992. In 1996-1997, adverse remarks were recorded in his ACR for the period from 16.7.1996 to 31.3.1997. Petitioner submitted his representation against the adverse remarks. Petitioner completed 50 years of age on 4.12.1997. However, on 29.4.1998, impugned order of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 1.5.1998 was passed without assigning any reason and without granting him any opportunity to under FR 56 (j) of the Rules.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the only adverse entry in his career after the promotion in 1992 was for the period stated above i.e. 1996-1997. However, on the representation filed by the petitioner with the respondents, adverse remarks were expugned. On page 103 of the paper book is the order passed by Inspector General of respondents in the following terms:-

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by invoking Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the petitioner was compulsory retired not only on the basis of adverse remarks for the period 1996-1997 but he was retired on the basis of his overall record. It was contended that the petitioner got adverse remarks in his ACRs on six occasions i.e. 1976, 1977, 1979, 1987, 1989-90 and 1992-1993. It was further contended that even though adverse remarks pertaining to the year 1996-1997 was expunged by the respondents, on consideration of the entire service records of the petitioner, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 56(j) concluded that the petitioner was not fit for further retention in service as he was an average officer.