ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made two fold prayers. By the first prayer, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, whereby, he has been retired from service with immediate effect from the afternoon of 11.06.2019 on completing 50 years of age. The other prayer is to seek damages to the tune of Rupees One Crore towards the alleged violation of his fundamental rights, harassment, mental agony, damage to the social reputation etc.

(2.) At the onset, Ms. Acharya, ld. Addl. Solicitor General has raised the objection of maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner assails the order dated 10.06.2019, whereby, he has come to be retired in exercise of powers conferred in the President by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.

(3.) As far as prayer (i) of the writ petition is concerned, the petitioner being an IRS Officer, any challenge extended to the order dated 10.06.2019 - whereby, he was compulsorily retired, being a subject pertaining to his service, squarely falls within the domain of Central Administrative Tribunal Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel, does not dispute. In his submissions however, the instant writ petition deserves to be entertained in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of such submissions, he strenuously contends that there were proven facts on record to show that for over the years the respondents had acted against him with malice, though, he have had an outstanding track record from the time he came to be appointed as an Officer of Indian Revenue Service, in December, 1985. According to him, during the course of his such service, on his being appointed as Dy. Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone) in November, 1996, he had supervised the investigations of sensitive cases involving top politicians, highly influential bureaucrats and businessmen alike, and, on account of deep rooted conspiracy, he was falsely implicated in a CBI case being RC No. S-18E00011999. As a consequence, a departmental inquiry is also said to have been initiated against him. Diverse litigations ensued thereon and it is the contention of Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel that any of the actions initiated against the petitioner by the respondents were depreciated by the High Court and the Supreme Court in the strongest words and thereby, it was well proven on record that any of the actions including the issuance of the impugned order dated 10.06.2019, which, according to the petitioner, was a stigmatic compulsory retirement, was an act of malice and thus, malafide. In that regard, Mr. Singh, ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner has taken the court to the various observations made by the High Court as also the Supreme Court to contend that the observations made in the diverse judgments of the courts leave no doubt that the acts of the respondents were whimsical, malicious and utterly violative of his fundamental rights. In his submissions therefore, the claim of damages made by the petitioner was maintainable. Consequentially, in his submissions, the petitioner was within his right to assail the order dated 10.06.2019 passed under Section 56(f) of the Fundamental Rules alongwith the claim of damages on account of harassment, mental agony etc. In support of such submissions, Mr. Singh, ld. Senior Counsel places reliance upon Brij Mohan vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi & Ors. 2003 SCC OnLine All 230 and A.S. Bhatti vs. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (represented by its Secretary for Home), New Delhi & Ors. 1992 SCC OnLine AP 208.