UNION OF INDIA Vs. S.ASOKRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the central civil employees are governed by the Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'FR'). FR 56(j) empowers the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant in public interest, after giving three months prior notice or three months pay in lieu of such notice. Such powers could be invoked by the appropriate authority against a Class-I or Class-II employee, after he has attained the age of 50 years.

(2.) Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently persuaded us that whenever it is brought to the notice of the Government against certain adverse conduct of an employee, the competent authority would be well within their powers to compulsorily retire them in public interest by invoking FR 56(j). According to him, the Review Committee had taken into consideration the entire service records of the respondent, which includes the charge sheets issued to him, as well as his unauthorized absence for 311 days between 27/8/2018 and 22/7/2019 and had observed that in the interest of public and better administration, the respondent's service was no longer required. He also submitted that the order of compulsorily retirement is not a punishment, but was passed purely in the interest of public and for better administration. He further stressed on the trap cases registered by the CBI against the respondent, as well as the departmental action initiated against him and submitted that his involvement in the criminal cases substantiates him of doubtful integrity and therefore, the competent authority had rightly invoked FR 56(j). In support of his contentions, he had placed reliance on the decisions of Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (1954) 1 SCC 572; Baikuntha Nath Das and Another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299; Posts and Telegraphs Board and Others Vs. C.S.N.Murthy reported in (1992) 2 SCC 317 and M.Vetrichelvi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Public (Special-A) Department passed in W.P.No.17946 of 2022, dtd. 15/3/2024.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.K.Samidurai, learned counsel for the respondent, strenuously opposed these submissions and submitted that the entire action of the petitioners, compulsorily retiring the respondent, was with a mala fide intention and as a punitive measure. According to him, the respondent's overall performance, as reflected in the ACR, has all along been excellent and his integrity over the years between 2000 and 2015, were recorded as 'impeccable and honest beyond doubt and no adverse reports'. There were no ACR reports for the period between 2015 and 2019 and there was nothing on his past service record to doubt the integrity of the officer. With regard to the criminal case and the departmental action initiated against him, he submitted that during the discharge of his duties, the respondent had come across loss of revenue to the exchequer due to the actions of the assessees in connivance with his superiors and therefore, he had sent representations to his superior officers, including the CBI, which earned him the wrath of his superiors, as well as the scheming assessees. Aggrieved against his action of being a whistle blower, false cases have been implicated against him by the CBI, as well as the petitioners. Apart from these criminal cases, there is absolutely nothing on record to doubt his integrity or performance. He thus submitted that FR 56(j) has been invoked by the petitioners with mala fide intentions and ulterior motive and the CAT had rightly set aside the same. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SCC 70; S.Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1995 SCC 111 and State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M.Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314.