S.BALA KRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been directed against the two impugned orders dtd. 27/7/2015 passed by the Director General of Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi, confirming the order dtd. 19/8/2014 passed by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, VSP-Visakhapatnam, prematurely retiring the petitioner from service, citing a reason that the decision of the Superannuation Review Committee to retire the petitioner prematurely on attaining 55 years of age under the provisions of FR-56(j) of the Fundamental Rules cannot be interfered with.

(2.) Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned orders, submitted that the petitioner, after joining the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1984 as Constable (GD), was given promotion to the rank of Head Constable (GD) in the year 2004. Although he was serving in the respondent department, he was awarded with two minor punishments from the year 2004 to 2013 on the allegation of slackness on duty and overstayal of leave for the year 2012. However, these punishments have not been awarded for his doubtful integrity or creating nuisance or theft or quarreling etc. As per the circular issued by the Central Industrial Security Force Headquarters dtd. 22/9/2015, the criteria to be followed by the Committee for reviewing the cases of government employees covered by FR 56(j) or Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules prescribes that the Government employees whose integrity is doubtful, will be retired. Besides, the Government employees who are found to be ineffective will also be retired. But the basic consideration in identifying such employee should be the fitness/competence of the employee to continue in the post which he/she is holding. One of the norms also shows that no employee should ordinarily be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of the case. Adding further, he submitted that ordinarily no employee should be retired on grounds of ineffectiveness if he is retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of the case. The circular dtd. 22/9/2015 also further clarified that in a case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of an officer, it would be open to review his case for premature retirement. Since the above criteria are relevant only when an employee is proposed to be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness, but not on the ground of doubtful integrity, as the petitioner has not suffered any punishment for his doubtful integrity or creating nuisance or theft or quarreling etc., the impugned order dtd. 19/8/2014 passed by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, VSP- Visakhapatnam prematurely retiring the petitioner, which decision has been confirmed by the Director General of the Force in the order dtd. 27/7/2015, are wholly unjustified and untenable.

(3.) After the order dtd. 19/8/2014 was passed by the Senior Commandant, when the petitioner preferred an appeal in December, 2014 taking various grounds that he should be given an opportunity to present his case before being prematurely retired, that after his promotion to the rank of Head Constable/GD in the year 2004, although he was awarded with two minor punishments in the year 2012, the punishments awarded to him prior to his promotion should be ignored while considering his superannuation review, that the ACR for the year 2011 shows the grading as 'Average' while he was posted at the CISF Unit, ASG Bhubaneswar, but the same was not communicated to him and that he had served in the Force for thirty years and his sudden retirement will affect his daughter's education and future career, while considering his appeal, the Director General of the Force, the second respondent herein has wrongly taken into account the Annual Confidential Reports that two times in his career, he had been graded with 'Below Average' and for nine times had been graded with 'Average' and these poor annual performance gradings given by his superiors while he was working in various CISF units, have prejudiced the second respondent, which is not permissible in law. Arguing further, he submitted that the observation/reasoning given by the second respondent that the poor annual performance gradings given by his superiors in various CISF units indicate his persistent lackadaisical approach towards his bona fide government duties, is without any basis. The reason being that in the preceding five years before the crucial date, the petitioner never suffered any punishment, except the grading of 'Áverage' in the year 2011 and also one more grading of 'Below Average' in the year 2012. However, in the year 2013, he has been graded as 'Good/Very Good'. That shows that the petitioner has improved his performance. Therefore, the failure to take note of the 'Good' performance awarded to the petitioner in the year 2009 and one more 'Good' performance awarded to him in the year 2010 and one another 'Good/Very Good' performance awarded in the year 2013, clearly vitiates the order dtd. 19/8/2014 passed by the Senior Commandant and the order dtd. 27/7/2015 passed by the Director General of the Force.