Summary
An Indian Revenue Service officer selected in 2014 as Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(j) in September 2019, three months before superannuation, after years of litigation in which the department had withheld his vigilance clearance and issued a charge memorandum, each step being set aside or stayed; the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court upheld the retirement. The Supreme Court quashed it: his reports for the preceding decade graded him outstanding with integrity beyond doubt as late as July 2019, the complaints relied on were closed or arose from a settled matrimonial dispute, and nothing showed any sudden decline. Lifting the veil, the order was punitive, passed to short-circuit the pending disciplinary proceedings, and did not serve the public interest.
Issues
- Whether an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j), passed three months before superannuation against an officer with consistently outstanding performance reports and integrity assessed beyond doubt, while disciplinary proceedings were pending, was a bona fide exercise in public interest or a punitive order to secure his immediate removal.
Provisions considered
- Rule 56(j), Fundamental RulesThe Government's absolute right to retire a servant after the prescribed age is conditioned on public interest and must be exercised bona fide on valid material after considering the entire service record; courts may lift the veil to see whether the order is punitive or passed for collateral purposes, and may not use it as a shortcut to avoid a departmental enquiry. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 39)
- Articles 310 and 311, Constitution of IndiaCompulsory retirement is a facet of the pleasure doctrine and ordinarily not a punishment attracting Article 311, but where the order is in substance punitive or founded on imputations of misconduct the court treats it as punishment. (¶¶ 16, 20, 25)
Held
- The appellant's annual reports for a decade graded him outstanding with integrity beyond doubt, the latest on 31.07.2019 at nine on a scale of ten; of the nine complaints cited, four were closed in 2016-17, others were under examination or rejected, one was closed in January 2019 and the bigamy allegation by his former wife lost significance on their mediated settlement and consent divorce, which the department itself had recorded as not established. Nothing showed a sudden decline in his work or integrity that could justify retirement. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- The department had repeatedly withheld vigilance clearance in the teeth of orders of the Tribunal, the High Court and this Court, placed him on the suspect list, inspected his office without jurisdiction, sought adjournments in contempt proceedings while serving a charge memorandum and suspending him, and then abandoned the disciplinary proceedings by retiring him. Having found him fit to continue for nearly a decade after age fifty, the respondents turned turtle within three months of an outstanding grading; the order was punitive, passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings and ensure his immediate removal, and fails the test of public interest. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39)
Result
Appeal allowed with parties to bear their own costs; Allahabad High Court judgment dated 31.05.2022 reversed; order dated 27.09.2019 compulsorily retiring the appellant under FR 56(j) quashed and set aside along with all adverse consequences flowing from it.