GOPAL KRISHNA PANDA vs COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH on 29 December 2023

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order bearing No. AII/FR 56/Sec.III/2020 dated 16.03.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 prematurely retiring the applicant from service (Annexure-A7).

ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order bearing No. 4-10(56-J)/2017-HR-II dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 confirming the order of premature retirement (Annexure-A12).

iii) Grant such other reliefs as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he was appointed as Junior Scientist (Scientist B/Group IV) as on 03.03.1997 in the Respondent No. 3 organization, after completion of his probationary period, his services came to be confirmed. As per the cadre and recruitment rules of the respondent institution, the applicant came to be promoted from time to time by virtue of his seniority. The applicant has put in nearly 24 years with an impeccable service record throughout his tenure. He has been graded “excellent” or above 75/100 in every review conducted by the respondent institution. As things stood thus, the Respondent No. 3 institution, in arbitrary exercise of powers conferred under Clause (j) (i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, issued the order of premature retirement vide order dated 16.03.2020 by serving three months’ notice upon him, pursuant to which, representation submitted by him on 19.05.2020 has been rejected arbitrarily by the Representation Committee on 30.06.2022. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri Abhishek M.R. representing the applicant submitted that the impugned premature retirement order dated 16.03.2020 is arbitrary. The respondents have failed to take into consideration the fact that the applicant has been

promoted to the highest post in the preceding 5 years, has been graded excellent in all the years of service rendered, has never been called for any inquiry or issued with any penalty order during his service. Respondent No. 2 passed a perfunctory order dated 30.06.2022 against the representation submitted by the applicant on 19.05.2020 which demonstrates that the respondents have wilfully neglected the representation of the applicant with an ulterior motive. The respondents have neither issued any show cause notice nor initiated any criminal proceedings inasmuch as the allegation that the applicant was under intoxication while performing official duties as raised in the order dated 30.06.2022. Such incident is neither brought to the notice of the applicant nor proved in accordance with due procedure established by law and principles of natural justice. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs Umed Bhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314, learned counsel submitted that before premature retirement is ordered, requisite opinion has to be formed, decision shall not be arbitrary but shall be in public interest and review shall be made before effecting such an order. No such exercise was done by the Review Committee, further Representation Committee has blindly

confirmed the premature retirement order issued by the Respondent No. 3.

4. A detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel Shri K. Ananda appearing for the respondents has placed the copies of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR)/Performance Mapping for Scientists (PMS) assessments of the applicant relating to the Assessment Years, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 and the original records of the Review Committee in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel justifying the action of the respondents submitted that no doubt the applicant has put in more than 23 years of service in the 3rd respondent institution and has received awards to his specific work in the year 1999 and 2006-2007 and was graded as “excellent” in his APAR/PMS from 2009-2010 to 2018-2019, in view of the fact that the applicant was coming to the office by consuming alcohol, his acts are unbecoming of a responsible government servant. The flight testing activities are safety critical in nature and the presence of the officer in intoxicated condition may jeopardize the safety of the flight. The

applicant wilfully refused to acknowledge the warning OM dated 26.09.2018 and did not co-operate for subjecting him to the medical test when it has come to the knowledge of the respondents that the applicant was attending the laboratory in intoxicated condition. Even after the said incidents, though the applicant was transferred from division of C-CADD to the Systems Engineering Division with effect from 17.10.2018, the applicant did not change his attitude. The Review Committee after considering the Special Reports, APAR/PMS of the preceding 5 years and entire service records of the applicant, has not recommended the applicant to continue in service.

6. Based on the recommendation made by the Review Committee, the 3rd respondent issued the premature retirement order as per the provisions under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. The applicant submitted his representation on 19.05.2020 before the 3rd respondent seeking to withdraw the order of his premature retirement which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent to take necessary action. The applicant preferred Writ Petition No. 14807/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein it was directed that the representation of the applicant be disposed

of within a week. In compliance of the Court directions, the Representation Committee was notified on 29.06.2022 and met on the same day and gave the report to Director General, CSIR, whereby the request of the applicant to recommend for his reinstatement into service was declined. Based on the recommendation of the Representation Committee, the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority, passed the order on 30.06.2022 by confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 14807/2021 came to be dismissed on 07.07.2022 as the representation submitted by the applicant has been disposed of by order dated 30.06.2022 reserving liberty to the applicant to challenge the said order in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that if conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. Thus, justifying the action of the respondents, sought for dismissal of the application.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the original records.

8. The point that arises for our consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-A7) issued by the Respondent No. 3, exercising the powers under Rule 56 (j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules, retiring the applicant prematurely and the confirmation of the same by the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure-A12) passed by the Respondent No. 2 is justifiable?

9. The judgments holding the field on this point are collated hereunder for ready reference.

10. The object of compulsory retirement of a government servant was highlighted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank Officers’ Association and Another vs. Allahabad Bank and Others [1996 (4) SCC 504] in the following words: - “5. The power to compulsorily retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the deed wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. Generally speaking, Service Rules provide for compulsory retirement of a government servant on his completing certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed age. His service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is

taken whether he should be compulsorily retired or continued further in service. There is no levelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanation from the government servant. While misconduct and inefficiency are factors that enter into the account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case of retirement they merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if held – and there is no duty to hold an enquiry – is only for the satisfaction of the authorities who have to take action, in the case of dismissal or removal they form the very basis on which the order is made, as pointed out by this Court in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. [(1955) 1 SCR 26] and State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi [(1958) SCR 571]. Thus, by its very nature the power to compulsorily retire a government servant is distinct and separate from the power to punish him by way of removal, dismissal etc. for misconduct. A government servant who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences.” “………………

17. The above discussion of case-law makes it clear that if the order of compulsory retirement casts a stigma on the Government servant in the sense that it contains a statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, then the court will treat that order as an order of punishment, attracting provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The reason is that as a charge or imputation is made the condition for passing the order, the court would infer therefrom that the real intention of the Government was to punish the government servant on the basis of that charge or imputation and not to exercise the power of compulsory retirement. But mere reference to the rule, even if it mentions grounds for compulsory retirement, cannot be regarded as sufficient for treating the order of compulsory retirement as an order of punishment. In such a case, the order can be said to have been

passed in terms of the rule and, therefore, a different intention cannot be inferred. So also, if the statement in the order refers only to the assessment of his work and does not at the same time cast an aspersion on the conduct or character of the Government servant, then it will not be proper to hold that the order of compulsory retirement is in reality an order of punishment. Whether the statement in the order is stigmatic or not will have to be judged by adopting the test of how a reasonable person would read or understand it.” [emphasis added]

11. In Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha and Another [(1970) 2 SCC 458], the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:

“Fundamental Rule 56(j) does not in terms require that any opportunity should be given to the concerned government servant to show cause against his compulsory retirement. It says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.”

12. On similar lines were the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Swami Saran Saxena v. State of U.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 12]:-

“3. Several contentions have been raised in this appeal by the appellant, who appears in person. In our judgment, one of them suffices to dispose of the appeal. The contention which has found favour with us is that on a perusal of the material on the record and having regard to the entries in the personal file and character roll of the appellant, it is not possible reasonably to come to the conclusion that the compulsory retirement of the appellant was called for. This conclusion follows inevitably from the particular circumstances, among others, that the appellant was found worthy of being permitted to cross the second efficiency bar only a few months before. Ordinarily, the court does not interfere with the judgment of the relevant authority on the point whether it is in the public interest to compulsorily retire a government servant. And we would have been even more reluctant to reach the conclusion we have, when the impugned order of compulsory retirement was made on the recommendation of the High Court itself. But on the material before us we are unable to reconcile the apparent contradiction that although for the purpose of crossing the second efficiency bar the appellant was considered to have worked with distinct ability and with integrity beyond question yet within a few months thereafter he was found so unfit as to deserve compulsory retirement. The entries in between in the records pertaining to the appellant need to be examined and appraised in that context. There is no evidence to show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of the appellant's work or integrity that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. For all these reasons, we are of opinion that the order of compulsory retirement should be quashed. The appellant will be deemed to have continued in service on the date of the impugned order.”

13. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 321], emphasizing the fact that exercise of powers under

Fundamental Rule 56(j) must be bona fide and promote public interest, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that :- “One wonders how an officer whose continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, could be cashiered on the score that long years ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut may often be a wrong cut. The order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision, has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, wilfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on regard or the totality of material facts viewed in a holistic perspective. For these reasons, the order challenged is obviously bad and we quash it……………”

14. In Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar and Another [(1990) 3 SCC 504], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in order to find out whether an order of compulsory retirement is based on any misconduct of the government servant or the said order has been made bona fide, without any oblique or extraneous purpose, the veil can be lifted. Following are the pertinent observations made in the said decision:

“32. On a consideration of the above decisions the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such case cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned government servant as has been held by this Court in ‘Anoop Jaiswal case’ [(1984) 2 SCC 369]. This being the position the respondent-State cannot defend the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant in the instant case on the mere plea that the order has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code which prima facie does not make any imputation or does not cast any stigma on the service career of the appellant. But in view of the clear and specific averments made by the respondent-State that the impugned order has been made to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the aforesaid rule as the appellant was found to have committed grave financial irregularities leading to financial loss to the State, the impugned order cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment. As such, such an order is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as it is arbitrary as it violates principles of natural justice and the same has not been made bona fide. [emphasis added]”

15. In State of Orissa and Others vs. Ram Chandra Das [(1996) 5 SCC 331], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:- “3. …… It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or who are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a government employee compulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record of the government servant including the latest reports.”

16. In State of Gujarat and Another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah [(1999) 1 SCC 529], a case where the State Government had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat that had held that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent therein was bad, as there were no adverse entries in his Confidential Report and his integrity was not doubtful at any stage, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus : - “28. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character

roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll subsequent to the respondent’s promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest.”

17. In State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314], the Hon’ble Apex Court has delineated the following broad principles that ought to be followed in matters relating to compulsory retirement: - “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus:

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.”

18. In the case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union of India and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 6161/2022, DD 03.03.2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court, analysing the aforesaid legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has deduced as under:

“37. Having regard to the fact that the respondents did not take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant to its logical conclusion and instead issued an order compulsorily retiring him, this Court does not deem it expedient to delve into the allegations levelled in the said Charge Memorandum………….

38. ………………………..

39. Dehors the aforesaid allegations of institutional bias and malice, having perused the material placed on record, we find merit in the other grounds taken by the appellant. It is noticed that though FR 56(j) contemplates that the respondents have an absolute right to retire a government

servant in public interest and such an order could have been passed against the appellant any time after he had attained the age of fifty years, the respondents did not take any such decision till the very fag end of his career. The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed in this case on 27th September, 2019 whereas the appellant was to superannuate in ordinary course in January, 2020. There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents who had till as late as in July, 2019 continued to grade the appellant as ‘Outstanding’ and had assessed his integrity as ‘Beyond doubt’. But in less than three months reckoned therefrom, the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conclusion that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scale of 1 - 10 on 31st July, 2019 it has not been shown as to what had transpired thereafter that made the respondents resort to FR 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire him with just three months of service left for his retirement, in routine. In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short- circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public.”

19. In the light of these judgments, we have analysed the case on hand.

20. We are conscious of the limited scope of judicial review relating to the compulsory retirement order passed under 56 (j)(i), which necessarily does not call for any explanation from the government servant as the same is nothing but extension of doctrine of pleasure, but the same should not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

21. Assessment of five years immediately preceding the order under FR 56 (j) as per the PMS/Evaluation Committee is as under:

Assessment Year Grade/ Marks Rating by the Members of the Collegium

Evaluation Committee 2015-2016 0.9/89 Excellent This report has been agreed by the Empowered Committee consisting of six Members and a Chairman. 2016-2017 0.9/87 Excellent 2017-2018 0.9/86 Excellent 2018-2019 0.9/85 Excellent 2019-2020 0.8/82 Very Good

If the Review Committee has come to a conclusion that the allegation against the applicant i.e., he was found in intoxicated

condition while discharging his official duties requires dismissal from service, necessarily the same ought to have been proved in accordance with law. Mere statement that the applicant has not co- operated for medical examination would not come to the assistance of the respondents unless such action as required under law has been taken. The alleged incident dated 22.09.2018 about the intoxicated condition of the applicant at flight test telemetry of Aircraft and Systems Testing Establishment (ASTE) is said to have been complained to the Commandant, ASTE by the ASTE crew and the same was said to have been conveyed to the Director, 3rd respondent, immediately. A copy of the incident report is placed at Annexure-R1. It is pertinent to note that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated regarding the alleged misconduct where flight testing activities which are safety critical in nature are involved. As per the Review Committee held on 31.03.2019, the Committee has not recommended the applicant for retention in service based on the observations in the Special Report and also service records as well as CRs for the past 5 years. As could be seen from the past records of the applicant, no adverse remarks is reported in the PMS recorded by the Collegium consisting of 3 Members. On the other hand, grade is given as

“Excellent/Very Good” for all the immediate 5 preceding years and the same has been confirmed by the Empowered Evaluation Committee consisting of 6 Members and the Chairman. In such circumstances, premature retirement of the applicant is not warranted as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to above. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive, passed as a short cut to avoid departmental inquiry when such course was more desirable. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass the muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying principle of serving the interest of the public.

22. Though such alleged incident is said to have taken place in 2018, the premature retirement order is passed on 16.03.2020. This conduct of the respondents shrouds suspicion in issuing the premature retirement order. Even after the said alleged incident, PMS and the Evaluation Committee’s Report assessment shows Excellent/Very good i.e., relating to the Assessment Year 2018- 2019 and 2019-2020.

23. The representation submitted by the applicant dated 19.05.2020 was not acted/considered until a direction was issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.

14807/2021 on 22.06.2022 that the representation of the applicant be disposed off within a week as stated in the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents.

24. In the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2, it is recorded that the Representation Committee was constituted on 29.06.2022 to consider the representation dated 19.05.2020 of the applicant against his premature retirement under FR 56 (j). The Representation Committee so constituted, considered the representation of the applicant and made the following broad submissions:

1. That the representation was made more than two months after the order dated 16.03.2020 was served to him which is beyond the time limit of 3 weeks as per rules. However, keeping in view the principles of nature justice and COVID- pandemic situation during the said period, the Committee decided to consider the time-barred application.

2. That there is evidence on record which shows Dr. Gopal Krishna Panda was found in the state of intoxication while performing official duties which are listed as under:

i. The Incident Report dated 24th September 2018 by W. Commander R. Sridhar (Retd), FTD, CSIR Consultant and Satish R Rohidekar, PD (E&AI) for the incident which happened on 22nd September, 2018 at 13:30 hrs at Telemetry, ASTE. The report provided

the details of the incident where Sh. G.K. Panda was observed in state of intoxication while on sensitive official duty which could have endanger the flight safety.

ii. Further, as per comments of his Reviewing Officer dated 7th Nov 2019, even after being warned for the incident vide NAL OM No. NAL/CoA/VIG/2018 dated 26.09.2018, Sh G.K. Panda was again noticed in state of intoxication by Security personnel and on being insisted for the medical test by the security personnel, he refused to cooperate and left the laboratory.

3. That the assessment committee did not recommend the promotion of Sh. Gopal Krishna Panda from Principal Scientist to Sr. Pr. Principal Scientist in 1st chance.

4. That the committee does not find merit in the representation of Sh. Gopal Krishna Panda, Ex-Sr. Pr. Scientist, CSIR- NAL and is in agreement with the view of the erstwhile Review Committee that there has been a sharp fall in the performance and attitude of the officer. Hence, his re- instatement in service is not recommended.”

Respondent No. 2 agreeing with the recommendation of the Representation Committee, confirmed the order passed under Rule 56 (j) (i) of Fundamental Rules. The original records placed before us relates only to the recommendations of the Review Committee and not of the Representation Committee. Be that as it may, it was obligatory on the part of the Representation Committee to dispose

of the representation within a reasonable time. Though as per the OM dated 28.08.2020 issued by the DOPT, the examination of the representation should be completed by the cadre authorities within two weeks from the date of receipt of representation, for the reasons best known to the Representation Committee, the representation dated 19.05.2020 was disposed of on 29.06.2022. The said Representation Committee was notified on 29.06.2022 and the decision was taken on the same day. Two years long delay in not considering the representation of the applicant remains unexplained. This inordinate delay itself vitiates the proceedings.

25. Thus, it is evident that the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-A7) before taking the decision to retire the applicant has failed to consider the entire record of the applicant including the last reports, the mandatory requirement as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Chandra Das, supra. There being no adverse remarks in the assessment as per PMS/Evaluation Committee Report, the integrity not being doubted at any time, more particularly, there being no medical examination reports of the applicant to establish the alleged fact of the applicant performing the official duties in the intoxicated

condition, the Review Committee could not have come to the conclusion that the applicant was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. No acknowledgements are produced for having served the warning notice whereas all these allegations and the warning notice are all totally denied by the applicant. A senior scientist cannot be given this treatment in the absence of substantial material to establish the decision of the Review Committee in exercising the power under Rule 56 (j)(i). Such an order is punitive, being passed for the collateral purpose of applicant’s immediate removal. If the applicant was worthy of being continued in service for two long years after the alleged incident and granted Excellent/Very Good grade in the PMS/Evaluation Committee report, it is not clear what made the respondents to resort to FR 56 (j) and prematurely retire him. It is nothing short of an order which is punitive in nature and passed to short circuit the disciplinary proceedings in order to ensure his immediate removal as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, supra.

26. For the reasons aforesaid, we find merit in the OA. Accordingly, we pass the following:

:ORDER:

i. The impugned orders dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-A7) and 30.06.2022 (Annexure-A12) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2, respectively are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service.

ii. The respondents shall take a decision regarding the period from the date of passing the compulsory retirement order to the date of reinstatement of the applicant in accordance with law.

iii. OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.

(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/