HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH: BILASPUR
Writ Petition No. 96 of 2000
K.Selvaraj
...Petitioners
Versus
1) The Central Industrial
Security Force
2) The Inspector General (NS)
Central Industrial Security
Force
3) The Union of India
...Respondents
! Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the petitioner.
^ Shri S. K. Beriwal, Standing counsel with Shri Ajay
Barik, counsel for the respondents.
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:05/07/2008
: Judgement
(Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India)
(Passed on this 5th day of July, 2008)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the
legality and validity of the order dated 29-6-2000 (Annexure
P/1), whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired with
immediate effect after attaining the age of 50 years on 31-5-
1999 and the order dated 29-10-2000 (Annexure P/2), whereby
his representation against the impugned order dated 29-6-
2000 was rejected by the respondent No.1.
2) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner,
are that the petitioner joined the Central Industrial
Security Force (for short, “CISF”) in the year 1975 as
Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive). In the year 1986 he
was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive).
Further, he was promoted to the post of Inspector
(Executive) in the year 1993. The petitioner had received
eight cash awards and thirteen commendation for various
activities. There was no adverse entry in his service
record as nothing was communicated to him. A charge-sheet
was issued in the year 1985, resulting into imposition of
removal from service on 3-2-1986, the same was set aside
by the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 1659 of
1986. The imposition of withholding of one increment in
the year 1996 was also quashed in appeal by the Commandant
V.S.C.C., Thumba. The petitioner received the impugned
order dated 29-6-2000 compulsorily retiring him under the
provisions of the Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules (for
Short, “FR”), by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.1.
The same was rejected by the respondent No.1 under the
signature of Assistant Inspector General/Estt. Thus, this
petition impugning the above stated orders.
3) Mr. P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the provisions of Rule 56 (j)
of FR applies to the Government servants and not to the
members of the armed forces as the petitioner is a member of
CSIF which came into force under the provisions of the
Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, “the
Act, 1968). Under the provisions of Section 3 of the
Act, 1968 CISF would constitute as an armed force of the
Union. In exercise of the power under the Act, 1968,
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 (for short,
“the Rules 1969”) were framed. There is no provision for
premature retirement on attaining the age of 50 years under
the Act, 1968 and the Rules 1969. The petitioner, being
holder of the post of Inspector, comes in the grade “Group
-C Non-gazetted”, therefore, the provision of sub-clause
(ii) of FR 56 (j) would be applicable. Grade -C employees
may be retired prematurely after attaining the age of 55
years. It appears that the petitioner has been classified
as Grade -B., after notification dated 20-4-1998 (Annexure
P/5) issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions came into force which provides for
classification of the posts in respect of Central Civil
posts. The petitioner is a promotee and has not entered
into Group – B service directly. Under the Central
Government Group Insurance Saving Fund (CGGISF) the
petitioner is a subscriber under Group – C and he was
paying his contribution at the rate of Rs.60/- per month
(Annexure P/6). The petitioner could have been considered
for compulsory retirement only after he attains the age of
55 years. The petitioner could have been retired only in
public interest, if his service records were bad and his
integrity was doubtful. There was no adverse entry in the
entire service of the petitioner. Even if a classification
of the Civil posts are made applicable to the members of
CISF, the petitioner would fall in Group-C as the petitioner
was working at that time on the pay scale of Rs.6500/- –
9000/-. Even if the petitioner was to retire on attaining
the age of 50 years, the review must be done six months
before the Government servant attains the age of 50/55
years, whichever is earlier. The date of birth of the
petitioner is 1-6-1949. The petitioner attained the age
of 50 years on 31-5-1999 and the impugned order was passed
on 29-6-2000. In case of the petitioner, his service record
reviewed after he attained the age of 50 years which is not
permissible under law. The respondents in their additional
reply dated 16-6-2008 have admitted that the review
committee to consider the case of the petitioner was held
on 23-6-2000 after the petitioner crossed the age of 51
years as the petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 31-5-
1999. The petitioner had received five very good entries,
2 good entries and 2 average entries in his last ten years
confidential reports. The petitioner was further granted
promotion in the year 1993 within a period of seven years
from the date of the order. The petitioner was granted very
good in the ACR for the year 2000. Learned counsel would
further submit that the impugned order deserves to be
quashed on account of the fact that the orders are not in
conformity with the provisions of law.
4) Per contra, Shri S.K. Beriwal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that the
petitioner attained the age 50 years on 31-5-1999 when he
was holding the post of Inspector. The post of Inspector in
the force including CISF has been classified as “General
Central Services Group `B’ Non-Gazetted” as notified by the
Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18-5-1999 with effect from
10-10-1997. This was notified in the Gazette on 25-1-2000
(Annexure R/2). The respondents framed guidelines to
strengthen the administration on 16-8-1999 (Annexure R/3),
wherein it was stated that in case of Inspectors of CISF,
the review under FR 56 (j) is required to adjudge their
suitability for further continuance in service or otherwise
after completion of 30 years of qualifying service on the
basis of entire service records including records of the
preceding five years. The case of the petitioner was
considered after he attained the age of 50 years for
premature retirement with effect from 4-7-2000. Rule 70
of the CISF Rules, 1969 stipulates that the supervisory
officers and members of the Force shall, in respect of all
other matters regarding conditions of service for which no
provision or insufficient provision has been made in these
rules, be governed by the rules and order for the time being
applicable to officers holding corresponding posts in the
Central Government in respect of such matters. Learned
counsel further submits that FR 56 (j) (i) provides that if
the employee is in Group A or B service or post in a
substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had
entered government service before attaining the age of 35
years, he, in public interest, may be prematurely retired
after attaining the age of 50 years. Thus, the contention
of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
services of the petitioner ought to have been reviewed on
attaining the age of 55 years, is misconceived. The
petitioner joined service in CISF as Assistant Sub-Inspector
(Executive) on 24-3-1975. The petitioner was promoted to
the rank of Inspector in the year 1993. The petitioner
during his service career was punished as many as seven
times for his various acts, omissions and misconducts, the
details of which are as under:
(i) `Censure’ was imposed for violation of
CISF Rules 1969 for attempting to bring
political influence upon the superiors for
cancellation of posting on 23-4-1984
(Annexure R VI).
(ii Punishment of stoppage of increment for
) one year for non reporting on his duty at
MAPP, Kalpakkam on 12-12-1983 and
assaulting one civilian vide order dated
14-6-1984 (Annexure VII).
(ii Punishment of stoppage of increment for
i) one year for overstay from leave and
joining time vide order dated 19-5-1992
(Annexure R/VIII).
(iv Imposition of punishment of `Censure’
) again by order dated 20/21-4-1995
(Annexure R/IX).
(v) Imposition of punishment of censure again
by order dated 8-5-1997 (Annexure R/X).
(vi Imposition of punishment of pay fine
) equal to 2 days pay by order dated 21-10-
1997 (Annexure R/XI).
Apart from the above, during the entire service career,
12 annual confidential reports of the petitioner were found
average.;
1975 to 1983-average,
1994-very good,
1995- good,
1996- average.
1997- average,
1998 (1.1.1998 to 30.4.1981) -average,
1998 (1.5.1998 to 31.5.1981)-non-initiation
certificate and
1998 (.1.6.1998 to 31.12.1998) -very good.
5) The petitioner was found negligent on duties. The
petitioner was removed from service for serious mis-conduct,
later on removal order was quashed by the High Court of
Madras in Writ Petition No.1885/87 and the petitioner was re-
instated in service. The representation of the petitioner
was considered and it was found that premature retirement of
the petitioner from service in public interest was in
accordance with the provisions of FR 56 (j). Subscription
towards Group Insurance Savings has nothing to do with
classification of CISF Inspectors as they fall under
category of “Group-B Non-Gazetted Central Services”. The
petitioner was prematurely retired on the basis of his
service record and on the ground of ineffectiveness, and
not as a measure of punishment.
6) Under the provisions of FR 56 (j) the review of
service was to be done six months before a government
servant attains the age of 50 years and as such review of
the services of the petitioner became due in May, 1999. On
receipt of the fresh notification the superannuation review
of the petitioner was held on 23-6-2000 and the petitioner
prematurely retired on 29-6-2000 at the age of 51 years , on
being found unfit for further retention in Government
service. Since the post of Inspector was re-classified as
“Group-B” vide notification dated 18-5-1999 (Annexure R/1),
by that time the petitioner had already crossed the age of
50 years, which was otherwise the age of superannuation
review of Group -B posts. Services of the petitioner
could not have been reviewed as above, till the age of
superannuation, if this was not done at the earliest,
after classification of the post of Inspector as Group -B.
Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
8) It is evident that the case of the petitioner was
considered for review superannuation after he attained the
age of 50 years on 31-5-1999 on 23-6-2000 and the impugned
order retiring the petitioner prematurely was passed on 29-
6-2000. The petitioner was holding “Group -C” post till
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued a
circular dated 18-5-99 (Annexure R/1), whereby the
Inspector carrying pay scale of Rs.6500/- to 10,500/- was
classified as “General Central Services Group “B” Non-
Gazetted”.
9) The circular dated 18-5-99 (Annexure R/1) issued by
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, reads as
under:
“To
New Delhi, the 18th May 98.
1. DG, ITB Police.
2. DG, CRPF.
3. DG, BSF
4. DG., CISF.
5. DG, NSG.
Sub: Classification of posts:-
Sir,
I am directed to refer to Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance & Pension, Deptt. of Personnel & Training O.M.
No.13012/1/98-Estt (D) dated 12th June 1998, and to say that
a review has been undertaken for classifying various
categories on Non-gazetted Combatised posts in the Central
Para Military Forces of the revised norms of pay scales/ pay
ranges notified in the Official Gazette vide SO-332(E) dated
20th April 1998 of the Deptt. of Personnel & Training
Notification. It has now been decided to classify the
following categories of posts in the Combatised rank w.e.f.
10-10-97 as indicated against each:-
S.N Designation of Post Classification of Post
o.
(i) Subedar Major carrying General Central Services
scale of pay of Rs.6500- Group `B’ Non-Gazetted.
10500 plus Rs.200-
Apptt.pay.
(ii Inspector carrying scale General Central Services
) of pay of Rs.6500-10500 Group `B’ Non-Gazetted.
(ii Sub-Inspector carrying General Central Services
i) scale of pay of Rs.5500- Group `C’.
9000
(iv Asstt. Sub-Inspector General Central Services
) carrying scale of pay of Group `C'
Rs.4000-6000
(v) Head Constable carrying General Central Services
scale of pay of Rs.3200- Group `C’.
4900
(vi Constable carrying scale General Central Services
) of pay of Rs.3050-4500 Group `C’.
2. This issues with the concurrence of Deptt. of Personnel
& Training vide their Dy.No.177/JS(E)/98 dated 24.11.98.
Sd/-”
10) The aforesaid notification was published in the Gazette
notification dated 25.1.2000 in exercise of power under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India (Annexure R/2).
The petitioner attained the age of 50 years on 31-5-1999.
The case of the petitioner could not be reviewed as till 18-
5-1999 the petitioner, being Inspector, was classified as
“Group -C” employee. For “Group -C” employees, age of
compulsory retirement was 55 years. The office of the
Directorate General, CISF by circular dated 18-8-1999
observed that review under FR 56 (j) in the case of
Inspectors CISF was required to be made to adjudge their
suitability for further continuance in service or otherwise
after completion of 30 years of qualifying service or beyond
the age of 50 years if they have entered in Government
service before attaining the age of 35 years. However, in
case, any of them has entered in Government service after
attaining the age of 35 years, his suitability for
continuance in service or otherwise will continue to be
assessed at the age of 55 years.
11) Since the petitioner had already attained the age of 50
years before circular dated 18-5-1999 came into force, the
case of the petitioner was reviewed for adjudging his
suitability for continuance in service or otherwise. The
petitioner has suppressed material facts with regard to
imposition of various punishments as detailed in the return
filed by the respondents. After having considered various
punishments imposed on the petitioner from time to time and
adverse entries in his ACR, it appears that the
consideration was bona fide, in public interest, and not
for collateral purposes. The petitioner has failed to
establish any mala fide or any error in the decision of the
Review Committee which decided to retire the petitioner
prematurely. The petitioner has not rebutted the averment
made by the respondents in return with regard to various
punishments imposed on the petitioner.
12) The contention of the petitioner that Fundamental
Rules are not applicable to the Inspectors of CISF as CISF
is an armed force as constituted under the provisions of the
Act, 1968, deserves to be rejected as Section 22 of the
Act, 1968 empowers the Central Government to make rules,
regulating the classes, ranks, grades, pay and remuneration
of members of the Force and their conditions of service in
the Force. In exercise of power under Section 22 of the
Act, 1968, Rules 1969 were framed. Rule 70, which was
incorporated by amendment on 3-6-1979, reads as under:
“70. Other conditions of service.- The
supervisory officers and members of the
Force shall, in respect of all other
matters regarding conditions of service
for which no provision or insufficient
provision has been made in these rules, be
governed by the rules and order for the
time being applicable to officers holding
corresponding posts in the Central
Government in respect of such matters.”
13) Thus, Fundamental Rules are applicable in respect
of premature retirement as there is no provision under the
provisions of the Act, 1968 and the Rules 1969. Rules
1969 were later on repealed by the CISF Rules 2001 with
effect from 5-11-2001. In the case in hand, Rules 1969
would be applicable. Thus, services of the petitioner were
rightly reviewed under FR 56 (j). Whether the services
of the petitioner can be reviewed after he attained the age
of 50 years, as in normal case, the same should be done
six months before a Government servant attains the age of
50/55 years. In the present case since the petitioner was
classified in “Grade -C”, wherein the age of
superannuation review was 55 years. After re-
classification of the Inspector (petitioner) by order
dated 18-5-1999 the age of superannuation review was 50
years. By that time, the petitioner crossed the age
of superannuation review i.e.,50 years just one month
before. Thus, it was deemed proper to consider his case
immediately and the impugned order dated 29-6-2000
(Annexure P/1) retiring the petitioner prematurely was
passed. In case the petitioner was not reviewed after 50
years, the case of the petitioner, being Grade `B’
officer, could not have been reviewed at the age of 55
years. The petitioner joined service in the year 1975
before he attained the age of 35 years.
14) I am thus, constrained to hold that there was no error
in considering the case of the petitioner for
superannuation review after he attained the age of 50
years.
15) In the matter of Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India
and others1 cited by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of
voluntary retirement observed (para 16) that “Any order
which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or
ignoring, willfully 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 of the totality of material
facts viewed in a holistic perspective”.
16) The decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of
V.K. Issar Vs. Union of India and others2 cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner is not relevant to the facts of
the present case as the High Court held that the
respondents cannot be permitted to compulsorily retire the
employee on the basis of remote ACRs when nothing adverse
was found after 1992.
17) In the present case the respondents have established
that the entry in the ACRs was throughout adverse in case
of the petitioner and he was imposed punishment on several
occasions for his ineffectiveness.
18) In the present case, the allegations leveled by the
respondents in the return indicating various punishments
imposed on the petitioner was not refuted by the petitioner
and on the facts, it should be deemed to have been proved
and correct. Law is well settled that Review Committee has
to take overall service record in holistic approach.
19) In the matter of Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and
another3, the Supreme Court, observed as under :
“9. Now coming to the express words of
Fundamental Rule 56(j) 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. The right conferred on
the appropriate authority is an absolute
one. That power can be exercised subject to
the conditions mentioned in the rule, one
of which is that the concerned authority
must be of the opinion that it is in public
interest to do so. If that authority bona
fide forms that opinion, the correctness of
that opinion cannot be challenged before
courts. 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. The 1st respondent
challenged the opinion formed by the
Government on the ground of mala fide. But
that ground has failed.”
20) The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and another
(supra), has been followed by a Constitutional Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.L. Butail Vs.
Union of India and others4. The ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the cases with regard to
compulsory retirement vis–vis applicability of FR-56 (j)
have been consistently followed in several other decisions.
(see, Mayongbam Radhamohan Singh Vs. The Chief Commissioner
(Administrator), Manpur and others5 )
21) In the matter of Union of India Vs. M.E. Reddy and
another6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, again relying on the
decision in the matter of Col. J.N. Sinha and another
(supra), observed as under –
“The observations made above clearly reveal
the object of this rule and lay down that
where an officer concerned is of doubtful
integrity he can be compulsorily retired
under this rule.”
And further,
“We have already pointed out relying on the
dictum of this Court laid down by
Hidayatullah, C.J., that the confidential
reports can certainly be considered by the
appointing authority in passing the order
of retirement even if they are not
communicated to the officer concerned.
Thus, the two grounds on which the Calcutta
decision was based are not supportable in
law. For these reasons, therefore, we hold
that the decision of the Calcutta High
Court referred to above was wrongly decided
and is hereby overruled.”
22) In the matter of C.D. Ailawadi Vs. Union of India and
others7 the Supreme Court observed as under-
“8. An aggrieved civil servant can
challenge an order of compulsory retirement
on any of the following grounds as settled
by several decisions of this Court: (i)
that the requisite opinion has not been
formed; or (ii) that the decision is based
on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is
an arbitrary decision. In Union of India v.
Col. J.N. Sinha this Court held that if the
civil servant is able to establish that the
order of compulsory retirement suffered
from any of the above infirmities, the
court has jurisdiction to quash the same.
It is not disputed that compulsory
retirement under Rule 56(j) is not a
punishment as it does not take away any of
the past benefits. Chopping off the dead
wood is one of the important considerations
for invoking Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental
Rules. In the instant case, on the basis of
the service record, the Committee formed
the requisite opinion that the petitioner
had ceased to be useful and, therefore,
should be retired prematurely. We do not
think petitioner has been able to place any
satisfactory material for the contention
that the decision was on collateral
grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the
basis of materials on record, the order
cannot be treated to be arbitrary”
23) In the matter of Union of India Vs. Dulal Dutt8, the
Supreme Court observed as under-
“An order of compulsory retirement has to
be passed by the Government on forming the
opinion that it is in the public interest
to retire a Government servant
compulsorily. The order is passed on the
subjective satisfaction of the Government.
The Government (or the Review Committee, as
the case may be) shall have to consider the
entire record of service before taking a
decision in the matter – of course
attaching more importance to record of and
performance during the later years. The
record to be so considered would naturally
include the entries in the confidential
records/character rolls, both favourable
and adverse. There may be any number of
remarks, observations and comments, which
do not constitute adverse remarks, but are
yet relevant for the purpose of FR 56(j) or
a rule corresponding to it.”
And further,
“An order of compulsory retirement is not a
punishment. It implies no stigma nor any
suggestion of misbehaviour. Principles of
natural justice have no place in the
context of an order of compulsory
retirement. Since the nature of the
function is not quasi-judicial in nature
and because the action has to be taken on
the subjective satisfaction of the
Government, there is no room for importing
the audi alteram partem rule of the natural
justice in such a case.”
(see- Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada9 )
24). In the matter of K. Kandaswamy v. Union of
India10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under-
“9. While exercising the power under Rule
56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the
appropriate authority has to weigh several
circumstances in arriving at the conclusion
that the employee requires to be
compulsorily retired in public interest.
The Government is given power to energise
its machinery by weeding out dead wood,
inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful
integrity by compulsorily retiring them
from service. When the appropriate
authority forms bona fide opinion that
compulsory retirement of the government
employee is in the public interest, court
would not interfere with the order”.
25) In the matter of State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar
Jain11, the Supreme Court observed as under-
“15. The aforesaid decisions unmistakably
lay down that the entire service record of
a government servant could be considered by
the Government while exercising the power
under FR 56(c) of the Rules with emphasis
on the later entries. FR 56(c) of the Rules
read with Explanation (2), empowers the
State Government with an absolute right to
retire an employee on attaining the age of
50 years. It cannot be disputed that the
dead wood need to be removed to maintain
efficiency in the service. Integrity of a
government employee is foremost
consideration in public service. If a
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. The
Government’s right to compulsorily retire
an employee is a method to ensure
efficiency in public service and while
doing so the Government is entitled under
Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account
the entire service record, character roll
or confidential report with emphasis on the
later entries in the character roll of an
employee. In fact, entire service record,
character roll or confidential report
furnishes the materials to the Screening
Committee or the State Government, as the
case may be, to find out whether a
government servant has outlived his utility
in service. It is on consideration of
totality of the materials with emphasis on
the later entries in the character roll,
the Government is expected to form its
opinion whether an employee is to be
compulsorily retired or not.
16. Withholding of integrity of a
government employee is a serious matter. In
the present case, what we find is that the
integrity of the respondent was withheld by
an order dated 13-6-1997 and the said entry
in the character roll of the respondent was
well within ten years of passing of the
order of compulsory retirement. During
pendency of the writ petition in the High
Court, the U.P. Services Tribunal on a
claim petition filed by the respondent,
shifted the entry from 1997-98 to 1983-84.
Shifting of the said entry to a different
period or entry going beyond ten years of
passing of the order of compulsory
retirement does not mean that vigour and
sting of the adverse entry is lost. Vigour
or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped
out, merely it is relatable to 11th or 12th
year of passing of the order of compulsory
retirement. The aforesaid adverse entry
which could have been taken into account
while considering the case of the
respondent for his compulsory retirement
from service, was duly considered by the
State Government and the said single
adverse entry in itself was sufficient to
compulsorily retire the respondent from
service. We are, therefore, of the view
that entire service record or confidential
report with emphasis on the later entries
in the character roll can be taken into
account by the Government while considering
a case for compulsory retirement of a
government servant”.
26) So far as the case in hand and the matter in
dispute is concerned, it is necessary to quote the
Fundamental Rule 56 (j) which reads as under:
“56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this rule, the Appropriate Authority
shall, if it is of the opinion that it is
in the public interest so to do, have the
absolute right to retire any Government
servant by giving him notice of not less
than three months in writing or three
months pay and allowances in lieu of such
notice:
(i) If he is, in Group `A’ or Group `B’ service or post in
a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had
entered Government service before attaining the age of 35
years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) In any other case, after he has attained the age of
fifty-five years.”
27) FR 56 (j) contemplates premature retirement after an
employee in Group `A’ or Group `B’ has attained the age of
50 years when he has entered into service before attaining
the age of 35 years. In the present case, the case of the
petitioner was considered after attaining the age of 50
years and there is no condition in FR 56 (j) that review
should be done six months before the Government servant
attains the age of 50 years. The common thread running
into the decisions cited above clearly shows that, if a
conduct of a Government employee becomes unbecoming, in the
public interest or obstructs the efficiency of public
services, the government has an absolute right to
compulsory retire such an employee in public interest. In
the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner
that, there was any malafide in the order or the order was
not in public interest or it was for collateral purpose.
Thus, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order
retiring the petitioner prematurely is bona fide and in
public interest.
28) For the reasons hereinabove, this petition is
dismissed. Costs easy.
JUDGE
