Union Of India & Ors. vs Rinku Dhugga

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17582/2025, CM APPL. 72597/2025 & CM APPL.
72599/2025

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
with Ms. Kiran Dharam and Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Mishra, Advs.

versus

RINKU DHUGGA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.04.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.


A. The lis

1. By judgment dated 8 August 2025, the Central Administrative
1
Tribunal has set aside (i) order dated 7 August 2023 issued by the
2
Department of Personnel and Training , compulsorily retiring the
respondent from service, (ii) letter dated 8 August 2023, whereby the
3
said decision was communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs to
the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, under whom the respondent
was serving at the time and (iii) order dated 26 March 2024, whereby

1
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
2
"DOPT" hereinafter
3
"MHA" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 1 of 44

the memorial submitted by the respondent seeking reconsideration of
the decision to compulsorily retire from service, was rejected.

4
2. By this writ petition, the Union of India challenges the
judgment of the Tribunal.

3. We have heard Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, learned CGSC and Mr.
Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the respondent. Having done so,
and having perused the impugned judgment, we are not of the opinion
that the case for issuance of notice is made out.


B. Facts

4. The respondent is an officer of the Indian Administrative
Service, which she joined in September 1994, having been allotted the
5
AGMUT cadre. She was granted Senior Scale in 1998, Jr
Administrative Grade in 2003, Selection Grade in 2007 and Super
Time Scale in 2010. She was transferred to the State of Arunachal
Pradesh on 26 May 2022, where she joined on 27 June 2022.

5. It was while she was serving in Arunachal Pradesh that, by
order dated 7 August 2023 issued by the DOPT, as communicated to
the respondent by the MHA on 8 August 2023, the respondent was
6
compulsorily retired from service under Rule 16(3) of the All India

4
"UOI" hereinafter
5
Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories
6
16(3) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned, require a
member of the service to retire from service in public interest after giving such Member at least three
months’s previous notice in writing or three month’ s pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, -
(i) after the review when such Member completes 15 years of qualifying Service; or
(ii) after the review when such Member completes 25 years of qualifying Service or attains
the age of 50 years, as the case may be, or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 2 of 44

7
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 , by the
following order:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule 3 of Rule 16 of
the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules,
1958, the President in consultation with the Ministry of Home
Affairs hereby required Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT:1994),
a member of the Indian Administrative Service, borne on the cadre
of AGMUT (AGMUT:1994) who has completed 25 years of
service and already attained 50 years of age, to retire from service
in public interest, with immediate effect by giving three month pay
and allowances in lieu of notice.

2. A cheque for some approximate to the aggregate amount of
her pay and allowances for a period of three months is enclosed.

3. By order and the name of the President.”

As we have already noted, this order was communicated by the MHA
to the respondent under cover of letter dated 8 August 2023.

6. The decision to compulsorily retire the respondent from service
was taken consequent to the recommendations of a Review Committee
which met on 21 March 2023, in terms of Rule 16(3) of the 1958
Rules. It is necessary to reproduce, in its entirety, the Minutes of the
Meeting of the Review Committee, which culminated in the
recommendation that the respondent be compulsorily retired from

(iii) If the review referred to in (i) or (ii) above has not been conducted after the review of any
other time as the Central Government deems fit in respect of such Member.
Explanation :- For the purposes of sub-rule (3), "review" of the entire service record of the Member
of the Service regarding suitability or otherwise of such Member for further retention in the Service to be
conducted regularly of each Member of such Service, firstly, after his completion of 15 years of qualifying
Service and secondly, after his completion of 25 years of qualifying Service or on his attaining the age of 50
years, as the case may be, or if the review referred to in clauses (i) or (ii) of this sub-rule has not been
conducted in respect of such Member, such review may be conducted at any other time as the Central
Government deems fit.";
Note 1: In computing the period of three months’ notice referred to in sub-rules (2), (2A) and (3)
the date of service of the notice and the date of its expiry shall be excluded.
Note 2: In the case of a member of Service who retires under sub-rule (2) or (2A) or who is retired
under sub-rule (3), the date or retirement shall be treated as a non-working day.
7
"the 1958 Rules" hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 3 of 44

service, thus:

" MINUTES OF THE 'MEETING OF THE REVIEW
COMMITTEE FOR INTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE
SERVICE RECORDS OF IAS OFFICERS OF JOINT
AGMUT CADRE

A meeting of the Review Committee was held on 21.03.2023 at
10:15 AM for intensive review of the service records of IAS
officers of Joint AGMUT cadre, as required in terms of Rule 16(3)
of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules,
1958 to be read with DoP&T' s letter No. 25013/02/2005-AIS.II
dated 28.06.2012. The composition of the Review Committee is as
under:

1. Shri. Ajay-Kumar Bhalla, Union Home Secretary -
Chairman.

2. Dr. Dharmendra S. Gangwar, Secretary (BM),
MHA - Member,

3. Shri Naresh Kumar, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi - Member

4. Shri Khilli Ram Meena, Addl. Secretary & FA, M/o
Rural Development; Govt. of India - Member

5. Shri Ashutosh Agnihotri, Joint Secretary (UT),
MHA - Member Secretary

2. The Review Committee carefully perused, Rule 16(3) of
the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 read with DoP&T' s letter No.
25013/02/2005 - AIS. II dated 28.06.2012. The Committee also
considered the extant rules and instructions issued by the Govt. of
India from time to time including the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs
Umed Bhai M. Patel (civil appeal No 1561 of 2001) on premature
retirement from service.

3. Accordingly, the Review Committee reviewed the service
records of 121 IAS officers of joint AGMUT cadre, who were
eligible for review as on 31.12.2022, by grouping them: into two
categories:

(i) Category- I: 76 IAS officers who have completed
15 years of qualifying service.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 4 of 44

(ii) Category-II: 45 IAS officers who have completed
25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50,
whichever is earlier, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The officer should have completed
minimum 15 years of qualifying service.

(b) In the case of State Service Officers
appointed to the All India Service by promotion or
selection, they should have completed minimum 05
years of actual service in the respective All India
Service.

4. The Review Committee was apprised about the overall
service records of the IAS officers in the 02 categories, including
the summarized ACRs/APARs in the years preceding the review,
adverse remarks', if any, recorded by the supervisory authorities,
and status of promotion, empanelment, physical/mental health,
integrity, and vigilance. The Committee was also informed about
instances of officers being placed under suspension, implicated in
criminal cases, or subjected to disciplinary inquiries. The issue of
Ms. Padma Jaiswal, IAS (AGMUT:2003) has not been considered
as the case of her removal from service is pending in the Delhi
High Court.

5. The Review Committee was of the considered view that
prolonged unauthorized absence from office should be considered,
as a criterion for rendering officers physically/mentally unfit for
continuation in public service. The Committee also took note of
cases of non - initiation or delayed initiation of PARs/ACRs by
officers for prolonged or multiple periods, with the same being
viewed as non - seriousness toward official responsibilities. The
Committee concluded that assessment of the suitability of IAS
officers for retention, in public service would be based on a
comprehensive examination of their overall service records, with
primary focus on the following aspects:

(a) Analytical assessment of performance based on
ACRs/APARs and material in the personal records.

(b) Action proposed/initiated/taken in the context of
misconduct or criminal case.

6. (i) The Review Committee, after perusal of the overall service
records, came to the conclusion that 120 out of the 121 IAS officers
do not attract the provisions for premature retirement from service
in public interest and are, therefore, suitable for continuation in
service.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 5 of 44

(ii) In the case of the remaining one IAS officer , namely Ms.
Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994), the Committee was of the
considered view that comprehensive examination of her service
records throughout her tenure was necessary to ascertain her
suitability for retention in service.

7. CASE REVIEW OF MS. R1NKU DHUGGA, IAS
(AGMUT: 1994)

Name of the officer: Ms. Rinku Dhugga

Service: IAS, 1994 [RR]

Date of Birth: 18.08.1969

Date of Superannuation: 31.08.2029

Current Grade: Super-Time Scale [Level 14 in the Pay Matrix]

Posting: Principal Secretary, Department of Indigenous Affairs,
Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh [ On unauthorized absence w. e. f.
30.06.2022]

7.1 ACR/APAR grading sheet during service

8
All India Services (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1970
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 6 of 44

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 7 of 44

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 8 of 44

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 9 of 44

within the stipulated time-frame on multiple occasions; further, the
Committee also noted several periods during which the officer' s
performance could not be supervised as she was not on duty for the
minimum required duration. This resulted in non-recording of her
ACRs/APARs during the PAR years 1999-00, 2001-02, 2002-03,
2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2022-23. The
Committee viewed such acts by the officer as non-seriousness
toward official responsibilities; moreover, the Committee also
considered it possible that the officer deliberately delayed or
avoided the initiation of her PARs to avoid adverse
reports/appraisals by her supervisory authorities.

(iii) The Committee observed that the supervisory authorities of
Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS consistently recorded adverse remarks
regarding her performance during the PAR years 2014-15, 2015-
16, 2017-18, and 2018-19 as under:

A. Shri Najeeb Jung, then Hon'ble Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi, assessed Ms. Rinku Dhugga as an
unreliable, non-punctual, and "average officer" who
exhibited "tardy performance" during years 2014-15 and
2015-16.

B. Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Hon'ble Chief Minister of
Delhi, opined that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS "lacked
commitment, sense of responsibility in official
dispensation" and exhibited " incompetence, lackadaisical
and laidback attitude, and insensitiveness towards public,
interest" during the 2017-18 and 2018-19.

7.2. Leave Records

Leave availed by the officer for greater than 30 days in a PAR
year, which the prior approval of the Competent Authority

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 10 of 44

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 11 of 44

The Committee further noted that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS has not
been empanelled with the Govt. India till date. IAS officers are
generally considered for empanelment to Joint Secretary or
equivalent level posts after completion of 16 years of service and
for empanelment to Additional Secretary or equivalent level posts
after completion of 25 years of service. All IAS officers of
AGMUT cadre 1995 batch, except Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, have
been empanelled to hold atleast Joint Secretary or equivalent level
posts with the Govt. of India.

7.4 Vigilance Status

The Committee observed that Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS is not clear
from vigilance angle as on date because disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated against her in the following two cases:

A. Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, then posted with the Govt. of
NCT of Delhi as Secretary (L&B), allege misused her official
position to enter the Thyagraj Stadium, New Delhi with her pet
after visit hours in May 2022. The officer has been charge-sheeted
for imposition of minor penalty vide MHA’s memorandum dated
27.02.2023.

B. Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS, currently posted with the Govt. of
Arunachal Pradesh as Principal Secretary (Indigenous Affairs)
proceeded on unauthorized foreign visit w.e.f. 07.08.2022. The
officer has been charge-sheeted for imposition of major penalty
vide MHA’s memorandum dated 27.02.2023. Moreover, the period
of her unauthorized foreign visit i.e., from 07.08.2022 till the date
of return to the country, has been treated as dies-non.

8. Recommendations of the Review Committee

After careful examination of the case details relating to adverse
remarks recorded by the supervise authorities regarding
performance, repeated instances of proceeding on ex-India leave
without prior sanction/clearance of the Competent Authority, non-
promotion over a long period, non-empanelment with the
Government of India, and long period of unauthorized absence
from duty, the Review Committee is of the considered view that
Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) is not fit to continue in
Government service. The Committee also considers that the
ongoing disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS
(AGMUT 1994) should not come in the way of prematurely
retiring the officer in public interest. The disciplinary proceedings
can continue after the officer's premature retirement from service
in public interest and an appropriate penalty can be imposed on her
terminal benefits after retirement. Accordingly, the Review
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 12 of 44

Committee hereby recommends as under:

"Ms. Rinku Dhugga, IAS (AGMUT: 1994) may be prematurely
retired from service in public interest under Rule 16 (3) of the All
India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 to be
read with DoP&T's letter No. 25013/02/2005 - AIS. II dated 28.
06. 2012."

7. The respondent challenged the decision to compulsorily retire
her from service vide OA 3636/2024, which has come to be allowed
by the impugned judgment.


C. The impugned judgment

8. The Tribunal set aside the decision to compulsorily retire the
respondent from service by holding that none of the considerations
enumerated by the Review Committee, in its meeting dated 21 March
2023, justified the compulsory retirement of the respondent.

9. While doing so, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgments
9
of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel ,
10
State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah and Nand
11
Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand .

10. Apropos, the ACRs of the respondent, the Tribunal observed
that, in most cases the ACRs were either not available or could not be
taken into account owing to the default on the part of the Superior
Officers, in entering the remarks / grading on time. The Tribunal
observed that the respondent could not be faulted for defaults

9
(2001) 3 SCC 314
10
(1991) 1 SCC 529
11
(2012) 3 SCC 580
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 13 of 44

committed by her Superior Officers.

11. With respect to the comments entered by the Hon’ble
Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister of Delhi, the Tribunal
noted that no warning, advisory or memorandum have been issued to
the respondent, calling upon her to improve her performance or
otherwise adversely commenting upon her performance, consequent to
the said comments. Rather, in the year immediately succeeding the
adverse comments made by the Chief Minister, the respondent has
been given excellent gradings in her ACRs. The Tribunal held that,
therefore, these comments could not justify compulsory retirement of
the respondent.

12. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suryakant
Chunilal Shah , the Tribunal noted that the minutes of the various
DPCs held on 11 December 2018, 28 December 2020, 24 December
2021 and 27 December 2022 noted that the respondent had
consistently obtained a benchmark of more than seven which was the
prescribed benchmark for promotion and that her integrity was beyond
reproach.

13. This factor, even by itself, observes the Tribunal, was sufficient
to vitiate the decision to compulsorily retire the respondent from
service.

14. Adverting next to the unauthorised absence of the respondent
from service, the Tribunal notes that uptill 2021-22, the respondent
had remained absent for six days in 2016-2017, four days in two spells
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 14 of 44

in 2017-2018, 48 days in 2019-2020 and 37 days in 2021-2022. All
other leaves availed by the respondent were duly sanctioned. The
Tribunal observes that no disciplinary or even administrative action
have been initiated against the respondent for any of the aforesaid
periods of alleged unauthorised absence and no adverse entry was ever
entered in her ACRs.

15. The only period surviving was the period from 30 June 2022 to
23 April 2023, for which a chargesheet has been issued to the
respondent on 27 February 2023, which was quashed by the Tribunal
on 7 May 2005 on the ground of incompetence of the disciplinary
authority.

16. Ms. Lakra points out that the decision of the Tribunal has
subsequently been reversed by this Court on the ground that the
chargesheet was within jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the fact remains that
the chargesheet was pending even on the date when the decision to
compulsorily retire the respondent was taken.

17. Further in respect of the leave availed by the respondent after 7
August 2022, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the counter affidavit
filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, in which it has been
specifically acknowledged that the leave sought by the respondent had
been approved by her controlling officer and that the file had also
been forwarded to the Secretary Personnel for obtaining approval but
approval could not be obtained only for want of the service book of
the respondent. It was, therefore, after the respondent’s leave had been
sanctioned that she had proceeded on leave. The Tribunal also places
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 15 of 44

reliance on order dated 6 June 2023 issued by the Government of
Arunachal Pradesh, by which the period of absence of the respondent
from 7 August 2022 to 23 April 2023 was directed to be treated as
dies-non but while clarifying that it would not be treated as break in
service or result in any forfeiture of past service and no penalty would
visit the respondent for the said offence under the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. In such circumstances, observes
the Tribunal, the respondent who had consistently obtained more than
the requisite benchmark for promotion, in the DPC which met on 11
December 2018, 28 December 2020, 24 December 2021 and 27
December 2022, all of which had certified her as an officer of integrity
with no pending disciplinary proceedings against her, could not be
treated as “dead wood”. The Tribunal also observes that compulsory
retirement was not a substitute for disciplinary proceedings.

18. Aggrieved thereby, the Department of Personnel and Training
has filed the present writ petition.

D. Rival Contentions

19. The primary contention of Ms. Lakra, is in the teeth of
established law on the subject, the Tribunal has, in the present case,
sat in appeal over the decision to compulsorily retire the respondent
from service by substituting its own subjective decision for the
decision of the petitioners, which is impermissible in law. She submits
that a decision to compulsorily retire an officer is essentially one
which is in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. It is only where
such decision is exercised capriciously, malafidely or in a manifestly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 16 of 44

arbitrary manner with no reasons whatsoever, that the Court can
interfere. Else, the sufficiency of the reasons for compulsorily retiring
an officer from service is not a matter which can be examined by a
Court. She relies for this purpose on the judgment of the Supreme
12
Court in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and of a Division
Bench of this Court of which one of us (C Hari Shankar, J.) was a
13
member in Union of India v. Babulal Agrawal .

20. Ms. Lakra submits that the minutes of the Review Committee,
extracted in para 6 (supra) were evocative and self-explanatory in
nature. They set out manifest reasons regarding the respondent as an
officer whom it was not desirable to continue in service. It is not one
but a plenitude of considerations which weighed with the Review
Committee and, even if any one of those consideration did not meet
with the approval of the Court that would not justify setting aside the
order of compulsory retirement.

21. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, in response, submits that the respondent
was promoted as Super Time Scale in 2010. As such, her ACRs till
2010-2011 could not be considered as a basis to compulsorily retire
her from service, the fact that she was promoted being a relevant
consideration in that regard. All her ACRs after 2010-2011 were
above the requisite benchmark for promotion and if she was not
promoted, it was completely arbitrary decision on the part of the
petitioner of which the petitioner itself could not be permitted to seek
advantage. In fact, he submits that the most recent ACRs prior to the

12
(2010) 10 SCC 693
13
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3423
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 17 of 44

decision to compulsorily retire the respondent from service, all graded
the respondent above 9.0 which was close to the highest grading
which could not be obtained by an officer. In such circumstances, Mr.
Chhibber submits that it would be absurd to treat the respondent as
dead wood and, therefore, as liable to be compulsorily retired.

22. In her entire career points out Mr. Chhibber, there is not a single
adverse entry in the respondent’s ACRs. She has been visited only
with two chargesheets which was issued on 27 February 2023, the first
having been issued for taking her dog for a walk in the stadium, which
was never proceeded with and the second was for unauthorised
absence, which was quashed by the Tribunal on the ground of want of
jurisdiction and consequent to the said decision having been set aside
by this Court is presently pending.

23. He submits that in such circumstances, no fault whatsoever
could be found with the Tribunal in setting aside the decision to
compulsorily retire the respondent from service.

E. Analysis

I. The law

24. There can be no doubt about the fact that an order of
compulsory retirement is fundamentally discretionary in nature, and
that, ordinarily, said discretion vests with the competent
administrative authority. It is also true that Courts cannot sit in appeal
over the decision to compulsorily retire an officer.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 18 of 44

25. With the evolution of the law, and the need to ensure fairness in
public administration, the scope of judicial review of orders of
compulsorily retirement, while still restricted, is alive and kicking – to
employ a somewhat pedestrian adjective – to the extent that, if a case
for interference is made out, the Court is not merely competent, but
obligated to interfere. The latitude of discretion that vests in
authorities who are empowered to compulsorily retire is vast, and the
the very vastness of the said discretion renders it susceptible to abuse
and misuse. This is a real and live possibility, of which the Supreme
Court has taken notice more than once, and, therefore, the Supreme
Court has itself identified the considerations which a Court, sitting in
judicial review over a decision to compulsorily retire, is required to
bear in mind.

26. We therefore deem it appropriate to identify the various indicia
laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of interference
with orders of compulsory retirement and the factors that Courts are
required to bear in mind in that regard, even while recognizing that the
Court cannot substitute its view, as a Court of appeal, over the view of
the administrative authority, provided it otherwise passes judicial
muster.

27. These indicia may be enumerated as under, with reference to
the judicial authorities which exposit them:

(i) Compulsory retirement was meant to weed out the
worthless, so that the administration was not manned by drones,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 19 of 44

do nothings, incompetents and unworthies, who are a burden on
the administration owing to insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent
14
or dubious conduct. Its object is to weed out the deadwood so
as to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty and
15
keep the service unpolluted , and also to weed out those whose
16
integrity is doubtful.

(ii) The Court is not absolved from minimal review of the
17
validity of the order. The Court has the right to examine
whether some ground or material germane to the issue exists or
18
not.

19
(iii) The order should not be mala fide .

20
(iv) The order should not be based on no evidence.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement issued without
21
application of mind stands vitiated.

(vi) The order should not be arbitrary in the sense that no
reasonable person, on the given material, would regard it as a
22
case for compulsory retirement.

14
S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 (para 6)
15
Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580
16
Rajesh Gupta v. State of J & K, (2013) 3 SCC 514 (para 25)
17
Baldev Raj Chadha v. U.O.I., (1980) 4 SCC 321 (para 8), S. Ramachandra Raju (para 5)
18
Nand Kumar Verma (para 32)
19
Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer, (1982) 2 SCC 299 (para 34 (iii)), S. Ramachandra
Raju (para 4), Baldev Raj Chadha (para 8)
20
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iii)), M.P. Sate Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd v. Rajnesh Kumar
Jamindar, (2009) 15 SCC 221 (para 35)
21
M.P. Sate Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd (para 35)
22
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iii)), S. Ramachandra Raju (para 4), M.P. Sate Coop. Dairy
Federation Ltd (para 35)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 20 of 44

23
(vii) The order should not be perverse. It should not be based
24
on collateral grounds.

25
(viii) The order should promote public interest.

(ix) The order should take into account the entire service
26
record of the officer. Failure to do so would vitiate the
27
decision.

(x) Record of later years should be accorded greater
28
importance. Consideration of much earlier reports, ignoring
the performance in later years, in which where was no adverse
29
entry, would stand vitiated. Equally, failure to consider the
ACRs of the last five years was held to vitiate the decision to
30
compulsorily retire the officer.

(xi) The entries in the CRs would have to be considered,
31
favourable as well as adverse. Reliance was required to be
placed on the opinion of the higher officer who had an occasion
32
to observe the working of the concerned officer.


23
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iii))
24
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 4)
25
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 4), Baldev Raj Chadha (para 8)
26
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iv)), State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331, Pramod
Kumar Bajaj (paras 24, 26), Umedbhai M. Patel (para 11)
27
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 7). C.D. Ailawadi v. U.O.I., (1990) 2 SCC 328, Madan Mohan
Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (1999) 3 SCC 396 (para 32)
28
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iv)), Ram Chandra Das (para 3), Pramod Kumar Bajaj (para 24)
29
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 7)
30
M.P. State Coop. Dairy Federation (para 41)
31
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (iv)), Ram Chandra Das (para 3), Pramod Kumar Bajaj (para 24)
32
Nawal Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 8 SCC 117 (para 12), Nand Kumar Verma (para 39)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 21 of 44

(xii) Acting in a casual, haphazard or even negligent manner
in maintaining of records would not make out a case for
33
compulsory retirement.

(xiii) The fact that the officer was promoted to a higher post
notwithstanding the adverse remarks results in the adverse
remarks losing their sting, particularly when promotion was
34
based on selection and not seniority. Non-consideration of
this fact would vitiate the decision, as promotion, or permission
to cross efficiency bar, would militate against any presumption
35
that the officer was deadwood. This would amount to
considering vital material and being influenced by material
36
which is less relevant to the decision. It would not stand to
reason that an officer who was permitted to cross the efficiency
37
bar would, shortly thereafter, be fit to be compulsorily retired.

(xiv) Material to sustain and support the order must be
38
disclosed by the State.

(xv) If departmental proceedings are dropped midway and the
officer is, instead, compulsorily retired, it would be stigmatic
39
and would stand vitiated. Similarly, if the authority has,
instead of proceeding with and concluding the enquiry, adopted

33
Rajesh Gupta (para 30)
34
Baikuntha Nath Das (para 34 (v)), S. Ramachandra Raju (para 10), M.P. State Coop. Dairy
Federation (para 37), Umedbhai M Patel (para 11), Pramod Kumar Bajaj (para 26)
35
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 7), Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC 12, Nand
Kumar Verma (para 37), Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 466 (para 21)
36
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 7)
37
Swami Saran Saksena (para 3), Pramod Kumar Majaj (para 21)
38
Baldev Raj Chadha (para 8), S. Ramachandra Raju (para 5)
39
S. Ramachandra Raju (para 7)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 22 of 44

the easier course of compulsorily retiring the officer, it would
40
be penal and would stand vitiated. Compulsory retirement, if
resorted as a short cut to avoid disciplinary proceedings, stands
41
vitiated even on that ground.

(xvi) The real test has been described as “whether the order of
compulsory retirement is occasioned by the concern of
42
unsuitability or as a punishment for misconduct”.

II. Application of the principles by the Supreme Court

28. Having thus distilled the principles emerging from authoritative
pronouncements of the Supreme Court on the aspect of judicial review
in cases of compulsory retirement, we may advert to some of the
decisions which exemplify how these principles have been applied by
the Supreme Court.

29. S. Ramachandra Raju

29.1 In this case, the Review Committee had relied on earlier ACRs
of the officer which recorded his performance to be below average.
However, in later years, it was noticed that his efficiency had
considerably improved. He was also permitted to cross the efficiency
bar. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that, the
officer having served for 14 years and having been permitted to cross
the efficiency bar and reach the maximum salary in the pay scale, with

40
State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260, State of U.P. v. Abhai Kishore Masta,
(1995) 1 SCC 336 (para 8)0
41
Umedbhai M. Patel (para 11), Pramod Kumar Bajaj (para 26)
42
Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 56, Pramod Kumar Bajaj (para 28)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 23 of 44

no adverse entries for five years immediately prior to the decision to
compulsorily retire him, that decision could not be sustained merely
on the ground that, long years back, his performance was poor.

29.2 The decision overlooked the improvement in the officer’s
performance and, more specifically, the positive gradings in later
years, proximate to the decision to compulsory retire him from
service.

29.3 Yet another factor which compelled the Supreme Court to hold
the decision to compulsorily retire the officer to be unsustainable was
the fact that, though departmental proceedings have been initiated
against him, they were dropped midway and he was compulsorily
retired from service. The Supreme Court found this to be stigmatic in
nature and, therefore, in contravention of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.

43
30. M.S. Bindra

30.1 In this case, the decision to compulsorily retire the officer was
relating to his involvement in three cases, as an officer of the revenue
44
department, the first with respect to M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. , the
45
second with respect to M/s. Golden Tobacco Company and the third
with respect to one Ashok Jain and his brother. Consequent to
issuance to it of a show cause notice, OSM was subjected to
adjudication resulting in imposition, on it, of penalty and fine of ₹10

43
M.S. Bindra v. Union of India, (1998) 7 SCC 310
44
“OSM”, hereinafter
45
“GTC”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 24 of 44

crores. However, the officer was found to be remiss in his duty as the
adjudication order was nearly 100 pages in length, and passed on the
day immediately following conclusion of hearing, which indicated that
it was probably prepared before hand, a penalty of ₹50 Lacs was
imposed on the proprietor of OSM without issuing a show cause
notice to him and huge sums of duty were demanded from OSM on
the ground that they representing unaccounted production, without
going through OSM’s claim that they related to wastage.

30.2 Apropos GTC, instructions were issued by one Bhattacharjee,
Deputy Director to units under him to keep the investigations in
respect of the company in abeyance. The Screening Committee held
that these instructions would have been given at the behest of the
officer. With respect to Ashok Jain and his brothers, the allegation was
that as he was not paid ₹10 Lakhs as demanded by him, the officer
moved applications before the concerned Criminal Court for
cancellation of the Bail granted to them.

30.3 With respect to these three allegations against the officer, the
Supreme Court noted that none of them could make out a case for
compulsorily retiring him from service. Apropos OSM, it was noted
that the operation was headed by the officer. Apropos the adjudication
order passed in the case of OSM, the Supreme Court noted that no
adverse inference could be drawn from the fact that an adjudication
order of 100 pages had been released a day after final hearing
concluded. It was quite possible that the prefatory portion of the order
as well as the summary of evidence was prepared even while
arguments were in seisin, leaving a crucial discussion part of the order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 25 of 44

to a stage after conclusion of arguments. Such a course of action, it
was observed deserves to be commended rather than criticized.
Similarly, it was too far fetched to assume that the officer penalized
OSM without a show cause notice to help OSM.

30.4 Apropos GTC, the Supreme Court observed that instead of
regarding the direction to Bhattacharjee to keep investigations in
abeyance as a ground to compulsorily retire the officer, at the very
least, the circumstances in which such instructions have been issued
should have been asserted from Mr. Bhattacharjee. In the third case
relating to import of spare parts for making Honda Cars, the officer
had in fact applied for cancellation of the bail granted to the Jain
Brothers, which indicated integrity on his part rather than otherwise.
The Jain Brothers for their part never alleged that any demand had
been made by the officer from them. Moreover, the Supreme Court
observed that officers whose integrity was otherwise unquestionable
could not be regarded as of doubtful integrity merely on the basis of
statements of the persons whom they had prosecuted.

30.5 In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that there was
“utter dearth of evidence” with the Screening Committee on the basis
of which it could conclude that the officer was a person of doubtful
integrity.


31. Madan Mohan Choudhary

This case dealt with compulsory retirement of a judicial officer. The
Supreme Court noted that the decision to compulsorily retire the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 26 of 44

officer was taken without considering the fact that entries prior to his
promotion to the superior judicial service were not bad and there was
no doubt about his integrity. Again, in this case, the decision to
compulsorily retire the officer was taken on the basis of certain
judicial orders passed by him. The Supreme Court held that even if the
order was to be treated as wrong in law, there was nothing to indicate
that it had been passed on extraneous considerations and, therefore,
there was no material on the basis of which it could be opined that it
would be in public interest to retire the officer from service could be
arrived at.


32. M.P. State Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd v. Rajnesh Kumar
Jamindar

In this case, the Supreme Court noted that, in the preceding years
proximate to the date of compulsory retirement of the respondent, he
had positive ACRs, which were not taken into consideration. In para
41 of the report, the Supreme Court noted that “the necessity to give
special consideration to the performance of the employees for the last
five years before the order was passed had been given a complete go-
by”.

33. Nand Kumar Verma


33.1 Selective consideration of the ACRs of the officer, by the
Reviewing Committee was, in this case, too, found to be a factor
which vitiated the decision of compulsory retirement. It is worthwhile
to reproduce, in this context, paras 35 and 36 of the report, thus:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 27 of 44

the Court examined the ACRs of the officer itself and even opined that
there was a reasonable explanation for the poor disposal by the officer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 28 of 44

for certain years. Clearly, the extent of judicial review in such matters
is, therefore, not nearly as circumscribed as Ms. Lakra would seek to
contend.

33.3 In the context of the officer’s performance, the Supreme Court
also emphasised that the view of the officers who had an opportunity
to watch his functioning from close quarters, and had reported
favourably regarding his performance, had to be accorded greater
importance.

34. Rajesh Gupta

34.1 Three separate FIRs were registered against the officer in this
case. Consequent on investigation, the allegations in all three FIRs
were found to be “not proved”. In one of the FIRs, however, there was
a recommendation to initiate departmental action against the officer,
which was never initiated. Consequent on completion of investigation
in the said FIR, the officer was in fact promoted as Executive
Engineer. During the period for which he worked as Executive
Engineer, the officer was required to recommend sanctioning of
technical approval for construction work in various projects. His
conduct in such capacity was enquired into. The enquiry officer noted
that no proper records had been maintained by the office of the officer
and some sanctions had been issued out of record. Casual and
haphazard manner of maintaining records was also noted. Though this
report was submitted on 22 July 2003, no action was taken on the
basis thereof. Purportedly on a cumulative assessment of his work, the
officer was compulsorily retired.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 29 of 44

34.2 The Supreme Court noted that the officer had 24 years of
spotless service to his credit. In his ACR, he had been graded “Good”
for the year 1997-1998. His integrity was remarked to be “excellent”.
Similar remarks were entered for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.
For the year 1999-2000, the reviewing officer had assessed the officer
to be “very good”. Similar remarks were to be found in his ACR for
the year 2000-2001. It was also noted that no complaint had been
brought to the notice of the reporting officer in any of these years.

34.3 Despite his service record being thus blemish-free, the officer
was compulsorily retired on 26 April 2005 on the ground that, as per
inputs provided by the Additional DG, CID, he had amassed
properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. Prior
thereto, a departmental enquiry had been initiated against him on 22
May 2003 on the allegation of having issued backdated sanctions
relating to execution of certain works, passing of bills and estimates in
Jammu and other matters related thereto.

34.4 The Supreme Court held, by evaluating the material, that there
was in fact no material before the High Powered Committee which
had considered his case, to conclude that he possessed assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income. Insofar as
sanctioning of technical approval for construction works was
concerned, the Supreme Court observed that, at worst, the officer
could have been held to have acted in a casual and haphazard manner
in the maintenance of records, which, even if negligent, could not lead
to a conclusion that he acted with ulterior motive. The conclusions at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 30 of 44

which the High Powered Committee had arrived, too, did not co-
related to assessment of work and integrity of the officer in his ACR.
In such circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that the
decision of the State Government to compulsorily retire the officer
suffered from the vice of arbitrariness.

35. Pramod Kumar Bajaj

46
35.1 The APARs of the appellant Pramod Kumar Bajaj in this case
reflected that, over several years, his integrity was assessed as
“beyond doubt” and his work performance was found to be up to the
mark. In the APARs for the decade prior to the year of his compulsory
retirement, Bajaj was graded as “outstanding”. There were no adverse
entries in his APAR. No aspersion was caste on his conduct or
character during this period. His efficiency and integrity remained
unimpeachable as per his service records.

35.2 One of the factors which propelled the decision to compulsorily
retire Bajaj was that there were nine complaints against him. The
Supreme Court noted that of these nine complaints, four had been
closed in 2016-17. One complaint related to alleged harassment, by
Bajaj, of another officer of the department, who was, later, arrested on
the charges of corruption. No explanation was ever sought from Bajaj
on the said complaint. Two other complaints were stated to be “under
examination”. The only surviving complaint was one which had been
made by the former wife of Bajaj, alleging bigamy, moral turpitude,
etc. She had later divorced the officer. The matrimonial dispute

46
“Bajaj” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 31 of 44

between them was settled in mediation. A decree of divorce by mutual
consent was also recorded. The Supreme Court held that, in such
circumstances, Bajaj could not have been compulsorily retired on the
ground that there was a series of complaints against him. Though all
these complaints were within the knowledge of the department at all
points of time, Bajaj’s service record remained unblemished.

35.3 The Supreme Court also noted that though Bajaj had been
cleared and approved up to the ACC for appointment as Member,
47
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal , the vigilance clearance earlier
granted to him for the said periods was later withheld on the ground
48
that there was an adverse Intelligence Bureau Report against him.
This IB Report also arose from the matrimonial dispute between Bajaj
and his wife, which was later settled. Certain orders passed by Bajaj
in adjudication were also cited as grounds for compulsory retirement,
whereas, as the Supreme Court noted, these orders were upheld both
by the ITAT as well as by the High Court. Following this, the
Supreme Court has observed as under in para 4 of the report:

“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 31-7-2019 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

47
“ITAT” hereinafter
48
“IB” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 32 of 44

smokescreen 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 feels to satisfy the
underlying test of serving the interest of the public.”

III. Applying the law to the facts before us

36. In the present case, when one applies the above principles, there
is no scope, whatsoever, for this Court to interfere with the decision of
the Tribunal.

37. Ms. Lakra emphatically sought to contend that the Tribunal had
sat as a court of appeal with the decision of the competent authority
but had found fit to compulsorily retire the respondent. According to
her, the Tribunal far exceeded its power of judicial review.

38. We do not agree.

39. The judgments cited by us supra make it apparent that far from
there being any embargo, there is not even any proscription on the
court, while sitting in judicial review over an order of compulsory
retirement, perusing the material against the concerned officer in
detail, to satisfy itself that there existed material which would justify
compulsory retirement of the officer. It is true that the court would
not substitute its subjective satisfaction for that of the competent
authority. Unless it is a case where there is no material, or the material
against the officer is woefully inadequate to sustain the decision to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 33 of 44

compulsorily retire her, or him, the court would not interfere with the
decision of compulsory retirement.

40. In a case such as the present, where the Review Committee has
clearly itemized the considerations which prompted its decision to
compulsorily retire the petitioner, the Tribunal was well within its
authority in examining whether, on facts, the decision would sustain in
view of the extant legal position. Of course, while doing so, the
Tribunal – as also this Court – would have to bear in mind the inbuilt
limitations on judicial review in such a case, taking care to see that the
exercise of judicial review does not assume the colour of appellate
jurisdiction.


41. In the present case, however, the review committee has clearly
set out the considerations which have propelled the decision to
compulsorily retire the respondent. When one examines these facts in
the backdrop of the law as noted earlier in this judgment, the position
which emerges is as under.

42. The Review Committee took into consideration
(i) the ACRs of the respondent,
(ii) adverse comments made against the respondent by the
LG and the Chief Minister,
(iii) periods during which the respondent allegedly remained
absent without authorization and
(iv) two charge-sheets issued to the respondent.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 34 of 44

III A. Re. ACRs

43. There is no consideration, by the Review Committee, of the
gradings given to the respondent in her ACRs, though they stand
tabulated in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Review Committee.
More specifically, the Review Committee has completely ignored the
fact that,
(i) for the period 1 December 2016 to 31 March 2017, she
was graded 7.10,
(ii) for the periods 1 April 2017 to 10 August 2017, 11
August 2017 to 3 December 2017, 4 December 2017 to 31
March 2018, 1 April 2018 to 27 November 2018 and 28
November 2018 to 31 March 2019, she was consistently graded
8.0, and
(iii) for the periods 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020, 1 April
2020 to 11 October 2020 and 29 December 2020 to 31 March
2021, she was consistently graded 9.0, which corresponds to
“Outstanding”.

Applying the law laid down in the judgments cited earlier, the
omission, on the part of the Review Committee, in taking into account
the contents of the respondents’ ACRs is by itself fatal to the decision
to compulsorily retire her. As has been held by the Supreme Court in
similar matters, it is difficult to accept that an officer who, in the last 5
years prior to the decision to compulsorily retire her, was consistently
getting outstanding or very high gradings, could be regarded as
deadwood, and fit to be weeded out of service.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 35 of 44

44. In fact, there is complete non-consideration, by the Review
Committee, of the content of the respondent’s ACRs. This is a serious
lacuna, which, again, is fatal to the decision to compulsorily retire
her.

45. Instead, the Review Committee has concentrated on peripherals,
while referring to the ACRs. It has noted the fact that, for certain
periods, the higher officers had not reviewed the ACRs in time. As
the Tribunal has rightly held, the respondent cannot be blamed for
delay on the part of her superior officers. Then again, for some
periods, she had served under the officer for less than 90 days, so that
the ACR could not be written. This, too, could not be laid at the
respondent’s door. The only periods for which the respondent was
alleged not to have submitted her self-appraisals on time were 2006-
2007 and 2012-2013, which were much prior to the decision to
compulsorily retire her. To us, it is clear that, even if it were to be
assumed that, for two periods way back in time, there was delay on the
part of the respondent in submitting her self appraisals, that cannot be
regarded as a ground to regard her as “deadwood” nearly a decade
thereafter especially when, in the interregnum, she was awarded high
rankings in her ACRs. Unfortunately, as we have already noted, these
rankings were entirely ignored by the Review Committee.

III B. Comments of the LG and the Chief Minister

46. The Tribunal has also discountenanced the reliance, placed by
the respondent, on the comments of the LG and the Chief Minister.
We find no error in the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 36 of 44

that, after the said comments had been made, the respondent had
secured gradings of 8.0 and 9.0 in her APARs. The judgments of the
Supreme Court, cited supra , make it apparent that gradings in the
APARs have to be accorded pre-eminence.

47. Besides, as has been correctly noted by the Tribunal, no action
– not even a warning or so much as a memo – was issued to the
petitioner, which could vouchsafe the remarks of the LG and the Chief
Minister. These remarks could not, therefore, have been relied upon
to treat the respondent as deadwood; much less to compulsorily retire
her from service.

III C. Re. unauthorized absence

48. There are three periods of absence to which the minutes of the
Review Committee allude, divided into (i) leave availed, of more than
30 days’ duration, with the approval of the competent authority, (ii)
leave availed without prior approval or clearance of the competent
authority and (iii) absence with effect from 7 August 2022.

49. The period of leave availed with the approval of the competent
authority , quite obviously, cannot be treated as a ground to regard the
respondent as deadwood, or otherwise liable to be compulsorily
retired. Approval of leave sought itself predicates that the leave was
sought for acceptable and genuine grounds. Such leave, irrespective
of its length, duration or frequency, cannot be regarded as
unauthorized absence, or operate to the prejudice of an officer for any
purpose. One may refer, in this context, to State of Punjab v.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 37 of 44

49
Bakshish Singh , which clearly holds that leave, once sanctioned, if
availed, cannot be regarded as unauthorized absence.

50. Apart from these, prior to 7 August 2022, the periods of
absence of the respondent were for 6 days in 2016-2017, 4 days in two
spells in 2017-2018, 48 days in 2019-2020 and 37 days in 2021-2022.
Not a single memo, or advisory, or warning, or disciplinary
proceeding, was initiated against the respondent for any of these
periods of leave . Rather, in all these years, the respondent was
consistently granted an APAR grading of 9.0, thereby clearly belying
any assumption that these periods of absence indicated that the
respondent was “deadwood”, or required to be weeded out .

51. Insofar as the alleged unauthorized absence post 7 August 2022
is concerned, the respondent was charge-sheeted for the said period,
and the charge-sheet stood quashed by the Tribunal on the day when
the Screening Committee met on the ground of incompetence of the
issuing authority. The Screening Committee Minutes, for no
conceivable reason, do not record this fact. Ms Lakra has pointed out
that the decision of the Tribunal has since been set aside by this Court,
as a result of which the disciplinary proceedings stand revived. Even
so, when the disciplinary proceedings are still pending, and keeping in
view the consistent performance of the respondent in the preceding
years, the pendency of the proceedings can hardly constitute a basis
for compulsorily retiring the respondent. It cannot be forgotten that a
charge-sheet merely contains allegations, and, till they are proved,
they remain allegations.

49
(1998) 8 SCC 222
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 38 of 44

52. In the present case, this aspect assumes greater importance in
view of two predisposing factors. The first is the fact that the
respondent had not only applied for leave for the aforesaid period, but
her application had been recommended by her Controlling Officer,
and the file was in fact forwarded to the Secretary (Personnel) for
sanction, which could not be granted only because her service book
was not available. The second important factor is the issuance of
Order dated 6 June 2023 by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh,
treating the period of absence from 7 August 2022 to 28 April 2023 as
dies non , and further directing that it was not to be treated as a break
in service, or entail forfeiture of the respondent’s past service.

53. It is settled, in the decisions cited earlier, that compulsory
retirement cannot be used to remove an employee, merely to avoid
disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, when a charge-sheet for
the period of absence of the respondent post 7 August 2022 already
stands issued, it would be completely unjustified to compulsorily
retire the respondent from service on the same ground. What, one
wonders, would be the consequence, if the charge-sheet is ultimately
dropped?

III D. Vigilance Status


54. The Review Committee also opined that the respondent was not
clear from the vigilance angle, as she had had two charge-sheets
issued to her.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 39 of 44

55. The Tribunal has rejected this, too, as a ground to compulsorily
retire the respondent and, in our considered opinion, rightly. The first
charge-sheet was issued in 2023 for imposition of minor penalty, on
the allegation that the respondent had walked her dog in a stadium.
No disciplinary proceeding followed, thereby indicating that, even in
the perception of the petitioner, the case was too trivial to merit
disciplinary action. We may note, in this context, that the respondent’s
husband, also a senior civil servant, was also charge-sheeted for the
same incident – as, presumably, they both walked the dog – and was
merely awarded a minor punishment.


56. The second charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 27
February 2023, for her alleged unauthorized absence from work with
effect from 7 August 2022. We have already dealt with this charge-
sheet, and its ramifications, earlier.

III E. Relevant factors omitted from consideration

57. Most significantly, however, the decision to compulsorily retire
the respondent from service stands fatally imperilled by the omission,
on the part of the Review Committee, to consider all factors in favour
of the respondent, which, whether cumulatively or even individually
considered, would clearly negate any assumption that she was
“deadwood”, or deserving of being compulsorily retired. The
Reviewing Committee omitted to take into consideration the fact that
(i) the respondent was not awarded a single adverse remark,
in her APARs, during her entire tenure,
(ii) her gradings, in the five years preceding the decision to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 40 of 44

compulsorily retire her, were all outstanding, i.e. above 9.0,
(iii) the DPCs which met on 11 December 2018, 28 December
2020, 24 December 2021 and 27 December 2022, to consider
her case for promotion, all recorded that she was an officer of
certified integrity,
(iv) if at all she was not promoted despite her gradings, the
fact that there were no adverse remarks against her, and her
unquestioned integrity, that could not be held as a factor
against her to justify compulsorily retiring her from service,
and
(v) she had, in fact, been promoted to the Supertime Scale in
2010, so that her records prior thereto ceased to retain any
serious significance.

58. Most importantly, the performance of the respondent, as
reflected in her ACRs, has been totally ignored. This is a serious flaw
in the decision of the Reviewing Committee and, consequently, the
decision to compulsorily retire her from service.

59. As has been held in S. Ramachandra Raju , Nand Kumar
Verma and Rajesh Gupta , compulsorily retirement is an extreme step,
taken to “weed out the worthless”, so that the administration was not
manned by “drones, do nothings, incompetents and unworthies, who
are a burden on the administration owing to insensitive, insouciant,
unintelligent or dubious conduct”, to “weed out the deadwood” so as
to maintain efficiency, honesty and keep the service unpolluted and
free from officers of doubtful integrity. None of these unenviable
adjectives have been employed by the Reviewing Committee to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 41 of 44

describe the respondent, nor is there a scintilla of material, in the
Minutes of the Meeting of the Reviewing Committee, which would
indicate that any of them could apply.

60. The considerations which should inform a decision to
compulsorily retire an officer, when applied to the present case would,
therefore, seem to indicate exactly to the contrary.

III F. A final factor

61. We are constrained to record, here, a final, somewhat
disquieting, factor, for which Ms. Lakra, too, is unable to provide any
reasonable explanation. Significantly, the Tribunal, in the impugned
judgment, has also noticed it. The Review Committee considered the
case of as many as 122 officers for judging their suitability for
compulsory retirement. In the case of 121 officers, the Review
Committee merely observes, summarily, that, “after perusal of the
overall service records, … 120 of the 121 IAS officers do not attract
the provisions for premature retirement from service in public interest
and are, therefore, suitable for continuation in service”. However, “in
the case of the remaining one IAS officer (the respondent)”, the
Committee felt that “comprehensive examination of her service
records throughout her tenure was necessary to ascertain her
suitability for continuation in service”.

62. Why was the respondent thus singled out for privileged
treatment of “comprehensive examination of her service records
throughout her tenure"? Why was this not done in the case of 120
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 42 of 44

other officers? Why is there no whisper of any justification for the
clearly summary decision that all the 120 officers were ex facie
eligible to be continued, and the case of the respondent alone required
to be subjected to a searching scrutiny?

63. We do not know.

64. We may note that, though the Tribunal has noted this fact with
some consternation, the writ petition, too, provides no explanation.

65. For some reason, however, it is ex facie clear that the case of
the respondent was accorded treatment which was radically different
from that accorded to the remaining 120 officers considered by the
Review Committee.

66. We find this puzzling, given the outstanding gradings earned by
the respondent in the years proximate to the meeting of the Review
Committee, and the fact that there is not even a whisper of an
allegation that her integrity was not above board, or that she was
inefficient or tardy in the discharge of her duties.

67. For want of any further forthcoming material, we say no more.

F. Conclusion

68. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the Tribunal
that the decision to compulsorily retire the respondent is vitiated both
in law and on facts.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 43 of 44

69. The writ petition is dismissed in limine .



C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 15, 2026 / AR/aky/yg

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:25.04.2026
17:31:55
W.P.(C) 17582/2025 Page 44 of 44