Prasant Kumar Satapathy vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors.

$~85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 05 May, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1274/2024
PRASANT KUMAR SATAPATHY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr. Navneet
Dogra and Mr. Amritesh Mohanty,
Advocates.

versus

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj and Ms. Aparna Sinha,
Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA,J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 30134/2026 ( for early hearing )
1. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed. The writ petition is called on Board today itself with the consent of
the counsels.
2. Disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1274/2024
th
3. The Petitioner assails the order dated 19 May, 2023 whereby he was
prematurely retired from the service of the Food Corporation of India under
Regulation 22(2A) of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations,
th
1971, and the consequential order dated 20 July, 2023 whereby his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 1 of 16

representation came to be rejected.
4. The challenge, though directed against an order of compulsory
retirement in public interest, raises a pertinent question as to the manner in
which such power is to be exercised when the employer has chosen to bind
th
itself to structured criteria under its own Circular dated 09 July, 2021 and
when the officer concerned carries a recent record of promotions and
consistently high annual appraisals.
5. The law governing compulsory retirement is well settled. The power
is, no doubt, wide; but it is not unbridled. As the Supreme Court has
repeatedly held, an order of compulsory retirement is ordinarily neither
punitive nor stigmatic; yet the breadth of the power does not place it beyond
judicial review. The formation of opinion is subjective, but it must rest on
relevant material, consideration of the entire service record, and a bona fide
assessment of public interest, with due primacy to the later years of service.
Judicial review in such matters is undoubtedly narrow; however, it is not
illusory. Interference is warranted where the order is shown to be mala fide,
founded on no evidence, based on collateral or extraneous considerations, or
so arbitrary that no reasonable authority, properly instructed in law, could
have arrived at such satisfaction. It is in the light of these settled principles
that the present case must be examined.
Facts
6. The Petitioner was selected pursuant to a recruitment process initiated
in 1998 for the post then known as Assistant General Manager (Technical).
Though candidates placed above him in the merit list came to be appointed
in January 2000, the Petitioner was not permitted to join, compelling him to
th
approach the High Court of Orissa for relief. By order dated 17 July, 2003,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 2 of 16

the Orissa High Court directed that he be absorbed; the Board of Directors
approved his appointment with the observation that he should not suffer
adversely because of the circumstances in which the appointment was made,
th
and he joined service on 26 September, 2003 against the 1999 direct
recruitment panel.
7. The Petitioner’s service career thereafter was marked by a series of
disputes concerning promotion and gradation. He was again required to
approach the High Court of Orissa in relation to non-consideration for
th
promotion and correction in gradation, and by orders dated 24 January,
2020 the said Court held the non-consideration of his case for promotion to
be illegal and directed that he be promoted from the date his immediate
th
juniors were promoted. In appeal, the Division Bench, by order dated 10
May, 2023, modified the direction only to the extent of denying actual salary
in the promoted post, while affirming that the Petitioner was entitled to
notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and that such
promotion would count for seniority and retiral benefits.
8. In the interregnum, the Food Corporation of India amended its Staff
th 1
Regulations and issued Circular No. EP-01-2021-24 dated 09 July, 2021,
laying down guidelines for periodic review of employees for premature
retirement in public interest. The circular adopts, almost verbatim, the
th
framework contained in the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28 August,
2
2020, including the criteria of doubtful integrity, ineffectiveness, prior
review, changed circumstances, visible meticulousness, and consideration of
the entire service record with due emphasis on later years.

1
“the governing circular"
2
“DoPT OM”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 3 of 16

9. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner’s case had already undergone
review on his attaining the prescribed age threshold and that, upon such
review in February 2017, he was expressly retained in service. It is equally
undisputed that he was thereafter promoted to the post of General Manager
in 2019 and that his APARs for the recent years consistently record gradings
of “Very Good” and “Outstanding”, with integrity assessed as “Nothing
Adverse Reported/Noticed” and, in the latest year, as “Beyond Doubt”.
10. Notwithstanding this, within a few days of the Division Bench of the
th
Orissa High Court rendering its judgment on 10 May, 2023, the impugned
th
order dated 19 May, 2023 was issued, prematurely retiring the Petitioner
from service with immediate effect on payment of three months’ pay and
allowances in lieu of notice. The Petitioner’s representation appeal dated
th
09 June, 2023 against the said action was thereafter rejected by order dated
th
20 July, 2023.
Rival submissions
11. Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, counsel for the Petitioner contends that the
impugned action is vitiated on several counts. It is submitted that the
Petitioner had already been subjected to review under the applicable regime
on attaining the relevant age threshold and had been expressly retained in
service in the year 2017. According to the Petitioner, once such a decision of
retention had been taken, a second review could have been undertaken only
upon the existence of demonstrable changed circumstances in public interest
and with the degree of “visible meticulousness” expressly mandated by
Clause 7 of the governing circular, neither of which is discernible in the
present case. The Petitioner’s service record for the immediately preceding
years is wholly inconsistent with any conclusion either of doubtful integrity
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 4 of 16

or of ineffectiveness, inasmuch as he earned consistently high APAR
gradings, was promoted as General Manager in 2019, and in the latest
APAR his integrity stood expressly recorded as “Beyond Doubt”.
12. Mr. Mishra further contends that the Respondents have premised their
decision substantially upon two disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year
2012, both of which culminated in minor penalties, and upon an isolated
APAR grading of “Good” for the year 2009. These, are plainly stale
circumstances, fully within the knowledge of the employer when he was
first retained in service in 2017 and again when he was promoted in 2019.
Once the Respondents, with full awareness of such material, chose first to
retain and thereafter to promote the Petitioner, the same material could not
furnish the principal basis for forming a contemporary opinion in 2023 that
the Petitioner had become an officer of doubtful integrity. The Petitioner
also disputes the Respondents’ attempt to read the expression “Nothing
Adverse Reported/Noticed” in the integrity column as carrying any
pejorative or incriminating meaning.
13. Per contra , Mr. Manoj, counsel for the Respondents, submits that the
order under challenge is one of compulsory retirement in public interest and
not by way of punishment, and therefore neither a prior opportunity of
hearing nor a speaking order is a condition precedent to the exercise of
power under Regulation 22(2A). It is urged that the said provision, read with
the governing circular and the DoPT OM, vests in the competent authority a
wide discretion to review the entire service record of the officer. Such
review may encompass charge-sheets, penalties, APARs, including
uncommunicated entries, personal file, general reputation, as well as inputs
from controlling officers, for the purpose of forming a bona fide and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 5 of 16

subjective opinion as to whether the officer’s continuance in service is in
public interest. According to the Respondents, the Court, in exercise of
judicial review, ought not to sit in appeal over such satisfaction so long as
the decision is founded on relevant material and is not demonstrably mala
fide or perverse.
14. Mr. Manoj further contends that the review in the present case must
be seen in the backdrop of the events of early 2023, including the CBI trap
cases involving certain officers of the Corporation, the adverse institutional
repercussions thereof, and the consequential decision at the highest level to
undertake review of eligible officers who had crossed the prescribed age
threshold. It is their case that the Petitioner’s matter was not considered in
isolation but as part of a exercise undertaken in exceptional circumstances
and in public interest.
15. On merits, it is submitted that the Petitioner’s case squarely attracted
the criteria of doubtful integrity and ineffectiveness, regard being had to the
two charge-sheets of 2012, the penalties imposed thereunder, the below-
benchmark APAR grading of 2009, the Respondents’ perception that his
integrity had not been unequivocally certified as “Beyond Doubt” over a
long period, and the inputs received from superior officers and from his
personal file regarding his work, conduct and general reputation in the
organisation. The Respondents further maintain that the Petitioner’s
promotion in 2019 was not on pure merit but on seniority, and for that
reason the earlier adverse material did not lose relevance; they also assert
that the recommendation of the Review Committee, the approval of the
competent authority, and the subsequent consideration of the Petitioner’s
representation were all in accord with the governing circular and the settled
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 6 of 16

law on compulsory retirement.
Points for determination
16. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record,
the following questions arise for consideration:
16.1 Whether, in the facts of the present case, the exercise of power under
Regulation 22(2A) conforms to the discipline laid down in the Circular
th th
dated 09 July, 2021 and the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28 August,
2020.
16.2 Whether the material relied upon by the Respondents was sufficient in
law to sustain an opinion that the Petitioner’s integrity was doubtful or that
he had become ineffective in service.
16.3 Whether the impugned action is vitiated on account of arbitrariness,
non-application of mind, or colourable exercise of power.
The governing principles
17. The law governing compulsory retirement has already been briefly
noted above. This Court does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of the
material on which the satisfaction is founded. Nevertheless, judicial review,
though limited, remains available where the order is shown to be mala fide ,
based on no evidence, influenced by collateral or extraneous considerations,
or so arbitrary that no reasonable authority properly instructed in law could
have arrived at such satisfaction.
18. The Respondents are also right in submitting that compulsory
retirement in public interest is not a punishment and does not attract the full
panoply of protections applicable to penal action under Article 311 of the
Constitution. The governing circular and the DoPT OM further structure the
exercise of this power by requiring, inter alia , attention to changed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 7 of 16

circumstances in the case of a second review, visible meticulousness in such
exercise, and due regard to the employee’s recent service profile, especially
where retirement is sought to be justified on the ground of ineffectiveness.
3
The DoPT OM, relying upon Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha , reiterates
that no prior show cause is required and that the power is conditioned
primarily by the formation of a bona fide opinion in public interest. State of
4
Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel summarises that the order is ordinarily not
punitive, the entire service record must be considered, and even
uncommunicated entries can be taken into account.
19. But the same authorities, far from conferring immunity, prescribe
boundaries. The opinion must rest on material; it cannot be arbitrary or
collateral. Umedbhai M. Patel also recognises that if an officer is promoted
despite adverse entries, that is a factor in his favour, and that compulsory
retirement cannot be used as a short cut where another course is more
appropriate. The DoPT OM further emphasises, while citing S.
5
Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa , that “the entire service record more
particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish
the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire
a government officer.”
20. The FCI circular adopts this very jurisprudence and goes a step
further by laying down a self-imposed structure that binds the Corporation.
Clause 7 permits a second review after earlier retention only on changed
circumstances in public interest and expects the authority to demonstrate
“visible meticulousness”. Clause 10 distinguishes between doubtful integrity

3
(1970) 2 SCC 458
4
(2001) 3 SCC 314
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 8 of 16

and ineffectiveness and declares that an employee should ordinarily not be
retired for ineffectiveness if, during the preceding five years, or where he
has been promoted to a higher post during that 5 year period, his service in
the highest post, has been found satisfactory. Clause 12 requires the
recommendation of the Review Committee to be put up for consideration
and approval of the Appointing Authority before premature retirement is
ordered.
21. These provisions are not ornamental. Once the employer has chosen
to codify the manner in which discretion is to be exercised, adherence to that
discipline becomes part of the legal scrutiny of the decision-making process.
Second review and changed circumstances
22. The record unmistakably shows that the Petitioner had already
undergone review in 2017 and was then retained in service. This fact
assumes significance because Clause 7 of the circular, while permitting a
further review, contemplates that such exercise be undertaken on account of
changed circumstances in public interest. The clause further expects the
Appropriate Authority to demonstrate “visible meticulousness”, particularly
since the Government servant had earlier been found effective for retention
in service.
23. The Respondents seek to justify the second review by referring to the
th
minutes dated 14 January, 2023 and the backdrop of CBI trap cases
involving some officers of the Corporation in Punjab. However, the
Petitioner is not shown to have had any connection whatsoever with the said
episode. The institutional desire to conduct a cleansing review may perhaps
explain why reviews were initiated, but it cannot, without more, supply the

5
1994 Supp (3) SCC 424
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 9 of 16

changed circumstance personal to the Petitioner so as to justify reversal of
an earlier decision of retention in his case. Clause 7 is concerned not with
administrative atmosphere in the abstract but with the expediency of
reviewing “such case again” on account of changed circumstances.
24. Even more importantly, the requirement of “visible meticulousness”
is wholly absent from the record placed before the Court. The impugned
th
order dated 19 May, 2023 is a bare recital of satisfaction in public interest.
The rejection of representation is equally terse. The Respondents cannot be
faulted merely on the ground that the order is non-speaking, since the law
does not mandate recording of reasons in such cases. Yet where the
governing circular adds a requirement of visible meticulousness for a second
review, the Court is entitled to look for corresponding rigor in the
underlying material. What emerges instead is a perfunctory revival of old
matters, already known when the Petitioner was first retained and later
promoted, rather than a careful demonstration of why his continuance had
now become injurious to public interest.
Integrity: whether the material justifies the conclusion
25. The Respondents’ case on integrity rests substantially on four
features: two disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2012 and culminating in
minor penalties; one APAR grading of “Good” in 2009; the fact that for
several years the integrity column recorded “Nothing Adverse
Reported/Noticed” instead of “Beyond Doubt”; and certain inputs gathered
from superior officers and the personal file.
26. The first three of these, viewed in context, do not rationally sustain
the conclusion reached. The two disciplinary proceedings are of the year
2012 and thus dated. They were undeniably within the Respondents’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 10 of 16

knowledge when the Petitioner was first reviewed and retained in 2017, and
equally within their knowledge when he was subsequently promoted to the
post of General Manager in 2019. While the law does permit the authority to
look at the whole record, it does not permit the revival of stale blemishes in
disregard of subsequent institutional endorsement by way of retention and
promotion, especially where no comparable adverse material from the later
period is shown.
27. The 2009 APAR grading of “Good” is even more remote. To place
determinative emphasis in 2023 upon a single below-benchmark entry from
nearly a decade and a half earlier, while discounting a line of later “Very
Good” and “Outstanding” assessments, is to invert the very principle
embodied in the DoPT OM and the decisions of the Supreme Court that due
weight must be accorded to the later record. The jurisprudence does not
permit isolated adverse entries from the distant past to be given undue
weight in disregard of the subsequent service record.
28. Equally untenable is the treatment of the integrity assessment
“Nothing Adverse Reported/Noticed” as suggestive of doubtful integrity.
The material before the Court shows that for the years 2017 to 2021 the
Petitioner’s integrity was so recorded, and for 2022 it was expressly
recorded as “Beyond Doubt”. In ordinary service parlance, “nothing adverse
reported” is a neutral certification, not a disguised censure. To construe the
absence of the expression “Beyond Doubt” as evidence of doubtful integrity
would be to read suspicion into what is, by definition, neutral. Such an
approach cannot be sustained.
29. The Respondents do rely on general reputation inputs and certain
observations in the Review Committee material suggesting that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 11 of 16

Petitioner was not satisfactory in work and conduct. Conduct and reputation
can, in an appropriate case, form part of the material, as recognised in S.
Ramchandra Raju . But such material, if it is to outweigh formal service
record, must have some convincing nexus with contemporaneous facts. In
the present case, the broad, disparaging observations attributed to the
Committee stand in clear tension with the Petitioner’s APAR record for the
same period, which reflects detailed appreciation of his performance,
leadership, administrative capacity and effectiveness. Where annual
assessments consistently rate an officer as “Very Good” or “Outstanding”
and record specific commendation of his work, a subsequent assertion that
he “hardly took interest in assigned duties” cannot be accepted at face value
in the absence of any concrete and proximate material. No such material is
shown.
Ineffectiveness and the five-year rule
30. The finding of ineffectiveness against the Petitioner is equally
unsupported. Clause 10(iv) of the circular explicitly states that a corporation
employee should ordinarily not be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness if
his service during the preceding five years, or his service in the highest post
to which he was promoted during that period, has been found satisfactory.
The Petitioner was promoted to the post of General Manager in
2019. Thereafter, his APARs for the relevant period contain gradings of
“Very Good” and “Outstanding”, accompanied by strongly positive remarks
concerning performance and leadership.
31. On the Respondents’ own showing, therefore, the Petitioner could not
ordinarily have been retired on the ground of ineffectiveness. The circular
does preserve an exception where the case is one of doubtful integrity; but as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 12 of 16

already noticed, the foundation for invoking that exception in the present
matter is unconvincing. It follows that the safeguard embodied in Clause
10(iv) was not given due effect.
32. The Respondents attempt to escape this consequence by asserting that
the Petitioner’s promotion was based on seniority, not merit, thereby
permitting previous APAR entries to be looked at. The Petitioner, however,
points out that the post of General Manager is a selection post and, under the
Regulations, promotion to such post is on merit with seniority operating
only where merit is approximately equal. The DPC minutes show that
promotion is based on an assessment of merit against a prescribed
benchmark of “Very Good”, with reference to the APARs of the preceding
five years, and not on seniority alone. Even assuming arguendo that earlier
entries could be taken into account, that merely enlarges the field of
consideration; it does not permit the authority to disregard the significance
of the Petitioner’s later record, nor does it dilute the import of Clause 10(iv),
which accords due weight to satisfactory service in the higher post while
considering retirement on the ground of ineffectiveness.
Appointing authority and application of mind
33. The Petitioner also questioned whether the requirement of approval of
the Appointing Authority under Clause 12 was met. Since the impugned
order is itself issued under the signature of the Managing Director, who is
asserted by the Respondents to be the Appointing Authority for a Category-I
officer, the argument of total absence of approval may not be carried to its
full amplitude. Yet this does not conclude the matter, because Clause 12 is
not concerned with signature alone; it contemplates real consideration and
approval of the recommendation of the Review Committee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 13 of 16

34. When the order is examined in the backdrop of the material now
disclosed, what is striking is not the lack of form but the lack of
demonstrated application of mind to the central exculpatory features of the
Petitioner’s case: earlier retention in 2017, promotion in 2019, APARs in the
later years, and the latest integrity endorsement of “Beyond Doubt”. These
aspects lie at the heart of the inquiry mandated by the circular and the
jurisprudence. Their eclipse from the decisional process renders the
professed satisfaction legally vulnerable.
Colourable exercise and timing
35. A finding of mala fides is not to be lightly recorded, and the Court
must be slow to attribute oblique motive to institutional action in the
absence of cogent material. The Petitioner’s case, however, is that the
impugned action cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be seen in the
backdrop of his prolonged and repeated litigation to secure appointment,
promotion and seniority benefits.
36. There is no direct evidence before this Court of personal animus in the
narrow sense. At the same time, the sequence of events is not without
significance. The Petitioner had, over the years, successfully pursued claims
relating to appointment and promotion, culminating in the recognition of his
entitlement to notional promotion with attendant seniority consequences.
The decision to compulsorily retire him was taken thereafter, and rests
substantially on material which was long available on record. This lends
weight to the submission that the power was invoked in a manner not
entirely divorced from the administrative consequences flowing from the
Petitioner’s service claims.
37. Even if the Court were to stop short of a definitive finding of malice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 14 of 16

in fact, the action is plainly vitiated as a colourable exercise of power in law.
A power intended to weed out deadwood or officers of genuinely doubtful
integrity cannot be sustained when deployed against an officer whose recent
service record is demonstrably strong and when the justification rests
essentially on stale material repurposed at a moment of immediate
administrative inconvenience.
Conclusion
38. On an overall conspectus, this Court is satisfied that the impugned
th th
order dated 19 May, 2023 and the order dated 20 July, 2023 rejecting the
Petitioner’s representation cannot be sustained. The Respondents were
entitled to review the Petitioner’s case under Regulation 22(2A), but that
power had to be exercised consistently with the governing circular, the
DoPT OM, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The
decision-making process in the present case falls short on each of the critical
axes: the second review does not disclose the changed circumstances and
visible meticulousness required by Clause 7; the material relied upon does
not reasonably justify an opinion of doubtful integrity; the safeguard against
retirement on the ground of ineffectiveness contained in Clause 10(iv) was
ignored in substance; and the action bears the imprint of arbitrariness and
collateral purpose.
39. The Respondents repeatedly emphasised that compulsory retirement
is not a punishment. That proposition is unexceptionable. Yet precisely
because the order is said to be non-punitive, it must remain anchored to the
doctrine of public interest and to a fair appraisal of the service record as a
whole, particularly the later years. This is plainly absent.
Relief
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 15 of 16

th
40. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19 May,
2023 prematurely retiring the Petitioner from service and the order dated
th
20 July, 2023 rejecting his representation are hereby set aside. The
Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner as having continued in
service for all purposes from the date of the impugned retirement order till
the date on which he would have otherwise superannuated, subject to any
lawful adjustment required on account of amounts already paid to him
pursuant to the premature retirement. The intervening period shall be treated
as period spent on duty for all service and retiral purposes, in terms of
Clause 14 of the governing circular and the corresponding Regulations.
41. The monetary and service consequences flowing from this judgment
shall be worked out and released within twelve weeks from today.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 5, 2026/ hc

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:08.05.2026
10:25:36
W.P.(C) 1274/2024 Page 16 of 16