Dr Ibrahim Narzari vs The Union Of India

Page No.# 1/23
GAHC010271402025

2026:GAU-AS:15943
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7011/2025
DR IBRAHIM NARZARI
SON OF LATE JOGESWAR NARZARI, ADRESS QUARTER NO. 10, BLOCK -3,
TYPE-IV, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, 9TH MILE,
GUWAHATI, POST OFFICE- AMRIGOG, DISTRICT- KAMRUP M, ASSAM PIN-
781023
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN-110011
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI. PIN-110003
3:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (COMMUNICATION AND VIGILANCE)
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI. PIN-110003
4:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
EASTERN SECTOR
STONEY-HEAVEN
BISHOP COTTON ROAD

Page No.# 2/23
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA PIN-793001
5:DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTRE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
9TH MILE
GUWAHATI POST OFFICE- AMRIGOG
DISTRICT- KAMRUP M
ASSAM PIN-78102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. L WANGSA, U BHARADWAJ,MS A DAS,MRS. R S
DEURI,MR. T DEURI
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI(C.G.C)

:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE


Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.10.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.10.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative of the judgment? : No

Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)


Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.
Devi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is to the notice dated

Page No.# 3/23
11.11.2025 issued by respondent No. 3, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General
(Communication and Vigilance), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), causing
the petitioner to retire prematurely from service upon completion of three
months from the date of service of the notice, in exercise of the powers under
clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56, Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972, and Rule 42 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
2021, read with the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020 as issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner completed his MBBS
from Gauhati University in 1999 and was registered with the Assam Council of
Medical Registration on 28.03.2001. He subsequently obtained a Postgraduate
Diploma in Psychological Medicine from Dibrugarh University in 2006. Having
applied for the post of Specialist Medical Officer (Deputy Commandant)
(Psychiatry) in the CRPF, the petitioner was appointed to the said post by
notification dated 06.09.2010, with effect from 30.08.2010, and was posted at
the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati.
4. The petitioner served at Guwahati from 2010 to 2015 and was promoted
to the rank of Second-in-Command in 2012. He was transferred to Chennai in
2015 and promoted to Commandant, Grade-I, in 2016. He was thereafter
posted at Delhi in 2017 and Hyderabad in 2020 before being transferred back to
Guwahati in 2025, where he joined on 01.07.2025 as Chief Medical Officer
(Selection Grade). By the time the impugned notice was issued, he had
completed approximately fifteen years of service in the CRPF.
5. During his service, the petitioner received a commendation certificate
dated 28.02.2013 from the Inspector General/Director (Medical) for his sincere

Page No.# 4/23
and dedicated service to patients. He was also awarded a commendation letter
dated 30.09.2022 by the Additional Director General (Medical) and a
commendation card dated 26.12.2022 by the Inspector General of Police
(Medical)/Medical Superintendent, recognising his contribution to patient care,
leadership, teamwork and professional conduct. His APARs for the periods from
01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020, 01.04.2020 to
29.08.2020, 01.04.2021 to 31.08.2021 and 08.07.2022 to 28.12.2022 recorded
his performance as “Very Good”. Non-Initiation Certificates were also issued for
certain other periods.
6. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule
14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965,
pursuant to Presidential Memorandum No. D.IX.02/2021-CRC dated 07.06.2021.
The proceedings culminated in an order dated 09.02.2024 imposing the penalty
of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for three years, with the
stipulation that he would not earn increments during that period and it would
postpone his future increments. The petitioner states that this was the sole
major disciplinary proceeding during his service and maintains that the penalty
did not reflect his overall performance or justify his premature retirement.
7. The petitioner’s service record also came to include certain adverse entries
and communications. His integrity was declared doubtful for the APAR period
from 01.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 by communication dated 11.12.2024, and his
name was retained in the list of officers of doubtful integrity for the year 2025
vide ION No. R.VII-04/2021-Vig-8 dated 04.04.2025. A communication
conveying displeasure dated 07.01.2025 and a warning letter dated 11.05.2017
were also issued to him. The petitioner, however, maintains that these matters

Page No.# 5/23
were not sufficient to justify his premature retirement, particularly when his
service record also contained favourable APAR gradings, promotions and
commendations.
8. The petitioner was placed in a Low Medical Category with effect from
03.01.2024 in connection with Alcohol Dependence Syndrome and alcoholic liver
disease. A Review Medical Board, by its report dated 22.01.2025, found him fit
for light duties. Meanwhile, his case was considered by the Internal Screening
Committee of the CRPF on 09.07.2025 and thereafter by the Administrative
Review Committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22.09.2025. The
respondents state that the competent authority approved the recommendation
through an e-office note dated 28.10.2025. The impugned notice was thereafter
issued on 11.11.2025, stating that the petitioner had attained the age of fifty
years on 03.11.2025 and directing his retirement upon expiry of the prescribed
notice period.
9. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.11.2025 to the
Director General, CRPF, requesting that he be permitted to continue in service.
He stated that, having completed only fifteen years of service and attained the
age of fifty years, it would be difficult for him to secure alternative employment
and support his family, including his minor son studying in Class V and his minor
daughter studying in Upper Kindergarten. He also maintained that he had
discharged his duties sincerely and with dedication. The petitioner refers to a
further representation dated 17.12.2025 and states that the same has remained
undecided. Aggrieved by the notice dated 11.11.2025, this writ petition is filed.
10. Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power of
premature retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j) must be exercised in public

Page No.# 6/23
interest and on the basis of relevant material. It is contended that, although the
provision confers a wide power upon the competent authority, the power cannot
be exercised arbitrarily or for a purpose unrelated to the requirements of public
service. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s case was considered
primarily on the basis of adverse material, without due weight being given to his
overall service record, including his favourable APAR gradings, promotions and
commendations.
11. Learned counsel relies upon Nand Kumar Verma v. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. , reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 , and Brij Mohan Singh
Chopra v. State of Punjab , reported in AIR 1987 SC 948 , and submits that
the decision to compulsorily retire an employee must be based on an
assessment of the relevant service record as a whole. It is contended that the
material relied upon by the authorities cannot be considered in isolation,
overlooking other relevant entries and assessments. Learned counsel further
submits that greater weight is required to be attached to the confidential reports
pertaining to the years immediately preceding the consideration, and that
adverse entries of the remote past ought not to be preferred over favourable
entries of the recent past. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner’s APAR
gradings, promotions and commendations were required to be considered along
with the adverse material relied upon by the respondents.
12. Learned counsel next relies upon M. S. Bindra v. Union of India &
Ors. , reported in AIR 1998 SC 3058 , and submits that a conclusion regarding
doubtful integrity cannot rest on a mere hunch or suspicion. The material
available must be such as would reasonably justify the conclusion drawn by the
competent authority. Learned counsel contends that the declaration of the

Page No.# 7/23
petitioner’s integrity as doubtful and his inclusion in the list of officers of
doubtful integrity must, therefore, be examined in the light of the material relied
upon by the respondents and the other relevant material forming part of his
service record.
13. Learned counsel also relies upon Hans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. ,
reported in (1985) 1 SCC 134 , and submits that the power of premature
retirement can be exercised only upon fulfilment of the conditions prescribed
under the applicable rules and upon the competent authority forming the
requisite opinion that such retirement is in public interest. It is contended that
the exercise of such power must reflect due application of mind to these
requirements and that an order passed without the requisite satisfaction cannot
be sustained.
14. Learned counsel submits that the disciplinary penalty dated 09.02.2024
cannot, by itself, justify the petitioner’s premature retirement. It is contended
that the penalty was imposed in a departmental proceeding and that its
existence does not dispense with the requirement of independently examining
whether the petitioner’s retention in service would be contrary to public interest.
Learned counsel also refers to the appeal dated 27.01.2026 preferred against
the penalty order, as brought on record by the petitioner through an additional
affidavit, and submits that the challenge to the penalty remains pending.
15. Learned counsel further submits that the communication of displeasure
dated 07.01.2025 was issued without proving any misconduct against the
petitioner and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. As regards the
warning letter dated 11.05.2017, it is contended that the same was merely a
general administrative communication and did not amount to a formal censure

Page No.# 8/23
or penalty. Learned counsel also questions the declaration of the petitioner’s
integrity as doubtful for the APAR period from 01.09.2021 to 31.03.2022,
submitting that no material particulars or adverse reports were communicated
to him before such declaration. The petitioner further disputes his retention in
the list of officers of doubtful integrity for the year 2025, contending that the
same lacks a proper basis and supporting material.
16. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s medical condition and
placement in a Low Medical Category could not, by themselves, justify
premature retirement under the provisions invoked in the impugned notice. It is
contended that the Review Medical Board, by its report dated 22.01.2025, found
the petitioner fit for light duties. The medical condition required due
consideration and could not, by itself, form the basis for premature retirement
without a proper assessment of the petitioner’s service record and the
requirements governing such retirement.
17. Learned counsel further contends that the procedure prescribed under
the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020 was not duly followed. Reliance is
placed upon clauses 10(v), 13 and 14 of the said Office Memorandum. It is
submitted that the service record was required to be assessed as a whole,
including the relevant personal and work records and APAR material, and that
the prescribed process required proper consideration by the review bodies and
approval by the competent authority. Learned counsel questions whether the
petitioner’s case was examined in the manner required by the Office
Memorandum and submits that the materials relied upon by the respondents do
not establish that the decision was reached after due consideration of the
relevant record.

Page No.# 9/23
18. Learned counsel submits that the representation dated 17.12.2025 has
remained unattended, despite the procedure contemplated under clause 14 of
the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020. It is contended that the
representation was required to be dealt with in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and that its continued pendency has left the petitioner without a
decision on the grounds raised by him against premature retirement.
19. Learned counsel submits that the impugned action has caused serious
prejudice to the petitioner, who had served the CRPF for approximately fifteen
years and had attained the age of fifty years shortly before issuance of the
notice. It is contended that the authorities failed to give due consideration to his
service history, favourable assessments and commendations before taking a
decision that would bring his service to an end. Learned counsel submits that
the action is arbitrary and contrary to the requirements of fairness governing
the exercise of the power of premature retirement, and the petitioner’s service
and livelihood ought not to be affected on the basis of an incomplete or
selective assessment of his record. Therefore, prays that the notice dated
11.11.2025 be set aside and that the petitioner be permitted to continue in
service as Chief Medical Officer (Selection Grade) at the Composite Hospital,
CRPF, Guwahati.
20. Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC appearing for the respondents, submits that the
impugned notice was issued after the petitioner’s case was examined by the
Internal Screening Committee of the CRPF at its meeting held on 09.07.2025
and thereafter by the Administrative Review Committee of the Ministry of Home
Affairs on 22.09.2025. It is contended that the committees considered the
petitioner’s service record and his suitability for continued retention in service

Page No.# 10/23
under Rule 43(c) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56
and Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The recommendation of the
Administrative Review Committee was approved by the competent authority
through the e-office note dated 28.10.2025, following which the notice dated
11.11.2025 was issued.
21. Learned CGC submits that the recommendation for premature retirement
was not based solely upon the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by order
dated 09.02.2024. It is submitted that the reviewing authorities took into
consideration the communication of displeasure dated 07.01.2025, the warning
letter dated 11.05.2017, the declaration of the petitioner’s integrity as doubtful
for the APAR period from 01.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 and his retention in the list
of officers of doubtful integrity for the year 2025. Learned CGC submits that,
although the petitioner’s APAR for the aforesaid period carried an overall grading
of “Good”, his integrity had been assessed as doubtful by the competent
authority. These matters formed part of the material considered while assessing
his suitability for continuation in service.
22. Learned CGC submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner on the allegation that he had shown undue haste in
declaring or recommending the invalidation of cases involving Constable
(General Duty) personnel. Upon conclusion of the departmental proceedings,
the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for three years
was imposed by order dated 09.02.2024, with the further stipulation regarding
increments and postponement of future increments. It is submitted that the
period of the penalty had not expired when the petitioner’s case was considered
for premature retirement and that the penalty, together with the other material

Page No.# 11/23
forming part of his service record, was taken into account by the reviewing
authorities.
23. Learned CGC submits that the petitioner’s medical condition was also
considered as part of the overall assessment. The respondents refer to the
petitioner’s history of Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, alcoholic liver disease and
his placement in a Low Medical Category with effect from 03.01.2024. The
reviewing authorities considered the medical material along with the petitioner’s
service record, performance and usefulness to the organisation and, upon an
overall assessment, formed the view that his continued retention in service
would not be in the interest of the organisation.
24. Learned CGC submits that the commendation certificates and
appreciation letters relied upon by the petitioner relate to specific work
performed by him and cannot, by themselves, render the decision to retire him
prematurely unlawful. The petitioner’s favourable APAR gradings,
commendations and promotions were required to be considered along with the
adverse material forming part of his service record. The respondents maintain
that the decision was taken after consideration of the totality of the
circumstances and was not based merely on any single entry or incident. It is
further submitted that the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is intended to
enable the competent authority to assess whether an employee should be
retained in service in the public interest, having regard to the employee’s overall
service record and continued utility to the organisation.
25. Learned CGC further submits that premature retirement under
Fundamental Rule 56(j) is distinct from compulsory retirement imposed as a
penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is contended that an order of

Page No.# 12/23
premature retirement in public interest is not punitive in nature and does not,
by itself, cast a stigma upon the employee so as to attract Article 311 of the
Constitution of India. Such retirement is not intended to impose a further
punishment upon the employee but to determine whether his continued
retention would serve the interests of public administration. It is submitted that
an employee retired under the aforesaid provision is entitled to the admissible
pensionary benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.
26. In support of her submissions regarding the nature of premature
retirement and the limited scope of judicial review, learned CGC places reliance
upon Sushil Sharma v. Union of India & Others , reported in 2026 INSC
809 . Learned CGC submits that the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is
exercised on the basis of the competent authority’s assessment of the
employee’s service record and that the Court does not sit in appeal over such an
assessment. It is submitted that interference is warranted where the decision is
vitiated by mala fides, is based on no evidence, or is arbitrary or perverse. She
submits that the petitioner has failed to establish any such ground warranting
interference with the decision taken in the present case.
27. Learned CGC submits that the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025 was
served upon the petitioner on 24.11.2025, as evidenced by the
acknowledgement of service signed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that
the petitioner’s initial representation dated 24.11.2025 was addressed to the
Director General, CRPF, instead of the appropriate authority, namely, the
President of India. By communication dated 09.12.2025, the petitioner was
requested to submit a revised representation addressed to the appropriate
authority. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated

Page No.# 13/23
17.12.2025 seeking revocation of the premature-retirement notice. The said
representation was under consideration at the time of filing the affidavit-in-
opposition and that steps had been taken to place it before the appropriate
authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
28. Learned CGC lastly submits that the power of premature retirement was
exercised after consideration of the petitioner’s service record, the material
relating to his integrity and conduct, his medical condition and his continued
utility to the organisation. It is contended that the Internal Screening Committee
and the Administrative Review Committee considered the relevant material
before recommending premature retirement and that the competent authority
approved the recommendation on 28.10.2025. The respondents maintain that
the petitioner has not placed any concrete material to establish that the decision
was arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or otherwise contrary to law. Therefore, she
submits that no ground has been made out for interference with the impugned
notice and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
29. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials available on record.
30. The petitioner assails the notice dated 11.11.2025 directing his premature
retirement from service. His service record contains favourable APAR gradings,
promotions and commendations, but it also includes a disciplinary penalty, an
assessment of doubtful integrity, a communication of displeasure, a warning and
medical records relating to his fitness for duty. The case was considered by the
Internal Screening Committee and the Administrative Review Committee, and
the recommendation was approved by the competent authority before issuance
of the impugned notice. Thus, the legality of the decision has to be examined in

Page No.# 14/23
the light of the provisions governing premature retirement, the grounds on
which interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be
warranted, and certainly the principle of law governing the issue.
31. Fundamental Rule 56(j) confers upon the appropriate authority the
power to retire a Government servant in public interest, subject to the
conditions prescribed therein. The Rule provides:
“56. (j). Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority
shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute
right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three
months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:
(i) If he is, in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent
or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age
of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years;
(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years.”
32. The power conferred by the Rule is intended to enable the Government to
assess whether the continued retention of an employee would serve the
interests of public administration. The expression “public interest” is central to
the exercise of this power. The provision does not contemplate premature
retirement as an additional punishment for misconduct, nor does it authorise the
competent authority to act arbitrarily. The decision must be based on relevant
material bearing upon the employee’s suitability for continued retention in
service. Although the power is wide, its exercise remains amenable to judicial
review where the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, perversity,
non-application of mind or absence of relevant material.
33. The distinction between premature retirement under Fundamental Rule
56(j) and compulsory retirement imposed as a disciplinary penalty is material.
The Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020, dealing with periodic review under

Page No.# 15/23
Fundamental Rule 56(j)/(l) and the relevant pension rules, clarifies that
premature retirement under these provisions is not a penalty and is distinct from
compulsory retirement prescribed as a penalty under the applicable disciplinary
rules. The object is to strengthen the administrative machinery by promoting
responsible and efficient administration.
34. In the present case, the impugned notice records that the petitioner had
attained the age of fifty years on 03.11.2025 and invokes the aforesaid
provision, read with Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972,
Rule 42 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, and the Office
Memorandum dated 28.08.2020. The petitioner had completed approximately
fifteen years of service when the notice was issued. Therefore, the applicability
of these pension rules cannot be presumed on the basis of completion of thirty
years of qualifying service. The relevant basis recorded in the notice is the
petitioner’s attainment of fifty years of age under Fundamental Rule 56(j).
Accordingly, the validity of the impugned notice has to be assessed with
reference to the applicability of that provision to the petitioner, the material
considered by the competent authority and the requirement that the power be
exercised in public interest and such an administrative power does not dispense
with the requirement of proper consideration of the relevant service record.
35. In Nand Kumar Verma (Supra) , the Supreme Court emphasised the
requirement of considering the entire service record while deciding whether an
employee should be prematurely retired. The assessment cannot be confined to
adverse entries while ignoring the employee’s performance and service history
as a whole. At the same time, the existence of favourable entries does not, by
itself, confer an indefeasible right to continue in service. The competent

Page No.# 16/23
authority is required to assess the record as a whole and determine whether the
employee’s continued retention would be in the public interest. The principle
emerging from the said decision is that neither favourable nor adverse entries
can be viewed in isolation from the overall service record.
36. The application of this principle to the present case requires consideration
of the petitioner’s favourable APAR gradings, promotions and commendations
alongside the adverse material relied upon by the reviewing authorities. The
mere presence of adverse entries cannot justify premature retirement, just as
favourable entries cannot automatically invalidate such a decision. The material
question is whether the decision was based on a proper assessment of the
record as a whole. The principle laid down in Nand Kumar Verma (Supra) ,
therefore, has to be applied to the actual material considered in the petitioner’s
case and the decision-making process followed by the competent authority.
37. In M.S. Bindra (Supra) , the Supreme Court held that an assessment of
doubtful integrity cannot rest on mere suspicion or a subjective impression
unsupported by relevant material. The formation of such an opinion must have
a rational basis. Although the Court does not sit in appeal over the subjective
satisfaction of the competent authority, it may examine whether relevant
material existed and whether it bears a reasonable connection with the decision
taken. The limited scope of judicial review does not exclude scrutiny of the
legality of the decision-making process or the existence of material supporting
the conclusion reached.
38. In the present case, the assessment of doubtful integrity for the APAR
period from 01.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 has to be considered along with the
other material forming part of the petitioner’s service record. The entry cannot

Page No.# 17/23
be treated as conclusive merely because it exists. Equally, the overall APAR
grading of “Good” for the same period does not, by itself, nullify the separate
assessment relating to integrity. The relevant consideration is whether the
decision was based on material having a rational connection with the
assessment of the petitioner’s suitability for continued retention in service and
same would be the extent of the scrutiny required under the principle laid down
in M.S. Bindra (Supra) .
39. The principles governing consideration of the service record also emerge
from Hans Raj (Supra) and Brij Mohan Singh Chopra (Supra) . The service
record must be considered in its entirety, and due weight must be given to the
employee’s performance during the later years of service. An adverse entry
cannot be assessed in isolation from the subsequent record, just as favourable
entries cannot automatically neutralise adverse material which remains relevant
to the assessment of the employee’s suitability for continued retention. Thus,
the governing principle is an overall assessment of the service record, with due
regard to the nature and relevance of the material considered. This approach
accords with the requirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j) that the power be
exercised in public interest on the basis of a proper assessment of the
employee’s service.
40. In the present case, the service record of the petitioner reflects both
favourable and adverse aspects. His promotions and commendations, together
with the “Very Good” APAR gradings for several periods, form part of the record
requiring consideration. On the other hand, the departmental proceeding
culminated in the penalty order dated 09.02.2024; his integrity was assessed as
doubtful for the APAR period from 01.09.2021 to 31.03.2022; his name

Page No.# 18/23
continued in the list of officers of doubtful integrity for the year 2025; and the
record also contains the communication of displeasure dated 07.01.2025 and
the warning dated 11.05.2017. The decision must, therefore, be examined in
the context of the entire record and not by isolating either the favourable or the
adverse entries.
41. The penalty imposed by order dated 09.02.2024 also forms part of the
material relevant to the assessment of the petitioner’s suitability for continued
service. The penalty was imposed upon conclusion of a departmental
proceedings and remained operative when the review was undertaken. The
subsequent filing of an appeal dated 27.01.2026 does not, by itself, render the
penalty irrelevant to the assessment undertaken at the relevant time.
Nevertheless, the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) cannot be exercised
merely to impose a further consequence for misconduct. The penalty must be
considered as one part of the service record, alongside the other relevant
material, in determining whether continued retention in service would be in the
public interest. The validity of the decision must accordingly be assessed by
examining the overall material considered by the reviewing authorities and not
merely the existence of the disciplinary penalty.
42. The favourable APAR gradings and commendations cannot be overlooked
merely because adverse material is available on record. Equally, the existence of
favourable entries does not confer an absolute right to continue in service. The
governing principle is that the entire service record must be considered, with
due weight given to the nature and relevance of the material, including the
employee’s performance during the later years of service. The Court is not
required to undertake a fresh comparative assessment of the entries or to

Page No.# 19/23
determine independently whether the petitioner ought to have been retained.
Its scrutiny is confined to the legality of the decision-making process and the
existence of relevant material supporting the decision under Fundamental Rule
56(j).
43. The medical record also forms part of the material placed for
consideration. The petitioner was placed in a Low Medical Category with effect
from 03.01.2024, and the Review Medical Board dated 22.01.2025 found him fit
for light duties. The medical assessment must be read in its proper context.
Fitness for light duties does not, by itself, determine the question of retention
under Fundamental Rule 56(j), just as the existence of a medical condition
cannot, without more, justify premature retirement. The relevant consideration
is whether the medical material was assessed as part of the overall review and
whether the decision was founded on a proper consideration of the relevant
circumstances.
44. The Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020 provides further guidance on
the manner in which the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) is to be
exercised. Paragraph 10(v), which sets out the broad criteria to be followed by
the Review Committee, requires consideration of the entire service record of the
Government servant at the time of review. The expression “service record” is
not confined to the ACR/APAR dossier; the personal file and other relevant
records, including work files and papers or reports prepared and submitted by
the employee, may also be considered. The object is to ensure that the decision
is based on a comprehensive assessment of the employee’s service and not on
an incomplete or one-sided account of his performance.
45. Paragraph 10(i) of the same Office Memorandum addresses cases where

Page No.# 20/23
the integrity of a Government servant is doubtful, while paragraph 10(ii) deals
with employees found to be ineffective. Paragraph 10(iv) addresses the
circumstances in which premature retirement on the ground of ineffectiveness
would ordinarily not be warranted, including satisfactory service during the
preceding five years. These criteria have to be read in their proper context. In
particular, the stipulation concerning satisfactory service during the preceding
five years is directed to cases of ineffectiveness and cannot automatically be
applied in the same manner where the proposed retirement is on the ground of
doubtful integrity. The relevant criterion must be identified in the context of the
material forming the basis of the review.
46. The requirements prescribed under the Office Memorandum have to be
considered alongside Fundamental Rule 56(j). The Rule confers the power to
retire a Government servant in public interest, while the Office Memorandum
provides guidance for undertaking the periodic review and assessing the
material relevant to the exercise of that power. The two must be read together
so that the decision is based on a comprehensive consideration of the service
record and is directed towards the public interest underlying the Rule.
Compliance with the prescribed procedure and consideration of the relevant
material remain necessary even though the ultimate assessment is entrusted to
the competent authority.
47. The record shows that the petitioner’s case was considered by the
Internal Screening Committee on 09.07.2025 and thereafter by the
Administrative Review Committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22.09.2025.
The material considered included the disciplinary penalty, the assessment of
doubtful integrity, the communication of displeasure, the warning and the

Page No.# 21/23
medical record. The recommendation was thereafter approved by the
competent authority through the e-office note dated 28.10.2025, preceding
issuance of the notice dated 11.11.2025. Thus, it reflects that the decision-
making process is in consonance with the Fundamental Rule 56(j) and the
applicable instructions, particularly the requirement to consider the service
record as a whole.
48. In Sushil Sharma (Supra) , the Supreme Court reiterated that the
power of premature retirement is intended to maintain administrative efficiency
and that judicial review is confined to recognised grounds, including mala fides,
absence of relevant material, arbitrariness and perversity. The Court does not sit
in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. This
limitation, however, does not exclude scrutiny of whether the decision was taken
in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and was supported by
relevant material. The existence of adverse entries does not, by itself, establish
that the decision was arbitrary; equally, favourable APAR gradings and
commendations cannot be disregarded merely because adverse material is
available.
49. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the view that, the
decision for premature retirement cannot be treated as founded solely upon the
disciplinary penalty, as the assessment of doubtful integrity, the communication
of displeasure, the warning and the medical record also formed part of the
material considered by the reviewing authorities. The petitioner’s favourable
service record must likewise be considered, but it does not, by itself, preclude
premature retirement in public interest. On examination of the materials on
record, this Court finds that no sufficient basis has been established to conclude

Page No.# 22/23
that relevant material was disregarded, that the decision was founded on
irrelevant considerations, or that the decision-making process was vitiated by
mala fides, arbitrariness, perversity, non-application of mind or absence of
relevant material. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to interfere with and
cannot substitute its assessment of the petitioner’s suitability even if any, for
continued service for that of the competent authority.
50. The petitioner’s personal circumstances, including his age, the difficulty of
securing alternative employment and his family responsibilities, are matters
which explain the hardship resulting from premature retirement. However,
hardship consequent upon premature retirement cannot, by itself, invalidate a
decision otherwise taken in accordance with law and in public interest. The
power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) must be exercised in accordance with the
governing principles, but the Court cannot substitute personal hardship for the
assessment entrusted to the competent authority.
51. The petitioner has also questioned compliance with clauses 13 and 14 of
the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2020. The record shows that the case was
considered by the Internal Screening Committee and the Administrative Review
Committee, and the recommendation was approved by the competent authority
through the e-office note dated 28.10.2025. No sufficient basis has been
established to hold that the decision-making process was vitiated by any
procedural illegality warranting interference. As regards the representation
dated 17.12.2025, the same was stated to be under consideration. Its pendency
does not, by itself, render the impugned notice unlawful.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon consideration of the entire
service record, the material forming the basis of the decision and the procedure

Page No.# 23/23
followed by the competent authority, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
hold that the impugned notice dated 11.11.2025 suffers from arbitrariness,
perversity, lack of relevant material or any collateral purpose warranting
interference.
53. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the
writ petition shall not preclude the respondent authority from considering and
disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 17.12.2025 on its own merits,
in accordance with law.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant