Compulsory retirement as a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry or ignoring recent promotions constitutes arbitrary exercise of power.

The applicant, a Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) Officer of the Eastern Railway, was prematurely retired in "public interest" via Order dated 09.06.2025 under Rule 1802(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. II

The applicant joined the Railways in 1999 and served for 26 years

While his APARs for the preceding five years were rated "Outstanding" or "Very Good" with integrity "Beyond Doubt", the respondents justified the retirement based on a history of minor penalties (2007, 2021, 2022), inclusion in the "Secret List" (2018–2021), and alleged "ineffectiveness"

A minor penalty charge sheet issued shortly before his retirement was dropped after the retirement order

The applicant challenged the order as arbitrary and a shortcut to disciplinary proceedings

1. Whether the order of premature retirement was passed in accordance with the criteria laid down in RBE No. 48/2022 and Rule 1802(a) of IREC Vol. II

2. Whether the decision to retire the applicant was based on "public interest" or was an arbitrary exercise of power used as a shortcut to bypass formal disciplinary proceedings

Rule 1802(a) of the IREC Vol. II (equivalent to FR 56(j)), which gives the Appointing Authority the absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest after they attain 50/55 years of age

Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, which establishes that "public interest" cannot be a cover for arbitrary or disguised dismissal

Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, affirming that the judiciary can "lift the veil" to see if an order is bona fide or a punishment for misconduct

Allahabad Bank Officers’ Association v. Allahabad Bank, which clarifies that compulsory retirement must not be stigmatic or a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiries

The Tribunal found that the Review Committee failed to adhere to the guidelines in Railway Board Circular dated 11.04.2022 (RBE 48/2022), which stipulates that an employee should not be retired for ineffectiveness if their service in the preceding five years was satisfactory

The record showed the applicant’s recent APARs were "Outstanding/Very Good," he was promoted to SAG as recently as 2022, and he received a "Best Sales Management Shield" for 2023-2024

The Tribunal noted that the respondents relied on stale entries (from 2009) and minor penalties to justify the "ineffectiveness," despite subsequently promoting him

The dropping of a pending minor penalty charge sheet immediately after the retirement order indicated the rule was used as a shortcut to avoid formal enquiry, contrary to Para 11.2 (vi) of the DoP&T O.M. dated 28.08.2020

The impugned orders dated 09.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 19.09.2025, 29.09.2025, and 10.10.2025 were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits and treat him as being in service for all purposes.

The applicant was ordered to refund the three months' pay and settlement dues received in lieu of notice within two weeks of reinstatement. The O.A. was disposed of in favor of the applicant.