Compulsory retirement based on stale material and disregarding recent promotions or high appraisals is arbitrary and unsustainable.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the exercise of power under Regulation 22(2A) conformed to the structured criteria and "visible meticulousness" mandated by the FCI Circular dated July 09, 2021.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated May 19, 2023, and July 20, 2023. It held that the action was a colourable exercise of power based on stale material and ignored the safeguards of the FCI’s own regulations.

It also directed

The Respondents were directed to treat the Petitioner as having continued in service for all purposes until his natural superannuation, with all service and retiral benefits to be released within twelve weeks.

01Facts

The Petitioner, a General Manager at the Food Corporation of India (FCI), joined service in 2003 following litigation in the Orissa High Court.

p. 3

His career involved further successful litigations for seniority and promotion.

p. 3

In 2017, his service was reviewed upon reaching the age threshold, and he was expressly retained.

p. 4

In 2019, he was promoted to General Manager with "Very Good" and "Outstanding" APAR gradings.

p. 4

Despite this record, and shortly after a favorable judgment from the Orissa High Court regarding his notional promotion, the Respondents issued an order dated May 19, 2023, prematurely retiring him under Regulation 22(2A) of the FCI Staff Regulations.

p. 4, 10

His subsequent representation was rejected on July 20, 2023.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the exercise of power under Regulation 22(2A) conformed to the structured criteria and "visible meticulousness" mandated by the FCI Circular dated July 09, 2021.

p. 7 / para. 16.1

ii.2. Whether the stale material and neutral integrity remarks relied upon by the Respondents were sufficient to sustain a finding of doubtful integrity or ineffectiveness.

p. 7 / para. 16.2

iii.3. Whether the impugned action was vitiated by arbitrariness or constituted a colourable exercise of power.

p. 7 / para. 16.3

03Law Applied

Regulation 22(2A) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971, structured by the FCI Circular dated July 09, 2021, and the DoPT Office Memorandum dated August 28, 2020.

p. 3

Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha: Establishmed that while the power is subjective, it must be bona fide.

p. 8

State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel: Holds that promotion despite adverse entries favors the employee and that the order must not be arbitrary or based on collateral considerations.

p. 8

S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa: Principle that the entire service record, particularly the latest, must form the foundation of the opinion.

p. 8

04Reasoning

The Court found the Respondents failed to adhere to Clause 7 of the governing Circular, which requires "visible meticulousness" and "changed circumstances" for a second review after a prior retention; here, the Petitioner’s review was triggered by unrelated CBI cases elsewhere.

pp. 9-10

The Court observed that the Respondents relied on stale material—minor penalties from 2012 and a "Good" grading from 2009—which were already considered during his 2017 retention and 2019 promotion.

pp. 10-11

The Court rejected the Respondents’ interpretation of "Nothing Adverse Reported" as a sign of doubtful integrity, noting his latest integrity was marked "Beyond Doubt".

p. 11

Under Clause 10(iv), the Petitioner was protected from retirement for "ineffectiveness" because his service in the highest post (General Manager) was found satisfactory in recent years.

p. 12

The Court concluded that ignoring the Petitioner's recent "Outstanding" assessments rendered the satisfaction legally vulnerable.

p. 14