Facts
The Petitioner, a General Manager at the Food Corporation of India (FCI), joined service in 2003 following litigation in the Orissa High Court.
Source reference: p. 3His career involved further successful litigations for seniority and promotion.
Source reference: p. 3In 2017, his service was reviewed upon reaching the age threshold, and he was expressly retained.
Source reference: p. 4In 2019, he was promoted to General Manager with "Very Good" and "Outstanding" APAR gradings.
Source reference: p. 4Despite 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.
Source reference: p. 4, 10His subsequent representation was rejected on July 20, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
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.
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 16.12. Whether the stale material and neutral integrity remarks relied upon by the Respondents were sufficient to sustain a finding of doubtful integrity or ineffectiveness.
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 16.23. Whether the impugned action was vitiated by arbitrariness or constituted a colourable exercise of power.
Source reference: p. 7 / para. 16.3Law 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.
Source reference: p. 3Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha: Establishmed that while the power is subjective, it must be bona fide.
Source reference: p. 8State 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.
Source reference: p. 8S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa: Principle that the entire service record, particularly the latest, must form the foundation of the opinion.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
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.
Source reference: p. 9-10The 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.
Source reference: p. 10-11The Court rejected the Respondents’ interpretation of "Nothing Adverse Reported" as a sign of doubtful integrity, noting his latest integrity was marked "Beyond Doubt".
Source reference: p. 11Under 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.
Source reference: p. 12The Court concluded that ignoring the Petitioner's recent "Outstanding" assessments rendered the satisfaction legally vulnerable.
Source reference: p. 14Holding
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.
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.
Source reference: p. 16Original Court PDF
Prasant Kumar SatapathyvsFood Corporation Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in