Compulsory Retirement Cannot Circumvent Disciplinary Proceedings or Lack Medical Board Report.

The applicant, A. B. Prabhu Raj, a General Manager (SG) at NTSC Howrah, was transferred from Hyderabad to Howrah on August 11, 2023, and relieved on August 18, 2023.

He challenged this transfer before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which initially stayed the order but later dismissed his OA on September 29, 2023.

Citing serious illness of his mother, wife, and himself, he applied for medical leave from October 3, 2023.

A show cause notice was issued on November 23, 2023, followed by a charge sheet on February 9, 2024, to which he participated in the inquiry, though no final decision was taken.

The respondents claimed his transfer was due to administrative exigencies, and he failed to report for duty despite repeated directions, submitting 12 medical certificates from different hospitals without continuity, which were not approved by the competent authority.

Doubts arose regarding the genuineness of certificates from Osmania General Hospital, and the applicant was referred to a Medical Board, but he failed to comply with advised investigations and instead furnished more certificates from other hospitals, thereby avoiding medical examination.

He was unauthorizedly absent for 435 days (August 19, 2023, to October 27, 2024).

The Inquiry Officer proved charges of unauthorized absence and wilful disobedience.

After obtaining a fitness certificate, he joined NTSC Howrah on October 28, 2024, but was posted to MINT Cell and his leave was not sanctioned.

The constituted committee recommended compulsory retirement under Clause 2.1.1 of the NSIC Compulsory Retirement Scheme, 2018, read with FR 56(j).

Consequently, he was compulsorily retired by an order dated November 20, 2024, allegedly without adherence to prescribed grounds.

In his rejoinder, the applicant argued the compulsory retirement was illegal, arbitrary, and punitive, passed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that he had sufficient leave credits for which he had applied with supporting medical certificates from government doctors, but his leave was not sanctioned without reference to the Medical Authority.

He further highlighted his excellent service record, alleged prior bias from authorities, and claimed the action was mala fide to prevent his promotion to Chief General Manager.

1. Whether the action of the Respondents in not pursuing the disciplinary case and instead compulsorily retiring the applicant under FR 56(j) was fair?

2. Whether the compulsory retirement order dated November 20, 2024, was issued in accordance with the NSIC Compulsory Retirement Scheme and principles of Natural Justice?

The court applied the provisions of FR 56(j) as reading that the Appropriate Authority has the absolute right to retire any Government servant in the public interest, giving three months' notice or pay.

The court also referred to the NSIC Compulsory Retirement Scheme, 2018, specifically clause 2.1.1, which allows compulsory retirement on grounds of medical unfitness if an employee is continuously absent on EOL or without leave on medical grounds for 120 days or more within one year.

Additionally, clause 2.3 of the Scheme mandates referral to a Medical Board of a Government Hospital for a thorough medical check-up in cases of medical unfitness, and consideration of their report before making recommendations for compulsory retirement.

The court relied on the principles from State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314, which summarized that compulsory retirement should be in public interest, not a punishment, for chopping off deadwood considering the entire service record, and not a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry.

It also cited Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. UOI and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 165, which held that an order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained if it is punitive in nature or a short-circuit to disciplinary proceedings.

Finally, the doctrine of proportionality, as highlighted in Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 (2) SCC 442, states that penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and disproportionate penalties violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court noted that while FR 56(j) provides an absolute right to compulsorily retire a government servant, certain principles must be observed, including the rule that it should not be a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry.

In this case, the applicant was on unauthorized leave, which he sought on medical grounds, and though the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a show cause notice and charge sheet, they did not pursue these to a logical conclusion.

Instead, the respondents took a "short-cut" by compulsorily retiring him under FR 56(j) shortly after he reported for duty with a fitness certificate.

The NSIC scheme allows compulsory retirement on medical unfitness if an employee is absent for 120 days or more on medical grounds, but critically, it also mandates referral to a Medical Board and considering its report.

The court found no final report from the Medical Board was available; instead, the charge sheet indicated the applicant wilfully avoided medical tests advised by the Board, meaning there was no conclusive medical report to declare him medically unfit.

The court characterized the applicant's conduct as insubordination and unauthorized absence, for which disciplinary action was appropriate.

However, by circumventing the disciplinary process and imposing compulsory retirement without a complete Medical Board report, the respondents acted contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in *Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj* which held such actions to be punitive and not serving public interest.

The court also found the action disproportionate, violating the doctrine of proportionality.

The applicant is reinstated in service.

The Respondents are directed to finalize the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant within a period of three months from the receipt of this order.