Compulsory Retirement for Doubtful Integrity Unjustified After Consistent "Beyond Doubt" APARs.

The applicant, S. Thiruppathi, aged 52, was compulsorily retired from service via Annexure-A1 order, effective December 1, 2024, issued by the 4th respondent, Shri Sunil Paliwal, IAS

The applicant disputed the order, arguing it was without jurisdiction as the 4th respondent allegedly did not hold the regular charge of Chief Engineer and Administrator (ALHW) but only current duties

The applicant had previously faced a major penalty in 2015 for misappropriation of government revenue, resulting in a reduction from Upper Division Clerk (UDC) to Lower Division Clerk (LDC) for three years.

Upon completion of this penalty, his pay and seniority were restored, and he was subsequently promoted to Assistant

His Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) consistently showed "Beyond doubt" for integrity from 2017 to 2022, after an interim period of "Yet to be watched" following the disciplinary action

Despite this, the Review Committee, and subsequently the Representation Committee, recommended and upheld his compulsory retirement based on "doubtful integrity," citing the 2015 misconduct alone

Whether Shri Sunil Paliwal, CE & A, ALHW, Port Blair, was competent to issue the Annexure-A1 order of compulsory retirement

Whether the compulsory retirement of the applicant under FR 56(j) on grounds of "doubtful integrity" was merited when his integrity had been certified as "beyond doubt" for several years post-disciplinary action and no adverse entries in his APARs were communicated

The court primarily applied Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now Rule 42 of the CCS Pension Rules 2021) concerning compulsory retirement in the public interest

It also considered DoPT's OM dated September 11, 2015, which states that compulsory retirement should not be a shortcut for disciplinary inquiries, should not be punitive, and that promotions despite adverse entries favour the officer

The principle articulated in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and others {2010(10) SCC 693} that "vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out" and that a single adverse entry of integrity may be sufficient was also considered

The judgment in Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India and others- {(2023) 11 SCC 466} was cited by the applicant concerning identical issues

DoPT OM dated 11.08.1989 regarding the authority to discharge duties of an additional post was also referenced

The Tribunal found that Shri Sunil Paliwal was competent to issue the compulsory retirement order, as the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) had approved his holding of the additional charge of Chief Engineer & Administrator (CE&A), ALHW, and he held this charge at the time of issuing the order

On the second issue, the Tribunal analyzed the applicant's service records and noted that while he had a disciplinary action in 2015 that led to a reversion, his integrity had been consistently certified as "beyond doubt" from 2017 to 2022, following an initial "yet to be watched" entry

The Review Committee's conclusion of "doubtful integrity" was based solely on the 2015 misconduct, despite subsequent clean records, making its recommendation without a proper basis

The Tribunal emphasized that compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) cannot serve as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings, especially when prior proceedings have concluded, and the individual's integrity has since been consistently certified

This aligns with the spirit of the Pramod Kumar Bajaj case, which suggests that relying solely on a past, resolved misconduct, when subsequent records are clear, to compulsorily retire an employee is unsustainable

The Tribunal quashed Annexure-A1 (compulsory retirement order) and Annexure-A18 (rejection of representation), concluding that the finding of "doubtful integrity" was without basis given the applicant's consistent "beyond doubt" integrity certifications for five consecutive years post-disciplinary action

The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant as if Annexure-A1 had not been issued