Compulsory retirement is unsustainable when authorities ignore satisfactory later service and rely on neutral integrity remarks.

The petitioner joined the Food Corporation of India (“FCI”) as an Assistant Manager on 12.05.1997, was regularised as Assistant General Manager (Technical), and was promoted as Deputy General Manager (General) on 25.06.2021, joining the post on 07.07.2021.

While serving in the Assam Region, he was compulsorily retired by order dated 08.05.2023 under Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations.

His representation dated 15.05.2023 was rejected by the Managing Director, FCI, by order dated 19.07.2023.

The petitioner contended that his service record, including “Outstanding” APAR gradings for the relevant period and his promotion to Deputy General Manager, demonstrated satisfactory performance, and that the compulsory-retirement order was mechanical and unsupported by adverse material.

The respondents relied on the petitioner’s earlier penalties, a “Fair” APAR grading, and remarks such as “Nothing adverse/Nothing adverse came to notice” concerning integrity, asserting that the entire service record had been considered.

The Court applied Regulation 22(2) of the FCI Staff Regulations, which permits premature or compulsory retirement in the prescribed circumstances upon the competent authority’s satisfaction and in the public interest.

It relied on Clause 10 of FCI Circular dated 09.07.2021, under which employees of doubtful integrity or found ineffective may be retired; however, an employee should ordinarily not be retired for ineffectiveness where service during the preceding five years, or service in the highest post held during that period, was satisfactory, and the entire service record—including favourable and adverse entries, personal files, work performance, and even uncommunicated APAR remarks—must be considered.

Under Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, compulsory retirement is not punitive, but judicial review remains available where the order is mala fide, based on no evidence, arbitrary, or perverse; the authority must consider the entire service record, giving greater weight to later performance.

State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314, establishes that promotion despite adverse entries is a relevant factor in the employee’s favour.

The Court also relied on Prasant Kumar Satapathy v. Food Corporation of India & Ors., 2026:DHC:4051, holding that “Nothing adverse reported” is ordinarily a neutral integrity certification and cannot, without more, be treated as evidence of doubtful integrity.

The Court accepted that the competent authority could consider the petitioner’s entire service record and that compulsory retirement need not be punitive or supported by a speaking order in the same manner as a disciplinary order.

However, the material relied upon did not adequately justify the decision when assessed against the later record.

The petitioner had obtained an “Outstanding” APAR grading for the period asserted by him, had been promoted to Deputy General Manager in 2021, and had met the prescribed promotional benchmark of “Good”.

Although the respondents stated that the promotion was based on seniority-cum-fitness rather than merit, they did not explain the significance of that distinction or demonstrate why the petitioner’s satisfactory service in the higher post did not attract Clause 10(iv) of the FCI Circular.

Further, treating “Nothing adverse/Nothing adverse came to notice” as a negative integrity assessment was held unjustified because the expression was neutral and did not, by itself, establish doubtful integrity.

The rejection of the representation merely stated that the Representation Committee’s report and the petitioner’s representation had been perused and rejected; the actual reasons and considerations were not discernible.

Consequently, the Court found the compulsory-retirement order and the rejection order unsustainable.

Both orders were accordingly set aside.

Since the petitioner might have attained the age of superannuation, the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with Clause 14 of FCI Circular No. EP-01-2021-24 dated 09.07.2021.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of, with parties directed to bear their own costs.