Compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) is invalid if the order is stigmatic or punitive in nature.

The applicant, a Group-A Regional Director aged 58, was suspended on 09.10.2021

On 04.01.2022, the respondents issued an order under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j) prematurely retiring him in "public interest"

The order explicitly stated the grounds for retirement as "doubtful integrity, steep fall in performance, misuse of resources of the Institute, [and] being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income"

The applicant challenged this order on the ground that it was punitive and stigmatic rather than a routine administrative exercise

1. Whether an order of compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) containing specific allegations of misconduct and lack of integrity is punitive/stigmatic in nature

2. Whether such an order can be sustained without conducting a formal departmental inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India

State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314, which mandates that compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure

Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, as cited in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1991) 1 SCC 529, establishing that such orders must not imply stigma or suggest misbehavior

Suraj Prakash Sagta v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (referencing Ajay Kumar Sharma), which holds that if an order casts aspersions on conduct or character, it attracts the protections of Article 311(2) of the Constitution

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, noting that the power to mould relief or expunge remarks does not apply to substituting a fundamentally illegal/punitive FR 56(j) order

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order explicitly cited "doubtful integrity," "misuse of resources," and "disproportionate assets" as the basis for retirement

Under the settled law, while FR 56(j) allows for "chopping off dead wood," it cannot be used as a shortcut to avoid a departmental inquiry when specific misconduct is alleged

The Tribunal found the order to be "stigmatic" on its face

Since the order contained aspersions on the applicant's character, it ceased to be an administrative act of "subjective satisfaction" and became a punitive measure

Consequently, the respondents' failure to initiate a formal inquiry or follow the principles of natural justice as required under Article 311(2) rendered the order legally unsustainable

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea to merely "expunge" the remarks, holding that the punitive nature of the order cannot be cured by judicial discretion in an FR 56(j) challenge

The O.A. was allowed, and the order dated 04.01.2022 was quashed and set aside. The Tribunal directed that all consequential benefits be granted to the applicant