AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member
The Applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO), under Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thrissur has approached this Tribunal against Annexure A-9 order dated 26.08.2025 issued under Fundamental Rules 56 (j), compulsorily retiring the applicant on attaining the age of 55 years on the forenoon of 28.11.2025 or on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiry of three months computed from the date following the date of service of this notice on him.
As per the applicant, he was appointed on an ad-hoc basis to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the 1st respondent Corporation as per order dated 16.01.1995 and thereafter he was regularized after having passed the Special Department Qualifying Examination held on 10.03.2009. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from 01.02.2011, and he was further promoted to the post of Assistant with effect from 15.07.2015. The applicant was promoted to the post of Social Security Officer (SSO) with effect from 06.05.2021 as per order dated 05.05.2021 and at present, the applicant is working as Social Security Officer at Thrissur.
Central Administrative Tribunal3. The applicant was served with a memorandum of charges dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure A-1) while he was working as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Hisar, which resulted in a penalty order of withholding one increment of pay for an year without cumulative effect against the applicant, vide order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure-A2). Against which, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure A3) which is still pending consideration before the Appellate Authority as per submission of the applicant.
The applicant was suspended from service vide order dated 09.11.2021 (Annexure A-4). As per the suspension order, while the applicant was working as Superintendent in the ESI Corporation, Sub Regional office, Ambala, he allegedly appeared in a sexually explicit video clip. The said video clip itself was self-explanatory, proving thereby that he had misused the office premises and was involved in misconduct affecting his moral turpitude, which is in gross violation of the rules and guidelines.
The applicant was reinstated in service after revoking his suspension as per the decision of the Statutory Review Committee meeting held on 20.06.2022 (Annexure A-6), and he was subsequently transferred to ESIC, Regional Office, Kerala vide order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure A-5). The applicant was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 20.07.2022Central Administrative Tribunal (Annexure A-7) together with articles of imputations of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses etc.
Subsequently, the applicant was issued with Annexure A-9 impugned order dated 26.08.2025 under Fundamental Rules 56(j) ordering that he shall be retired from service on the forenoon of 28.11.2025 or on the forenoon of the day following the date of expiry of three months computed from the date following the date of service of the notice as he has already attained the age of 55 years. Thereafter, following Annexure A-9 order, Annexure A-13 order dated 24.09.2025 was issued for processing of retirement benefits and settlement of dues of the applicant in accordance with the rules.
The primary contention of the applicant is that under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority can exercise its power for a premature retirement only in public interest and also on the basis of the assessment of the entire service career of the incumbent. It is clear that a premature retirement cannot be ordered on the basis of any specific instance or specific proceeding. The applicant pleads that after having issued Annexure-A7 memorandum of charges and after initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, the authority concerned cannot deviateCentral Administrative Tribunal from further proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings and to issue an order of premature retirement of the applicant by taking shelter to Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. In other words, while issuing the order of premature retirement on attaining the age of 55 years, the appointing authority should be convinced that the overall conduct of the incumbent during his service period is not satisfactory and, hence, for the interest of the institution, the order of premature retirement has been made. However, in the case on hand, the issuance of Annexure-A9 order proposing to order premature retirement to the applicant with effect from 28.11.2025 is a penalty, which can be granted only after completion of the disciplinary proceedings allegedly initiated against the applicant and if after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry officer finds that the charges against the applicant has been proved and that too subject to the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority concerned.
The applicant relies heavily on Annexure A-12 RTI reply to his questions nos.1,2 and 3, which reads as follows:
| Sl.No. | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Copy of minutes of Review Committee meeting held to Central Administrative Tribunalreview my case under FR-56 (J) | The documents sought contains name and cases of other employees containing information either exempted and/or personal Information; and, therefore, can not be, provided under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. |
| 2 | Copy of noting sheet on which minutes of meeting of Review Committee was placed before the Appointing Authority | |
| 3 | Copy of all the documents placed before the Review Committee in respect of my case on which basis the Review Committee recommended my case for premature retirement | 1. Charge sheet dated 23.07.2021. 2. Penalty order dated 27.02.2025. 3. Suspension Order dated 09.11.2021 4. Charge sheet dated |
20.07.2022
The applicant further contends that it is evident from the RTI reply in Annexure A-12 that the proposal of premature retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules has been recommended by the respondents 1 and 2 is on the basis of two disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant.
The applicant also contends that he submitted Annexure A-14 appeal dated 25.09.2025 against Annexure A-9 impugned order. However, till date, the appellate authority has not considered the appeal filed by the applicant. No notice of hearing has been issued to the applicant. No steps have been taken to have a hearing on the matter before the Annexure-A9 order is implemented. From the conduct of the ESI Corporation, it is more than apparent that they want to see that the applicant is ousted from service with effect from 28.11.2025 and the respondents are not ready to follow the mandatory legal procedures to be followed for effecting a premature retirement, that too, without completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant. Hence, the applicant submits that Annexure-A9 and Annexure-A13 orders are absolutely illegal, improper, arbitrary, discriminatory and are liable to be quashed.
The applicant moved this Original Application on 24.11.2025, just four days prior to coming into effect of Annexure A-9 order, and sought interim relief to stay further proceedings and implementation of Annexures A-9 and A-13 orders. O.A came up before the bench on 27.11.2025 and posted to next day 28.11.2025 enabling learned counsel for the respondents to get instructions. The prayer for interim relief was heard by this Tribunal on 28.11.2025. Acceding to the basic contention of Shri. Elvin Peter P.J, learned senior counsel for the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant because of certain allegations and a statementCentral Administrative Tribunal of imputation and memo of charges was served on him, and thereafter the impugned order at Annexure A-9 was issued by which he was prematurely retired with effect from 28.11.2025 (Today) and Annexure A-12, which is the reply given by the institution in answer to the RTI application filed by the applicant seeking information relating to the materials placed before the Review Committee for arriving at a conclusion, in which it was stated that a charge sheet dated 23.07.2021, penalty order dated 27.02.2025, suspension order dated 19.11.2021 and charge sheet dated 02.07.2022 were placed, prima-facie indicating a punitive termination also, Interim stay was granted to the applicant, as order of premature retirement was coming into effect on that day itself, to continue till the next posting date and which was extended from time to time. Though the respondents contended that the appeal submitted by the applicant was rejected by order dated 04.11.2025 and was acknowledged by the applicant himself, but that has not been disclosed in the OA.
The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)To call for the records leading to Annexure-A9 order dated 26.08.2025 and Annexure-A13 Central Administrative Tribunalorder dated 24.09.2025 and set aside the same;
(ii)To issue a direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in service 28.11.2025 till his date of after superannuation;
(iii)To issue a direction to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Annexure-A14 appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant before implementing Annexure-A9 and Annexure-A13 orders;
(iv)To declare that the action of the respondents in exercising Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules against the applicant is illegal and void;”
The respondents have filed their reply statement and submit that Annexure A9 order has been issued in accordance with the instructions prescribed in the office Memorandum No.25013/03/2019-Estt. A-IV dated 28th August 2020 was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India (Annexure R1(e)). The respondents plead that it is stated in the above OM that the objective of Fundamental Rule FR 56(j) is to strengthen the administrative machinery by developing responsible and efficient administration at all levels and to achieve efficiency, economy and speed in the disposal of government functions. It is also clarified therein that premature retirement of a government servant is not a penalty. It isCentral Administrative Tribunal distinct from compulsory retirement, which is one of the prescribed penalties under CCS(CCA) Rules 2965. Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be prematurely retired for the sake of public interest.
It is further clearly stated in the above OM that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant under FR 56(j), FR 56(1) or Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, as the case may be, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The impugned Annexure A9 order has been issued in the public interest which is in accordance with the law; hence, the challenge made against the above order is absolutely unsustainable in law.
In Annexure R1(e) OM that the broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making recommendations are furnished. The first and foremost criterion is that government servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired. Accordingly, the Review Committee considered the entire service records, integrity particulars, vigilance status, details of verified complaints, uncommunicated entries and other relevant records regarding his overall performance. The Review Committee considered Annexure Al Charge Memo, A2 penalty, A4 suspension order and AnnexureCentral Administrative Tribunal A7 Charge Memo containing various allegations against him, especially his sexual and drinking activities, for staying in his official room in the office unauthorizedly. Duly considering the aforesaid service records, it is found that the integrity of the applicant is doubtful, and he has also committed moral turpitude. It is convincingly proved that the applicant has committed acts contravening Rules 3 (1) (ii) (iii) (vi) (xix) and 3-(A)(a) of CCS (Conduct) Rules as made applicable to the corporation employees by virtue of Regulation 23 of ESIC (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations, vide Annexure A2 order, and he has also conducted grave misconduct as detailed in Annexure A7 memo charges. In the above circumstances, the Annexure A9 order of the premature retirement of the applicant, passed in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules on public interest, is in accordance with the law and hence not liable to be interfered with.
The respondents further contend that Annexure A9 order has been issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the aforesaid findings against the applicant made by the Review Committee, after considering his entire service records, integrity particular status, details of verified complaints and other relevant records, as can be seen from Annexure R1(d) minutes. Hence,Central Administrative Tribunal non-completion of the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Annexure A7 charge memo is not at all an embargo for passing Annexure A9 order by the 2nd respondent.
Respondents further submit that the applicant is under the wrongful misconception that by the issuance of Annexure A9 order of premature retirement, the above disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would come to an end. The above disciplinary proceedings initiated before the retirement, will continue even after the passing of Annexure A9 order. The contention of the applicant that the Annexure A9 Premature retirement under FR 56(j) has been issued to circumvent pending disciplinary proceedings, is legally unsustainable and against the various rulings of the Apex Court in this regard. There is no legal embargo on proceeding with the above disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the main contention raised by the applicant in this regard is absolutely wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the above OA is liable to be dismissed on the grounds itself.
Shri.K.R.Ganesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri.T.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the respondents were heard at length and with their help perused the records.Central Administrative Tribunal
Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his argument, drew our attention to orders of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A Nos.3147/2025 dated 15.12.2025 & 4835/2024 dated 17.12.2025 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Another reported in 1984 KHC 628. While allowing the O.A 3147/2025 and setting aside the order of premature retirement of the applicant therein, it has been held by the Bench that:
“As apparent from the aforesaid standing order and from what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that premature retirement orders cannot be passed on any misconduct of the government servant nor the same can be awarded as a punishment inasmuch as the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out dead wood to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and dispensing with the services of those, whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve the purity in the administration. However, on a perusal of the reasons for passing the orders impugned in the present OA, it is evident that the same have been passed by invoking relevant Rules.i.e. FR 56(J) and Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, in view of the involvement of the applicant in the case FIR Nos. 439/2012 and 379/99, and two departmental punishments suffered by the applicant in the past but not taking into account the efficiency and initiative of the applicant in service or his integrity.”
Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents placed before us the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inCentral Administrative Tribunal State of U.P and another v. Bihari Lal reported in 1995 0 AIR(SC) 1161, State of Orissa & Others v. Ram Chandra Das reported in 1996 0 AIR(SC) 2436, and Pyare Mohal Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2010 0 AIR(SC) 3753 etc. In Pyare Mohal Lal v. State of Jharkhand & Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“29.…...... The law requires the Authority to consider the "entire service record" of the employee while assessing whether he can be given compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries. More so, a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement. ….....”
In State of Orissa & Others v. Ram Chandra Das, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“ It is Contended for the respondent that adverse entries for the two years referred to earlier and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant on the premise that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed. it is true that the Government servant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are Central Administrative Tribunalafter promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks tore part of service record and character role. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, never the less remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. The material question is: whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the Government servant is justified or not. It for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries mere made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsorily retirement of the Government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that self-same material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the Government servant in service afterhe attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is Central Administrative Tribunalentitled to all the pensionary benefits. Under these circumstances, we are of the Considered view that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in interfering with the decision to retire the respondent compulsorily from service on the aforesaid grounds. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without Costs.”
The matter was heard at length on 01.09.2026 and reserved for orders. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the applicant moved M.A No.818/2026 on 02.09.2026 to amend the Original Application by incorporating challenge to Annexure A17 order dated 04.11.2025. The M.A was opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the ESI Corporation on the ground that the M.A is highly belated, that no explanation is offered for the delay, and that too after posting the O.A for orders after detailed hearing on 01.09.2026. The learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on Order 6 Rule 17 Proviso of Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes that amendment shall not be permitted after the trial is over.
After hearing both counsel, we found that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 04.11.2025. The receipt of the original order was acknowledged by the applicant himself on 04.11.2025 and the acknowledgment produced as Annexure R1(g). It was his responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Counsel while filing theCentral Administrative Tribunal Original Application. It is seen that the O.A was filed much later, on 24.11.2025.
We also take note of the fact that when the O.A came up for hearing on 28.11.2025, the fact of the rejection of the appeal vide order dated 04.11.2025 was brought to the notice by the respondents which was recorded by us in the order dated 28.11.2025. Thereafter, there were several postings. The interim order was continuing in the meanwhile and ultimately, the O.A was heard on 01.09.2026 and taken for order. It was thereafter that the amendment application was filed.
Having considered these facts, we find that there is considerable delay in approaching the Tribunal at this belated stage. The delay has not been explained. Hence the application cannot be entertained. M.A is dismissed.
We draw adverse inference for suppression of these vital material facts by the applicant while approaching the Tribunal and pleading for interim relief.
` 27. The minutes of the meeting of the duly constituted Review Committee were placed before us as Annexure R1(d) dated 03.06.2025, the Committee has recorded as under:
“The Committee considered entire service records, integrity particulars, vigilance status, details of verified complaints and other relevant records regarding the integrity aspects of all these officers whose cases are reviewed. 35 cases are reviewed under the provisions of FR 56(j), 13 cases are reviewed under the provisions of Rule 42 and 23 cases are reviewed under the both provisions of FR 56(j) & Rule 42 of the CCS (Pension) Rule 2021.”
Taking into account the above-mentioned relevant documents and disciplinary proceedings dated 23.07.2021, penalty imposed on 27.02.2025, placement under suspension with effect from 09.11.2021 and other disciplinary proceedings dated 20.07.2022 which are also part of service record and the Committee is duty bound to take them into also account, the Committee came to the conclusion that the officer failed to maintain absolute integrity and holding his integrity as doubtful, the Committee concluded that continuation in service of the applicant shall not be in the public interest and recommended premature retirement from service in public interest in terms of FR 56(j)/ Rule 42 of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021. The very first criterion among Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee is 'Government Servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired'(Para 10(i) Annexure R1(e)).Central Administrative Tribunal
The above recommendation of the Committee is in line with the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted supra and important judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the DoPT O.M dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure R1(e)), and it cannot be held to be contrary to the provisions of Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules or under CCS (Pension) Rules.
Accordingly, the Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Interim relief granted on 28.11.2025 stands vacated.
List of Annexures in OA No.180/556/2025
Annexure-A1: True copy of the Memorandum No. 13.C/14/11/17/.2018-Vig./1147 dated 20.07.2021 together with statement of imputation of misconduct issued against the applicant.
Annexure-A2: True copy of the penalty order No. C-14015/58/2024-Vig./162 dated 27.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Director General.
Annexure-A3: True copy of the appeal submitted by the applicant through proper channel before the Hon. Chairman, 3rd respondent dated 17.03.2025.
Annexure-A4: True copy of the suspension order No. C-12/18/13/120/2021-Vig./1529 dated 09.11.2021 issued against the applicant.
Annexure-A5: the: True copy of the communication F.No. Pt.C-12/18/ 13/120/2021-Vig. Dated 29.06.2022 issued by the Deputy Director (Vig.) of the ESI Corporation, New Delhi to the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office, Kerala.
Annexure-A6: True copy of the suspension revocation No. Pt.C-12/18/13/120-2021-Vig. Dated 20.06.2022.
Annexure-A7: True copy of the charge memo No. 54-C.12.11.01.2022-ADM(SS) dated 20.07.2022 together with articles of imputations of misconduct, list of documents and list of witnesses issued against the applicant along with typed copy of illegible page.
Annexure-A8: True copy of the covering letter No. 54-C 12.11.01.2022-ADM(SS) dated 10.05.2023 which was attached along with Annexure-A7 memo of charges issued to the applicant.
Annexure-A9: True copy of the Order No.A-40/11/Review/FR 56(j)/2024-E.1 (CN-1028216) dated 26.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure-A10: True copy of the relevant page of RTI application dated 02.09.2025 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A11: True copy of the RTI reply No. 54-Z.12/14/CPIO/2025-RTI (02706/2025) dated 06.10.2025.
Annexure-A12 : True copy of the reply dated 10.09.2025 submitted under RTI Act issued by DPIO.
Annexure-A13 : True copy of the Order : No. 216 of 2025 dated 24.09.2025 issued by the deputy Director declaring that the applicant since attained the age of 55 years shall retire from service on 28.11.2025.
Annexure-A14 : True copy of the appeal (without exhibits) dated 25.09.2025 submitted by the applicant before the appellate authority.
Annexure-A15 : True copy of the judgment dated 15.12.2025 in O.A. No. 3147/2025 in the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Annexure-A16 : True copy of the judgment dated ...12/2025 in O.A. No. 4835/2024 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Annexure-A17 : True copy of the Appellate Order No. A-40/11/4/3(2)/2025-Estt.I dated 04.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure R1(a) : True copy of the order dated 9-2-2026 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.4825/26.
Annexure R1(b) : True copy of the acknowledgment card signed by the applicant on 1-8-2022.
Annexure R1(c) : True copy of the representation dated 2-8-2022 submitted by the applicant.Central Administrative Tribunal
Annexure R1(d) : True copy of the minutes of the Review Committee held on 3-6-2025.
Annexure R1(e) : True copy of the Office Memorandum No.25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV dated 28th August 2020 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India.
Annexure R1(f) : True copy of the order No.A-40/11/4/3(2)/2025-Estt.I dated 4-11-2025 communicated to the applicant by the 2nd respondent.
Annexure R1(g) : True copy of the acknowledgment card received by the applicant on 4-11-2025.