Delhi High Court rejects Assam Rifles CMO’s plea against forced retirement; notes 20-year record of obesity, alcoholism

Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan noted that petitioner has failed to place on record any cogent material to demonstrate that decision-making process was actuated by bias.

The order noted that the first instance pertains to unauthorised absence coupled with intoxication while on bona fide duty, reflecting a serious lapse in discipline, particularly in view of his role as a medical officer.

It continued that it is settled law that authorities, while making the decision to retire an employee prematurely, are required to consider the whole record of service, and the same can include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.

Court’s findings

• It is pertinent to underscore that the scope of judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j) (grants the government the absolute right to prematurely retire any central government servant in the public interest) is exceedingly narrow.
• It is well settled that such an order is founded on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, and the court does not sit in appeal over such satisfaction.
• Interference is warranted only in limited circumstances, namely where the decision is demonstrated to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, or based on no material, or where relevant material has been ignored, the Delhi High Court noted.
• In the case of Union of India v Col J N Sinha, the Supreme Court held that under FR 56(j), the competent authority has an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest upon forming a bona fide opinion based on the entire service record.
• Such opinion cannot be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be mala fide, based on no material, or arbitrary.
• He contends that his service record does not justify premature retirement, highlighting his A+ grade in the Medical Officers Basic Course and consistent “Good” and “Very Good” Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) gradings since 2009, while alleging that the adverse entries in his record were never communicated to him.

‘Petitioner’s service record sufficient to form opinion’

• Though the petitioner has sought to contend that the “displeasure (recordable)” entries were wrongly awarded, it is an admitted position that the same have not been independently challenged, the Delhi High Court noted.
• In the absence of any such challenge, the said entries have attained finality and continue to form part of the petitioner’s service record.
• This court, while exercising limited jurisdiction of judicial review in the context of FR 56(j), cannot embark upon an examination of the merits of those disciplinary actions, and the scope of scrutiny must remain confined to the decision-making process rather than a reappreciation of the underlying material.
• The material forming part of the petitioner’s service record cannot be said to be insufficient or irrelevant for the purposes of forming an opinion regarding compulsory retirement in public interest.

• The decision is founded upon objective consideration of the petitioner’s overall service record.
• Apart from making bald and unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides, the petitioner has failed to place on record any cogent material to demonstrate that the decision-making process was actuated by bias, extraneous considerations, or any oblique motive.
• Mere assertion of mala fides, without specific pleadings and supporting evidence, cannot suffice to displace the presumption of bona fides that ordinarily attaches to administrative action, particularly where the decision is taken upon due consideration by multiple independent authorities.

Case of compulsory retirement

The petitioner, serving in Dimapur, Nagaland, was ordered into premature retirement by the Ministry of Home Affairs following a service review conducted upon his attaining 50 years of age, the Delhi High Court noted. The action was taken under the Fundamental Rule (FR) 56 (j) and the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 2001.

He is currently serving as the commandant (NFSG)/(CMO) of Assam Rifles, Dimapur, Nagaland, and his service record was subjected to review upon attaining 50 years of age under FR 56(j).

The petitioner had made a representation before the authorities dated in 2025 for review of his case; however, the same has been kept pending on account of a stay order granted by the Delhi High Court via order dated January 2025.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates S N Pandey and Poonam submitted before the Delhi High Court that the petitioner was being victimised and the orders were a result of mala fide because the petitioner filed a petition against the respondents, seeking promotion, which was allowed by the single judge of Meghalaya High Court.

He submitted that the petitioner has discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and professionalism throughout his service. They submitted that the invocation of FR 56(j), premised on two “displeasure (recordable)” entries, is factually and legally unsustainable.

They argued that the alleged unauthorised absence occurred during the peak COVID-19 period when the petitioner had tested positive and was under medical supervision.

They further contended that the allegations of alcohol dependency, unprofessional conduct and obesity against the petitioner are baseless and unsupported by any evidence.