Sanjeev Pandey v. Food Corporation of India and Others

I

SANJEE

FOOD C

CORAM

Present:-

ALOK JA

1.

the Const particular dated 21. P-5) passe

2.

was appo of Techni to time o dated 21. without s employee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDI

V PANDEY

Versus

ORPORATION OF INDIA AN

M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate fo

Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advoca ***** AIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has bee titution of India seeking the issu rly in the nature of certiorari,

09.2023 (Annexure P-2), and o ed by Respondent No. 2, whereb ely retired from the post of Mana The brief facts of the case r which led to the filing of the pr inted on the compassionate grou ical Assistant Grade-III. The pe on the basis of his performance .09.2023, the petitioner was o erving notice of three months e as per the memorandum da

UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH

CWP-15868-2024 Date of Decision: 15.07.202

...Petitio s ND OTHERS

...Respond ALOK JAIN or the petitioner. ate for the respondents. en filed under Articles 226/227 uance of a writ, order, or directi for quashing the impugned or order dated 11.12.2023 (Annex by, the petitioner was ordered to ager (QC). as narrated by the counsel for resent petition are that the petitio und and joined his duty on the p etitioner was further promoted ti e. However, vide impugned or ordered to be pre-maturely reti as required to be served upon ated 28.08.2020 (Annexure P-

oner dent

7 of ion, rder xure o be oner post ime rder ired -3).

Further w P-4) befo Impugned

3.

duties wi Annual P further su feedback not issued and estab reliance u HC Om service re account w

4.

Office Me

when the petitioner filed represen ore the Respondent no. 3, the s d order dated 11.12.2023 (Annex The counsel for the petition r from last 30 years had dedica ith exemplary service record, erformance Assessment Report ubmits that the impugned order w r's entire service record, whic coupled with the fact that the m d to the petitioner and thus viola blished legal procedure. The cou upon the judgment of "Central Prakash" (CA/5482/2022) w ecord, including ACRs prior t when deciding pre-mature retirem The counsel for the petitione emorandum dated 28.08.2020 wh "(iv) No Government serva ground of ineffectiveness, if, years or where he has been that 5 year period, his serv found satisfactory. There is n the Government servant is to integrity. In case of those Go promoted during the last 5 ACRs may be taken into ac basis of seniority cum fitness

ntation dated 29.09.2023 (Annex same was rejected by passing xure P-5). ner submitted at the outset that atedly and honestly performed which is also reflected from of last 6 years (Annexure P-1). was passed without considering ch includes positive performan mandatory 3 months notice was a ating the principle of natural just unsel for the petitioner also pla Industrial Security Force ver which emphasised that the en to promotion, must be taken i ment. er emphasized on Clause 10 (iv) hich reads as follow: ant should ordinarily be retired his service during the precedin promoted to a higher post dur vice in the highest post, has b no such stipulation, however, wh o be retired on grounds of doub overnment servants who have b years, the previous entries in ccount if he was promoted on s, and not on the basis of merit."

xure his his He nce also tice ced rsus ntire into ) of d on ng 5 ring een here btful

4.1 for the pe governme ineffectiv submits th and hence the error i

5.

responden who appr wherein, responden and spirit by the cou

Relying upon the above state etitioner submits that the office m ent servant should ordinary be eness except if the allegations a hat the last 6 ACRs of the petit e the Representation Committee in passing the impugned order. Furthermore, counsel for t nt had issued similar order aga roached this Hon'ble Court by while passing order dated 22.1 nts to reconsider the cases citin of clause 4 of circular dated 09 urt be read as under: "17. From the perusal of d Reviewing Committee, th Committee and Representatio Reviewing Committee has no of Clause IV of paragraph 1 It is settled law that circular however, department is bou dated 09.07.2021 was issue argue contrary to circular follow the same. In the d employees in preceding 5 ye has not been noticed either Representation Committee. T read with Clause (v) of p

09.07.2021 needs to be con directed to re-consider case

ed office memorandum the coun memorandum clearly stated that e retired only on the ground are of doubtful integrity. He furt tioner do not demonstrate the sa e and the Review Committee fel the petitioner submitted that ainst the other employees as w way of CWP No. 26180 of 20

12.2023, the Court instructing ng failure to adhere to the mand

9.07.2021 and the observation m dossier which was put up before e noting/opinion of Review on Committee, this Court finds t ot taken care of mandate and sp 0 of the circular dated 09.07.20 rs are not binding upon the cou und by its circulars. The circu ed by FCI, thus, it is precluded and was bound to meticulou dossier, the fact of promotion ears was noticed, however, this f r by Reviewing Committee or This fact in the light of Clause paragraph 10 of circular da nsidered, thus, the respondents e of all those petitioners who w

nsel t no of ther ame l in well, 023, date ade wing that pirit

¶021urts, ular d to usly of fact by

(iv) ated are

5.1 revised r however date.

6.

foregoing be set asid

7.

arguments case of pr

8.

submitted cannot be Clause (v

promoted during 5 years p retirement. It is made clea construed as reinstatemen respondent as conceded, in paragraph 10 of aforesaid c petitioners within 8 weeks fro In view of the above said representation to the responden no action had been taken by Learned counsel for the petit g discussion and the law laid dow de and the instant petition may b Per Contra, the counsel s with the submission that the re-mature retirement is very limit The learned counsel for d that Clause (iv) of the Offic e read in isolation and the entire ) is reproduced herein as:- "(v) The entire service recor considered at the time of rev refers to all relevant records an confined to the consideratio personal file of the Governm material. Similarly, his work assessed by looking into files d reports prepared and submitte Ministry/Department/Cadre pu

preceding the date of premat ar that this order would not nt of the said employees. T the light of Clause (iv) and (v) circular, would decide fate of th om today." order the petitioner submitted nts on 30.01.2024 (Annexure P the respondent department till tioner submitted that in view of wn, the impugned order is liable be allowed. for the respondents opens scope of interference by Court ted. respondents at the very ou e Memorandum dated 28.08.20 e criteria in totality has to be re rd of a Government servant should view. The expression 'service reco nd therefore, the review should no on of the ACR/APAR dossier. ment servant may contain valua k and performance could also dealt with by him or in any papers ed by him. It would be useful if uts together all the data availa

ture be The ) of hese d a -7), e to his t in tset ead. d be ord' t be The able be s or

8.1 when Cla

28.08.20 governm extension dossier. Committ and the e going thr

¶9passed by after the passed in dismissed

10.

¶11Office M and (v) c including responden service h

(ACRs) o

about the Government servant for consideration by the Revie remarks in the ACRS/APARs m The learned counsel for resp ause (iv) is read with clause (v) 20, it makes absolutely clear ment servant has to be consider n of service and it cannot be c The counsel further handed ov tee Report before this Court, to d entire service record was availab rough and assessing the same had The counsel for the respond y the Coordinate Bench in CWP decision on the representations n the CWP No. 26180 of 2023 d vide order dated 15.04.2024. Heard learned counsel for the It has been observed that, f emorandum dated 28.08.2020, t collectively mandate considerat any indications of doubtful e retirement decisions. As su nt the Review Committee indeed history, beyond merely previo or Annual Performance Assessme

t and prepares a comprehensive b ew Committee. Even uncommunica may be taken into consideration." pondents vehemently submitted t ) of the Office Memorandum da that the entire service record red at the time of review and confined only to the ACRs/AP ver a copy of the Representat demonstrate that the entire mate ble before the authorities, who a d passed the impugned orders. dents also relied upon the judgm No. 7934 of 2024 which was fi s filed in furtherance to the or 3 whereby the similar matter w e parties at length. for the correct interpretation of the co-joint reading of Clause ( ation of the entire service reco l integrity or ineffectiveness, ubmitted by the counsel for d assessed the petitioner's compl ous Annual Confidential Repo ent Reports (APARs). Therefore

brief ated that ated d of AR tion erial fter ment iled rder was

(iv) ord, in lete orts e, in

the absenc ordering court is o per the pr

¶12reluctant there is a the court impugned administra

¶13dismissed

14.

July 15, 2 parul

Whether sp Whether re

ce of any claim of mala fide inte premature retirement of the r's sole contention relates to an a f the opinion that the review wa rescribed guidelines, and fulfilled Considering the principle tha e retirement is limited as in adm to interfere with decisions made clear violation of law or proced finds no compelling reason d order of retirement was ba ative discretion. Accordingly, the instant pe d. Pending application, if any, a

2024

peaking/reasoned

eportable

ent by the Review Committee wh petitioner, and given that alleged violation of Clause (iv), as comprehensive and conducted d all procedural requirements. at judicial interference in matters ministrative law, courts are genera e by the employer, unless and u dure. However, in the present ca or violation, to intervene, as sed on a reasonable exercise etition being devoid of merits also stands dismissed.

(ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE

hile d as s of ally until ase, of