9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n) passed by the Respondents of compulsorily retiring the petitioner was not interfered with. Similarly, order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-3 to the memo of this petition) passed by the Respondents rejecting the representation of the Petitioner was also not interfered with by the Tribunal. Thus, the order passed by the Respondents under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules of retiring the Petitioner with immediate effect from 10.06.2019 was not interfered with and since then the Petitioner already stands retired from services of the Respondents. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- 2.1 Petitioner is an officer of Indian Revenue Services ('IRS') of 1985 batch. 2.2 On 06.11.1996, the Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone) where he supervised the investigation of cases pertaining to Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). 2.3 On 01.01.1998, search was conducted by Enforcement Directorate officers at the business and residential premises of one hawala dealer, namely, Subhash Barjatya. Incriminating materials were seized including several documents and, thereafter Mr. Barjatya was arrested. 2.4 It is alleged by the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Petitioner for his posting under Senior Officer. 2.18 The Petitioner preferred one more litigation being W.P.(Crl.) No.1401/2012 for quashing both the criminal cases. This petition was allowed. 2.19 Two charge sheets were issued to the Petitioner on 14.03.2014 & 20.03.2014 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Against the same, O.As. were preferred by the Petitioner and they were allowed vide order dated 12.02.2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Writ petitions preferred by the Respondents were dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, Special Leave Petitions preferred by the Respondents were also dismissed. 2.20 "Sealed cover" procedure was adopted in the case of the Petitioner was opened on 26.03.2019 and it was found out that Departmental Promotion Committee found him unfit for promotion. 2.21 In a matter pending before the High Court being C.M.No.11272/2019 in W.P.(C) 9230/2016, the Respondents assured that the case of the Petitioner would be examined in the light of the adjudication that has taken place in various cases. An order was passed by this Court on 27.05.2019 for consideration of the Petitioner's promotion in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 and C.M.No.19013/2019 in W.P.(C) No.9230/2016. He pointed out the orders dated 06.05.2019 and 27.05.2019 passed in the aforesaid applications. 3.6 Learned Senior Counsel in support of the present petition, relied on the following decisions: i) Swaran Singh Chand vs Punjab State Electricity (2009) 13 SCC 758; ii) S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India 1979 (2) SCC 491 iii) Bihar State Govt. Sec. Sci. Teachrs Assn. v. Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors (2014) 7 SCC 416 iv) Yogesh M Vyas v. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat, Civil Appeal No.4514/2010 decided on 03.09.2019 by Hon'ble Supreme Court v) Ram Lakhan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 715 vi) State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2007) 14 SCC 568 vii) (1992) SCC Online AP (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) viii) Gujarat and Another vs State of Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 ix) Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299 x) Rajesh Gupta v. State of J&K (2013) 3 SCC 514 xi) State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314 xii) Hawa Singh Bhambhu vs. State of Haryana, MANU/PH/0958/2020. 3.7 On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by learned Senior Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents that the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Respondents is independent decision taken by the Respondents by Review Committee after considering the entire service record of the Petitioner and Review Committee after considering the entire service record was of the opinion that the Petitioner is no longer useful into the service of the Respondents. 4.4 Learned counsel for the Respondents has taken this Court to criminal cases filed against the Petitioner by CBI and has submitted that the following two cases were registered against the Petitioner:- i) RC S18-1999/E-001: it was alleged that Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and one Mr. Abhishek Verma were involved in criminal conspiracy by way of forging a document (a fax message) and using it as a genuine document with the intention to create false evidences to implicate one Shri S. C. Barjatya. ii) RC S-19/1999/E-001: The case was registered against Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal for alleged possession of disproportionate assets against his known sources of income. The CBI in its report has estimated the total disproportionate assets of Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal at Rs. 12,04,46,946/-. 4.5 It is submitted by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious to public interest and obstructs the efficiency in public services. 4.11 It is also submitted by counsel appearing for the Respondents that the Government of India has absolute right to retire a Government Servant in public interest and, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, the Review Committee recommended that the Petitioner be compulsorily retired in public interest under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. 4.12 The learned counsel submitted that the Review Committee also clarified that the pre-mature retirement of the Petitioner is not being recommended as punitive measure and that the order of compulsory retirement will not be treated as punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 4.13 The learned counsel has taken this Court in detail to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents in O.A.1835/2020 and has explained in detail, the scope of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules on the basis of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada AIR 1992 SC 1020. 4.14 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that compulsory retirement inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner has argued at length about "honourable acquittal" and "acquittal on technical ground" on the basis of several decisions. 4.19 It is further submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is absolutely independent decision taken by the Review Committee based on entire service record of the Petitioner and the Review Committee had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner must be retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules in public interest. 4.20 He also submitted that this Court is not sitting in appeal against the decision of the Review Committee and that there is no malafide on the part of the Respondents while taking the decision of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner nor there is any arbitrariness on the part of the Respondents while passing the order of compulsory retirement. The said order has been passed upon recommendation of the Review Committee after looking to the entire service record of the Petitioner. 4.21 It is also submitted that it is not necessary that immediately upon attaining the age of 50 years by the Petitioner, the decision must be taken by the Respondents for his compulsory retirement. As per Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Petitioner is an officer of 1985 batch of Indian Revenue Service. In exercise of powers under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, Respondents have compulsorily retired the Petitioner vide order dated 10.06.2019. For ready reference, the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "ORDER NO. A 147/2019 WHEREAS the President is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so; Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the President hereby retires Sh. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (85042) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax with immediate effect from the afternoon of 11 June 2019 on completing 50 years of age and shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for a period of three months calculated at the same rate at which he was supposed to be drawing them immediately before his retirement. Sd/- (D.K.Verma) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India" (emphasis supplied) 7. A representation was preferred by the Petitioner against the aforesaid order. The same was also rejected vide order dated 19.08.2019. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of compulsory retirement in public interest, of the Petitioner with effect from 11.06.2019. 13. Much has been argued out by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner about the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019 mainly on the ground that this Petitioner has succeeded in several litigations against Union of India and hence, the order of compulsory retirement is tainted with malice in law and also on the ground that there is a delay on the part of the Respondents while passing the order of compulsory retirement and the same is contrary to the undertaking given to Delhi High Court in C.M.No.11272/2019 in W.P.(C) No.9230/2016. 14. None of the aforesaid grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted by this Court. It ought to be kept in mind that order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is absolutely a separate, distinct exercise under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and an independent decision has been arrived at by the Union of India through the recommendation of the Review Committee. 15. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor it attaches any stigma to an employee - Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion have been accepted and followed in many a later decision. There has never been a dissent - not until 1987. xxx xxx xxx 33. At this stage, we think it appropriate to append a note of clarification. What is normally required to be communicated is adverse remarks - not every remark, comment or observation made in the confidential rolls. There may be any number of remarks, observations and comments, which do not constitute adverse remarks, but are yet relevant for the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. The object and purposes for which this power is to be exercised are well stated in J.N. Sinha [(1970) 2 SCC 458 : (1971) 1 SCR 791] and other decisions referred supra. 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not continue in the service of the Government in the interest of public. 18. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha 1970(2) SCC 458 in para-8, 9 and 10 as under:- "8. Fundamental Rule 56(i) in terms does not require that any opportunity should be given to the concerned government servant to show cause against his compulsory retirement. A government servant serving under the Union of India holds his office at the pleasure of the President as provided in Article 310 of the Constitution. But this "pleasure" doctrine is subject to the rules or law made under Article 309 as well as to the conditions prescribed under Article 311. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. As observed by this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150] "the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law but supplement it". It is true that if a statutory provision can be read co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is, in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g intent behind its enactment, rather, it lies in the consequence and effect of the operation of such a rule on the outgoing employee. The rule does not result into a deprivation of the retired employee of any benefit whatsoever in lieu of such order of compulsory retirement and thus, attracts no stigma or any civil consequence to the retired employee for his/her future. The invocation of this Rule, therefore, falls in sync with the second proposition in Shyam Lal [State of U.P. v. Shyam Lal Sharma, (1971) 2 SCC 514] which looks down upon any loss of profits in a non-stigmatic order of compulsory retirement. Succinctly put, a compulsory retirement without anything more does not attract Article 311(2). We may usefully refer to Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 1305] and Union of India v. Dulal Dutt [Union of India v. Dulal Dutt, (1993) 2 SCC 179 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 406] to bring home the stated position of law. xxx xxx xxx 40. We also deem it necessary, at this juncture, to note that the mere fact of non-prescription of inquiry under Rule 135 of the 1975 Rules, before making the order of compulsory retirement, does not go against the constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding termination of service including compulsory retirement. In Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court [Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, AIR 1956 SC 285] , this Court touched upon the ambit and scope of Article 309 of the Constitution and expounded that the expression "conditions of service" takes within its sweep the cases of dismissal or removal from service. 43. We further note that generally it is correct to say that the rules governing conditions of service, framed under Article 309, are subject to other provisions of the Constitution, including Article 311. The opening words of Article 309 - "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution" - point towards the same analogy. However, this subjection clause shall not operate upon the rules governing compulsory retirement. For, the legal concept of compulsory retirement, as discussed above, is a non-penal measure of the Government and steers clear from the operation of Article 311, unless it is a case of removal or dismissal clothed as compulsory retirement. Had there been a rule providing for removal, dismissal or reduction in rank, it would have been controlled by the safeguards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promotions etc. and the Petitioner has succeeded in all these litigations. This constitutes malafide in law on the part of the Respondents. 26. Learned Senior Counsel has also taken this Court to various orders passed by different Courts in varieties of matters filed by him and has pointed out that in few matters, there are observations in the judgment about legal malice on the part of the Respondents. 27. Much emphasis was given by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vikas Singh appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that looking to the observations in the aforesaid matters, there is malice on the part of the Respondents while passing the order of compulsory retirement dated 10.06.2019. 28. We are not in agreement with this contention canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the reason that compulsory retirement is absolutely an independent decision arrived at by the Review Committee keeping in mind the entire service record of the Petitioner and usefulness of the Petitioner into the services of the Respondents. In the 34 years span of his career, for 20 years, Petitioner has been busy in litigation with the Respondents. The conduct of the Petitioner has shaken the confidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not mean that the Petitioner cannot be compulsorily retired by the Respondents. The observations made in the orders while deciding the matter initiated by the Petitioner is one thing whereas, the order of compulsory retirement which is passed on the basis of entire service record of the Petitioner and the decision taken by Review Committee, is altogether another thing. If any employee of the Union of India has succeeded in litigation(s) that does not mean that looking to the overall service record of the Petitioner, after certain age as per rules, he cannot be retired by the Union of India. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is a subjective satisfaction which has been formed on the basis of the entire service record. It is not a punishment. Compulsory retirement may have some adverse effect upon the employee but if the Review Committee is of the opinion that in the interest of public his services should be brought to an end by compulsory retirement after prescribed age on the basis of the entire record of service, such an employee has no right to continue into the services after a prescribed age, as per rules. 33. Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed. It is true that the government servant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to avail of the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and character roll. 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, nevertheless it 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 is 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 were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the case of compulsory retirement. The two requirements for compulsory retirement are that the officer has completed twenty-five years' service and that it is in the public interest to dispense with his further services. It is true that this power of compulsory retirement may be used when the authority exercising this power cannot substantiate the misconduct which may be the real cause for taking the action but what is important to note is that the directions in the last sentence in Note 1 to Article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputation or charge is not in terms made a condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity."" (emphasis supplied) 39. In view of the aforesaid even if there is quashing of charges in a departmental proceedings, still the respondents have all power, jurisdiction and authority under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules for passing an order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. 40. Compulsory retirement has various facets. Compulsory retirement can be passed looking to the overall service record of the Government employee. Compulsory retirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or criminal prosecution in 2 CBI cases registered against him, against which SLPs (Crl.) are pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and, they are as under:- a) SLP(Crl.) No.10083/2016, b) SLP(Crl.) No.10112/2016, c) SLP (Crl.) No.418/2017 and d) SLP (Crl.) No.419/2017. 43. Learned Solicitor General of India submitted that there are serious charges against the Petitioner in the aforesaid criminal cases which have been investigated by CBI, one of which is regarding disproportionate assets case. The details of these criminal cases have been narrated in the counter affidavit filed by Union of India in O.A. No.1835/2020 before the Tribunal. As these matters are already pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is refraining from going into the details of the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Suffice it would be to say that it is the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Review Committee that looking to the entire service record of the Petitioner including the aforesaid two criminal cases, Union of India do not want to continue this Petitioner into the services and as stated hereinabove Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of "Doctrine of Pleas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents that no compulsory retirement order can be passed whenever there is quashing of the charges in any litigation between an employee and the Central Government. What is to be seen is overall assessment of the performance of an employee and his usefulness into the services and not one or two matters and decisions in those matters. This opinion is a subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee. In the present case, there is no procedural error committed by the Review Committee while taking the decision under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. Even if there are observations about malice in law while deciding few matters between the Petitioner and Union of India, that does not mean that there is presence of malice when Review Committee has taken a decision under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules retiring compulsorily this Petitioner dated 10.06.2019. There is no personal malice alleged by the Petitioner upon the members of the Review Committee. 46. There is no arbitrariness on the part of the Review Committee while taking the decision of the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner, the decision is based upon the entire service record, performance of the Petitioner and the use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 56(j) on the basis of the service record of the person concerned. There is no other bar for the exercise of the power under the said Fundamental Rule by the prescribed authority. Government instructions relied upon by the Tribunal are only the guidelines laid down by the Central Government for its functioning. A government servant cannot be heard to say that though the order of retirement is justified on the basis of his service record but since there is violation of some Government instructions the order is liable to be quashed. The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in holding that prejudice was caused to the respondent in the sense that he could legitimately believe that under the instructions his case would not be reviewed after the lapse of certain period. The action under Fundamental Rule 56(j) against a government servant is dependent on his service record earned by him till he reaches the age or completes the service provided under the said rule. If the record is adverse then he cannot take shelter behind the executive instructions and must be "chopped off" as and when he catches the eye of the prescribed authority." (emphasis supplied) 50. In view of the aforesaid int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion Ministry of Law and Justice and the PMO note in which the invocation of Rule 135 was determined as the only viable option, constitute together a complete chain of inquiry revealing due application of mind by the respondents into the question of compulsory retirement. It is settled law that the scope of judicial review is very limited in cases of compulsory retirement and is permissible on the limited grounds such as non-application of mind or mala fides. Regard can be had to Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand [Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 550] . The abovequoted set of events are so eloquent that it leaves us with no other conclusion but to hold that the action of compulsory retirement was the just option. Assuming that some other option was also possible, it would not follow that the decision of the competent authority to compulsorily retire the appellant was driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations. The prerequisite of due application of mind seems to be fulfilled as the decision has been reached in the aftermath of a series of discussions, exchanges and consultations between the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review. xxx xxx xxx 21. However, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das [(1996) 5 SCC 331 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1169] had taken a different view as it had been held therein that such entries still remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. Therefore, such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 333-34, para 7) "7. ... Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory 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 comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can be water proof tents or heat proof houses but there cannot be "compulsory retirement proof employee" even if, he has succeeded in few cases against the Central Government. 57. This aspect of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Review Committee while arriving at a subjective satisfaction of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner and these aspects of the matter have also been properly appreciated by the Tribunal while deciding O.A.No.1835/2020 vide judgment dated 18.12.2020. 58. Much has been argued out on behalf of the Petitioner that there is a breach of undertaking given by the then Additional Solicitor General during the proceedings of C.M.No.11272/2019 in W.P.(C) 9230/2016. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 59. If we analyse the facts of this litigation, it appears that C.M.No.11272/2019 was preferred by the Petitioner in which issue involved was about grant of promotion in a sealed cover procedure, when it was opened it was found out that the Departmental Promotion Committee found the present Petitioner unfit for promotion. The Tribunal quashed the departmental charge s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory 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 selfsame 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 after he 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 entitled to all the pensionary benefits." (emphasis supplied) 63. In view of the aforesaid decisions, even if the promotion has been granted to a Government employee he can be made compulsory retired under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
