IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.09.2025
Pronounced on: 26.09.2025
- W.P.(C) 8229/2021
SURAJ PRAKASH SAGTA …..Petitioner
Through: Mr.Shivanshu Bhardwaj
(through VC) and Mr.Archit
Mudgal, Advs.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
…..Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC,
Mr.Parvin Bansal, Adv. for
MCD with Mr.Devesh Kumar
Jha, Section Officer, Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, ASO, Mr. Arun Kumar,
SSA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
- This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated
18.06.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in
O.A. No.1716/2020, titled Suraj Prakash Sagta v. North Delhi
Municipal Corporation, dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 2 of 9
herein, wherein a challenge was made to the Order dated 31.10.2019
compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, as also the Order
dated 17.02.2020 rejecting his representation against the Order dated
31.10.2019. - The limited facts relevant for the purposes of the present
petition are that, in the exercise of powers under FR 56(j) read with
Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondent passed an
Order dated 31.10.2019, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from
service. A representation filed against the same was also rejected by
the Order dated 17.02.2020, compelling the petitioner to file the above
O.A. - The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tribunal has failed to appreciate that although a penalty was inflicted
on the petitioner by an Order dated 21.02.2000, however, thereafter
the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil), on an ad-hoc basis, by an Order dated 23.07.2009, and
thereafter was also granted the second financial upgradation under the
MACP Scheme in the year 2013 with effect from 01.07.2010. - He further submits that the ACRs of the petitioner for the period
from 2008-09 to 2018-19 were either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’,
and reflected his integrity as ‘Beyond Doubt’. - He submits that the Reviewing Committee appears to have
taken note of a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner
in the year 2015. He submits that the petitioner has been exonerated in
the same by an Order dated 27.08.2020. - He further submits that, in any case, in terms of the Circular
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 3 of 9
dated 25.07.2019, the respondent cannot resort to compulsory
retirement as a mode of punishment or as a short cut to avoid
disciplinary proceedings. - He further submits that the proforma of deliberation by the
Screening Committee, that has been obtained by the petitioner under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, also does not appear to have been
signed by the Head of the Department as required in terms of the
above Circular. He submits that it also does not find mention of the
recommendations of the Committee. - Placing reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ajay Kumar Sharma v. The Commissioner, South Delhi
Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2025:DHC:4466-DB, he submits that
the Impugned Order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service
cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. - On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that in the present case, the Screening/Reviewing Committee
had considered the entire service record of the petitioner and found
that on eighteen occasions he had been charge sheeted, which was
sufficient to hold that the petitioner had doubtful integrity and did not
deserve to be posted on a public post any longer in the larger public
interest. He submits that petitioner was not only visited with a major
penalty in the year 2000, but a departmental proceeding had also been
initiated against him in the year 2015, which was pending at the time
of him being compulsorily retired. He submits that taking the same
into account, the Screening Committee found a fit case to be made out
for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 4 of 9 - Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer,
Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 and Punjab State Power Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. v. Hari Kishan Verma, (2015) 13 SCC 156, he submits
that the power to compulsorily retire a government servant in terms of
the Service Rules, is absolute, provided the concerned Authority
forms a bona fide opinion on the same in public interest. - He submits that mere grant of a promotion to the petitioner
cannot be a ground to set aside the decision of the concerned
Authority of the respondent to compulsorily retire such government
servant, specially where such government servant has been subjected
to another disciplinary proceeding and has already been visited with a
major penalty on an earlier occasion. He submits that in the present
case, the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was justified
considering the various minor penalties imposed on the petitioner as
also the major penalty imposed upon him in the year 2000, and the
pending departmental proceeding. He submits that the opinion formed
by the concerned Authority of the respondent cannot be interfered
with by this Court. - We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties. - In Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, having examined the law applicable to the cases of compulsory
retirement under FR 56(j), has culled out the governing principles as
under:
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 5 of 9
“22.5 The Takeaway
From the above judgments, the following
principles emerge, in the matter of compulsory
retirement, where it is not awarded as a
punishment:
(i) The scope of judicial review, in matters of
compulsory retirement, is fairly limited.
(ii) Compulsory retirement involves no penal
consequences.
(iii) At the same time, if unlimited discretion is
permitted to the administration in the matter of
passing orders of compulsory retirement, it
would be the surest menace to public interest
and must fail for unreasonable, arbitrariness
and disguised dismissal.
(iv) The exercise of power to compulsory retire
an officer must be bona fide and to promote
public interest.
(v) It is permissible to lift the veil in order to
ascertain whether an order of compulsory
retirement is based on any misconduct of the
government servant and whether the order has
been made bona fide without any oblique and
extraneous purpose.
(vi) A bona fide order of compulsory
retirement can be challenged only on the
ground that the requisite opinion has not been
informed, the decision is based on collateral
factors or is arbitrary.
(vii) The court cannot sit in appeal over an
order of compulsory retirement, but can
interfere if it is satisfied that the order is
passed mala fide, or is based on no evidence,
or is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable
person would form the requisite opinion in the
given material.
(viii) The object of compulsory retirement,
where it is not awarded as a punishment, aims
at weeding out dead wood to maintain
efficiency and initiative in the service, and
dispensing with the services of those whose
integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in
the administration.
(ix) If the order of compulsory retirement casts
a stigma on the government servant or
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 6 of 9
contains any statement casting aspersion on
his conduct or character, it would be treated
as an order of punishment, attracting Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India. If,
however, the order of compulsory retirement
refers only to an assessment of his work and
does not cast an aspersion on his conduct or
character, the order of compulsory retirement
cannot be treated as an order of punishment.
The test would be the manner in which a
reasonable person would read or understand
the order of compulsory retirement.
(x) FR 56(j) does not require any opportunity
to show cause to be provided before an order
of compulsory retirement is passed.
(xi) Before passing an order of compulsory
retirement, the entire service record of the
officer has to be taken into account.
(xii) The gradings in the ACRs of the officer
are relevant. The performance of the officer in
later years, including the gradings granted in
later years, would be of greater relevance than
those in earlier years. Where the ACRs
continuously record the integrity of the officer
as being “beyond doubt”, or grade him
“outstanding” or “very good”, it is an
important factor in favour of the officer, and
would, in a given case, vitiate the order of
compulsory retirement, unless it is shown that,
between the last such entry and the passing of
the order of compulsory retirement, there was
sudden and unexplained deterioration in the
performance of the officer.
(xiii) Uncommunicated adverse entries in the
ACRs of the officer can also be taken into
account before passing an order of
compulsory retirement.
(xiv) Grant of promotion to an officer despite
adverse entries in his confidential record is a
factor operating in favour of the officer.
Promotion to a higher post notwithstanding
adverse remarks result in the adverse remarks
losing their sting.
(xv) The fact that the officer was allowed to
cross the efficiency bar, or was granted
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 7 of 9
promotion after the events which formed the
basis of the order of compulsory retirement, is
also a relevant consideration.
(xvi) The subjective satisfaction of the
authority passing an order of compulsory
retirement must be based on valid material.
(xvii) Compulsory retirement is not required to
be by a speaking order.
(xviii)The principle of audi alteram partem has
no application in the case of compulsory
retirement.” - In the present case, though it is not denied that the petitioner
was visited with a major penalty in the year 2000, it also remains
undisputed that he was later promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil), on an ad-hoc basis, by an Order dated 23.07.2009,
and thereafter was also granted the second financial upgradation under
the MACP Scheme in the year 2013 with effect from 01.07.2010.
Further, his ACR gradings for the last five years were also either
‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ and his integrity was reported as
‘Beyond Doubt’. The departmental proceeding relied upon by the
respondent, was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2015,
however, by an Order dated 27.08.2020, the petitioner has been
exonerated in the same. Moreover, the Circular dated 25.07.2019 inter
alia states that the decision to compulsorily retire an officer should not
be a short cut to avoid disciplinary proceedings and should not be
punitive in nature. - As held in Ajay Kumar Sharma (supra), before passing an
order of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the officer
has to be taken into consideration, including the grading in the ACRs.
The performance of the officer in the later years is of greater relevance
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 8 of 9
than reliance on old and historical punishments. Once the ACRs
continuously record the integrity of the officer as ‘Beyond Doubt’ and
grade him as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Very Good’, the order of compulsory
retirement, if based on events that occurred much prior to the decision,
may stand vitiated. The grant of promotion to an officer despite
adverse entries in his confidential record, is also a significant factor. - As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent that the Screening/Reviewing Committee had considered
the entire service record of the petitioner and found that he had been
charge sheeted on eighteen occasions, which fact was sufficient to
hold that the petitioner had doubtful integrity and does not deserve to
be posted in a public post in larger public interest, is concerned, the
same does not impress us. The last penalty against the petitioner was
of a Censure in the year 2005 and the only major penalty was imposed
against him in 2000. Apart from a departmental proceeding initiated
against the petitioner in the year 2015, in which too he was later
exonerated on 27.08.2020, there was nothing adverse against the
petitioner for an extended period from 2005 to 2019. In fact, as noted
hereinabove, in the said period the petitioner had been promoted;
granted the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme;
his ACRs were either ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’; and his integrity
was reported as ‘Beyond Doubt’. These factors should also have been
considered by the Screening/Reviewing Authority before taking the
decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The proforma that has
been placed on record before us, however, does not reflect any
application of mind to the above factors. In fact, it does not even
W.P.(C) 8229/2021 Page 9 of 9
contain the recommendations of the Committee. - Given the above factors, we are unable to sustain the Impugned
Order passed by the learned Tribunal, and equally are unable to
sustain the Order dated 31.10.2019 compulsorily retiring the petitioner
from service, as also the Order dated 17.02.2020 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner thereagainst. - The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with immediate
effect from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits, including deemed continuous service from the
date of the order of compulsory retirement, fixation of pay, annual
increments, promotional benefits (if any), and all other service
benefits, that would have accrued to him. However, the petitioner
shall not be entitled to back wages for the period he remained out of
service. - The consequential orders for reinstatement and restoration of
benefits shall be passed by the respondent within a period of four
weeks from today, and the petitioner shall be allowed to resume duties
within the same period. - The petition is allowed in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/Arya/S