The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement of a Commissioner of Income Tax, affirming that the Review Committee is entitled to scrutinize the “entire service record,” including allegations from a quashed charge sheet and adverse entries prior to promotion, to determine the retention of a government servant in public interest.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow, and the order of compulsory retirement passed by the President of India under Fundamental Rule 56(j).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Alok Kumar Mitra, was an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), 1992 Batch. After serving in the Income Tax Department from 1995 to 2014 and on deputation to the Government of Uttar Pradesh from 2014 to 2017, he was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (Senior Administrative Grade) on September 16, 2015.
On June 10, 2019, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi, under Fundamental Rule 56(j). His representation against this order was rejected on August 16, 2019. He challenged these orders before the CAT, Lucknow, which dismissed his application on February 20, 2023. Subsequently, he filed the present writ petition (Writ – A No. 2736 of 2023) before the High Court.
Submissions of the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Shri J. N. Mathur, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the order of compulsory retirement was “perverse” and violative of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in Office Memorandums dated May 10, 1974, March 21, 2014, and September 11, 2015.
The petitioner contended that:
- No ACC Approval: The order lacked the mandatory approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
- Excellent Service Record: He was promoted in 2015 on a merit-cum-seniority basis after vigilance clearance. His Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were consistently graded as “outstanding,” and his integrity was certified as beyond doubt.
- “Washed-off” Theory: Adverse material prior to his promotion should lose significance, and the Review Committee should have focused on the service record post-promotion.
- Quashed Charge Sheet: A charge sheet issued in 2013 was quashed by the CAT in 2018, and this order had attained finality. Therefore, the allegations therein should not have been considered.
- Malice: The invocation of FR 56(j) was arbitrary and not in public interest, as he had already cleared the mandatory screening at the age of 50.
Arguments of the Respondents
Representing the Union of India, Counsel Shri Devrishi Kumar argued that the compulsory retirement was based on the recommendation of a high-level Review Committee which considered the “entire service record,” including ACRs, charge memos, and uncommunicated remarks.
The respondents submitted that:
- Competent Authority: The petitioner was appointed by the President, and the order of compulsory retirement was also passed by the President. Thus, separate ACC approval was not required.
- Subjective Satisfaction: The Review Committee recorded its satisfaction based on specific instances casting doubt on the petitioner’s integrity and effectiveness.
- Detailed Minutes: The counter-affidavit highlighted minutes of the Review Committee, which noted irregularities in handling Tax Evasion Petitions (TEPs) related to the Sahara Group and complaints regarding “shoddy investigation” and failure to supervise subordinates in bribery cases.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court examined the statutory provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(j) and relevant Office Memorandums.
1. On Approval by Competent Authority The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding the lack of ACC approval. It clarified that under FR 56(j), the “Appropriate Authority” is the authority competent to make substantive appointments.
“It is not disputed that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the President and the order of compulsory retirement has been issued by the President. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that no approval was taken from the competent authority… is misconceived.”
2. On Consideration of Quashed Charge Sheet Addressing the reliance on the charge sheet quashed by CAT in 2018, the Court observed that the Tribunal had quashed it primarily on technical grounds of delay. The Court held that this does not preclude the Review Committee from examining the underlying allegations for the purpose of FR 56(j).
“This Court is of the view that the Review Committee is required to scrutinize the entire service record and can not be precluded from looking into the allegations which may from the basis of the charge sheet, even though the charge sheet has been quashed in relation to disciplinary proceedings.”
3. On “Washed-off” Theory and Past Service Record The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Babu Lal Jangir (2013), which held that the “washed-off theory” (where adverse entries are wiped off after promotion) applies to further promotion but not to compulsory retirement. Quoting the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh (1998), the High Court reiterated:
“Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion… is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee… whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service.”
4. On Review Committee’s Findings The Court scrutinized the minutes of the Review Committee, which highlighted:
- “Shoddy investigation” in TEPs relating to the Sahara Group.
- Complaints regarding “lavish holidays abroad” and “possession of Benami properties.”
- Failure to supervise a subordinate, Ms. Ranu Biswas, against whom bribery allegations were made regarding a “high-pitched assessment.” The Court concluded that the Committee’s decision was based on “subjective satisfaction” derived from sufficient material.
Conclusion Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that the order of compulsory retirement did not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or malice.
“The petitioner has been compulsorily retired after following the due process of law and in accordance with the recommendation of the Review Committee… This Court is of the view that there was sufficient material before the Screening/Review Committee to record its subjective satisfaction, which cannot be substituted by this Court while exercising the power of judicial review.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Alok Kumar Mitra Versus Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of India, New Delhi and another
- Case No.: WRIT – A No. 2736 of 2023
- Coram: JusticeSangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
- Counsel for Petitioner: Shri J. N. Mathur (Senior Advocate), Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya, Vatsala Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I., Devrishi Kumar
