ups_00516 — The order for premature retirement of the Applicant, a Postman herein, has not stated its reasons for the order so issued. Hence it suffers from the vice of “inscrutable face of sphinx”. The order being quasi-judicial in nature has to necessarily contain the reasons for the decision in that order. As the order is bereft of reasons by exercising the powers of judicial order, the premature retirement order was quashed. The kept back salary of the Applicant has to be released

UPS

The order for premature retirement of the Applicant, a Postman herein, has not stated its reasons for the order so issued. Hence it suffers from the vice of “inscrutable face of sphinx”. The order being quasi-judicial in nature has to necessarily contain the reasons for the decision in that order. As the order is bereft of reasons by exercising the powers of judicial order, the premature retirement order was quashed. The kept back salary of the Applicant has to be released — The case concerns the premature retirement of a postman, with the order being quashed due to lack of reasons stated in the order, as required by law for quasi-judicial decisions. O.A. No. 290 / 00203... — Facts: The Applicant who joined service as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) on 26-9-1987, was selected for the post of Postman and sent for training on 27-10-1988 and thereafter was appointed as Postman on 17-11-1985 and confirmed on 17-11-1997. He was issued with a charge-sheet in 2005 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He was removed from service on 9-1-2007 and later reinstated on appeal by the Appellate Authority reducing him to a lower scale for a period of 5 years cumulatively. His benefit under 1st MACP Scheme was postponed due to punishment and later he was granted 1st MACP. Based on the assessment of his performance, he was not found fit for continuation as Postman. Hence under Clause
(j) of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules (FR), he was retired from service on the forenoon of 26-6-2015. He contends that his premature retirement is violative of Consolidated Instructions issued by Government of India in the matter of premature retirement under Rule 56
(j) of FR and under Rule 48 of CCS ( Pension) Rules, 1972 or CSR 459 (h). Hence he prays for setting aside the impugned Order, dated 27-3-2015 and reinstate him in service till he attains the age of superannuation with exemplary cost to be paid by Respondents. The Respondents submit that after examining his working as a Postman, he was retired from service as he had attained the age of 55 years. The Tribunal after hearing both sides perused his service records. The Applicant obtained the reasons for retiring him prematurely by invoking the provisions of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Fundamental Rights 56
(j) states that, if the Government is of the opinion to retire a public servant in public interest, the Government has a right to do so. This rule is produced verbatim in the judgment. In case of Group ‘A' or Group ‘B' service, the premature retirement can be resorted to before attaining the age of 35 years or after attaining the age of 50 years. In the case of others, the retirement can be done after attaining the of 55 years. Public interest is the primary concern for issuing an order of premature retirement by invoking FR 56 (j). The Applicant referred to the Guidelines for premature retirement. As per that guideline, “authority should record in the file that it has formed its opinion that it is necessary to retire the Government servant in pursuance of the aforesaid Rule
(s) in public interest......... to retire a Government servant prematurely on grounds of specific act of misconduct, as a short-cut to initiating formal disciplinary proceeding should not be used”. Paras. (4) and (5) of the guidelines is reproduced verbatim. The Applicant further submitted that he was not informed of shortcoming as indicated in his CRs. Number of previous judgments are quoted to substantiate his submission. Further, the Applicant cannot be removed under the said Rule but disciplinary action should have been initiated. There is no record to show his unsatisfactory working. As MACP was granted, he cannot be considered as unfit to serve in the post of Postman. The Respondent submitted that after scrutinizing the entire service record of the Applicant, he was prematurely retired. The Applicant referring to Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [ AIR 1978 SC 851 ], submitted that reasons have to be stated by Administrative Authority while passing an order. In the full version of Mohinder Singh case, Para. 8 is reproduced for clarity. This view is also reiterated in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. and another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others [ 2013 (10) SCC 95 ]. Reproducing Para. 18 of the judgment in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain [ 2005 SCC (L&S) 567 ], the Apex Court held that “giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. That view is also reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Reena Rani v. State of Haryana and others [ 2012 (10) SCC 215 ]. On examining the case, the Tribunal held:

UPS

The order for premature retirement of the Applicant, a Postman herein, has not stated its reasons for the order so issued. Hence it suffers from the vice of “inscrutable face of sphinx”. The order being quasi-judicial in nature has to necessarily contain the reasons for the decision in that order. As the order is bereft of reasons by exercising the powers of judicial order, the premature retirement order was quashed. The kept back salary of the Applicant has to be released — The case concerns the premature retirement of a postman, with the order being quashed due to lack of reasons stated in the order, as required by law for quasi-judicial decisions. O.A. No. 290 / 00203... — Facts: The Applicant who joined service as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) on 26-9-1987, was selected for the post of Postman and sent for training on 27-10-1988 and thereafter was appointed as Postman on 17-11-1985 and confirmed on 17-11-1997. He was issued with a charge-sheet in 2005 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He was removed from service on 9-1-2007 and later reinstated on appeal by the Appellate Authority reducing him to a lower scale for a period of 5 years cumulatively. His benefit under 1st MACP Scheme was postponed due to punishment and later he was granted 1st MACP. Based on the assessment of his performance, he was not found fit for continuation as Postman. Hence under Clause
(j) of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules (FR), he was retired from service on the forenoon of 26-6-2015. He contends that his premature retirement is violative of Consolidated Instructions issued by Government of India in the matter of premature retirement under Rule 56
(j) of FR and under Rule 48 of CCS ( Pension) Rules, 1972 or CSR 459 (h). Hence he prays for setting aside the impugned Order, dated 27-3-2015 and reinstate him in service till he attains the age of superannuation with exemplary cost to be paid by Respondents. The Respondents submit that after examining his working as a Postman, he was retired from service as he had attained the age of 55 years. The Tribunal after hearing both sides perused his service records. The Applicant obtained the reasons for retiring him prematurely by invoking the provisions of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Fundamental Rights 56
(j) states that, if the Government is of the opinion to retire a public servant in public interest, the Government has a right to do so. This rule is produced verbatim in the judgment. In case of Group ‘A' or Group ‘B' service, the premature retirement can be resorted to before attaining the age of 35 years or after attaining the age of 50 years. In the case of others, the retirement can be done after attaining the of 55 years. Public interest is the primary concern for issuing an order of premature retirement by invoking FR 56 (j). The Applicant referred to the Guidelines for premature retirement. As per that guideline, “authority should record in the file that it has formed its opinion that it is necessary to retire the Government servant in pursuance of the aforesaid Rule
(s) in public interest......... to retire a Government servant prematurely on grounds of specific act of misconduct, as a short-cut to initiating formal disciplinary proceeding should not be used”. Paras. (4) and (5) of the guidelines is reproduced verbatim. The Applicant further submitted that he was not informed of shortcoming as indicated in his CRs. Number of previous judgments are quoted to substantiate his submission. Further, the Applicant cannot be removed under the said Rule but disciplinary action should have been initiated. There is no record to show his unsatisfactory working. As MACP was granted, he cannot be considered as unfit to serve in the post of Postman. The Respondent submitted that after scrutinizing the entire service record of the Applicant, he was prematurely retired. The Applicant referring to Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [ AIR 1978 SC 851 ], submitted that reasons have to be stated by Administrative Authority while passing an order. In the full version of Mohinder Singh case, Para. 8 is reproduced for clarity. This view is also reiterated in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. and another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others [ 2013 (10) SCC 95 ]. Reproducing Para. 18 of the judgment in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain [ 2005 SCC (L&S) 567 ], the Apex Court held that “giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. That view is also reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Reena Rani v. State of Haryana and others [ 2012 (10) SCC 215 ]. On examining the case, the Tribunal held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text