B.D. Arora Vs. The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1532 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10112/87)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10112/87)
Petitioner: B.D. Arora
Respondent: The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1532 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10112/87)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10112/87)
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 20, 1988
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Retirement – Compulsory retirement
Fundamental Rule 56(j) – Appellant an Income-tax Officer – Grounds of retirement stated that ‘he is good for routine work in mofussil charges’ – Held that the very assessment showed that the officer was effective if posted in rural areas – Order of compulsory retirement quashed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. The challenge is to the order of compulsory retirement of appellant who was an Income Tax officer. He has been retired in exercise of powers vested in Fundamental Rule 56(J). The ground of retirement is recorded thus:
“While considering the case of Shri B.D. Arora, the Committee noticed that his rating for the year 1980-81 is average and similar is the position for the year 1982-83. The noting for the year 1981-82 is that he is good for routine work in mofussil charges. These notings show that this officer has lost his effectiveness as well as utility to the Government. The Committee, therefore, recommended that he is not fit for further retention in Government service and recommended his case under F.R. 56(J).”
3. We are surprised that this should be the conclusion from the material catalogued in the order. The very assessment shows that the officer is effective if posted in rural areas. This follows that he has not lost his effectiveness. There would be several officers with such record who are not being retired and we do not find any justification as to why the appellant should have been picked up.
4. The appeal is allowed. The order of compulsory retirement is quashed and he shall be deemed to be continuing in service. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand).
1. Special leave granted.
2. The challenge is to the order of compulsory retirement of appellant who was an Income Tax officer. He has been retired in exercise of powers vested in Fundamental Rule 56(J). The ground of retirement is recorded thus:
“While considering the case of Shri B.D. Arora, the Committee noticed that his rating for the year 1980-81 is average and similar is the position for the year 1982-83. The noting for the year 1981-82 is that he is good for routine work in mofussil charges. These notings show that this officer has lost his effectiveness as well as utility to the Government. The Committee, therefore, recommended that he is not fit for further retention in Government service and recommended his case under F.R. 56(J).”
3. We are surprised that this should be the conclusion from the material catalogued in the order. The very assessment shows that the officer is effective if posted in rural areas. This follows that he has not lost his effectiveness. There would be several officers with such record who are not being retired and we do not find any justification as to why the appellant should have been picked up.
4. The appeal is allowed. The order of compulsory retirement is quashed and he shall be deemed to be continuing in service. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand).
