- 1 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.19796/2023(CAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.19463/2023(S CAT) IN WP NO.19796/2023: BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (HOME), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR/EST, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35, SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, (NOW ADDITIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR) SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 6. THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR/ACR, APAR CELL. INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HQRS, NO.35, SARADAR PATEL MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI 110 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR PETITIONERS) AND: G.T. RAO S/O. LATE G. MUNEIAH, (PIS NO.124666), AGED 57 YEARS, O/O DEPUTY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(DCIO), SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WARD NO.25, BLOCK NO.16, VIJAYANAGARA COLONY, CANTONMENT AREA, BELLARY 583 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS OA NO.170/01125/2019 BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC. IN WP NO.19463/2023: BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (HOME), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR/EST, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, - 3 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35, SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR/EST, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU HEADQUARTERS, NO.35, SP MARG, BAPU DHAM, NEW DELHI - 110 021. 5. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NO.8, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI. B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR PETITIONERS) AND: G.T. RAO S/O. LATE G. MUNEIAH, (PIS NO.124666), AGED 57 YEARS, O/O DEPUTY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(DCIO), SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WARD NO.25, BLOCK NO.16, VIJAYANAGARA COLONY, CANTONMENT AREA, BELLARY 583 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS OA. NO.170/00588/2021 AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 13.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE), S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 4 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The above writ petitions by the Union of India and its Authorities are directed against common order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru1, in OA No.170/01125/2019 and OA No.170/00588/2021, whereunder the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent dated 6.12.2021 and the endorsements/orders dated 26.11.2018 and 16.09.2019 rejecting the respondent’s request to expunge the adverse remarks are set-aside. 2. The respondent herein approached the CAT in OA No.170/01125/2019 with a prayer to set-aside APAR grading for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and to set-aside the order rejecting his request to ignore the APAR grading. In OA No.170/00588/2021, the respondent approached the CAT with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 6.12.2021 at Annexure- A11 retiring the respondent compulsorily in exercise of power under Rule 56 (j)(i) of Fundamental Rules. 1 For short ‘CAT’ - 5 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent joined the service in the Intelligence Bureau as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer-II in July 1994 and thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer in 2014. In April, 2017, the respondent was posted to Ballari Unit. On 17.11.2017, the respondent was transferred to SBI Headquarters, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the respondent was before the CAT in OA No.738/2017. The said OA was disposed of recording the statement of the petitioners that the respondent would be continued at Ballari. Subsequently, APAR grading of the respondent for the period 2017-18 was communicated to the respondent under communication dated 31.08.2018, against which the respondent made representation on 22.09.2018 seeking expunction of the said APAR grading. The said representation was rejected by the petitioners under impugned endorsement dated 26.11.2018. Thereafter, under communication dated 18.07.2019, APAR report for the period 2018-19 was communicated to the respondent, against which the respondent submitted representation dated 29.07.2019 seeking expunction of adverse APAR grading for the year - 6 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 2018-19. The said representation was also rejected by the petitioners under order dated 18.09.2019. Aggrieved by the rejection of representation seeking expunction of APAR grading, the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.1125/2019. During the pendency of above said OA, the petitioners passed order dated 11.08.2020 compulsorily retiring the respondent from service under FR 56(j). Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.400/2020. The said OA came to be disposed of on 30.10.2020 reserving liberty to the respondent to submit representation before the Representation Committee with a direction to the Representation Committee to consider the representation of the respondent on merits. It is stated that before consideration of his representation by the Representation Committee, one more notice dated 17.11.2020 for compulsory retirement was issued to the respondent, against which the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.521/2020. It is stated that the petitioners by order dated 9.12.2020 withdrew the said notification and in view of withdrawal of the said notification of compulsory retirement, OA No.521/2020 was disposed of as having rendered - 7 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioners passed one more order dated 6.12.2021 compulsorily retiring the respondent under FR 56(j)(i). Being aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2021, the respondent filed OA No.588/2021. The Tribunal under impugned order allowed the OAs filed by the respondent and set-aside the order of compulsory retirement dated 6.12.2021 as well as orders/endorsements dated 26.11.2018 and 16.09.2019 rejecting the representations of the respondent seeking expunction of adverse remarks. While allowing the respondent’s OAs, the CAT observed that merely on the ground of insubordination with the seniors, the Committee could not have come to a conclusion that the applicant was a fit person to be retired from service and has come to the conclusion that the order is punitive in nature having been passed to ensure the immediate removal of the applicant with some oblique or extraneous purpose rather than in the public interest. The CAT also observed that it is necessary for the Court to lift the veil to find out the genuineness of an order or misconduct of the government servant concerned or to know the bonafides. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the - 8 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 petitioners, who were the respondents before the CAT, are before this Court in the above writ petitions. 4. Heard the learned ASG Sri. K. Aravind Kamath along with Sri. B. Pramod, learned CGC for the petitioners and learned counsel Sri. Abhishek Malipatil for Sri. P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers as well as the records made available by the petitioners during the course of hearing. 5. Learned ASG Sri. Aravind Kamat would submit that the order of the CAT is wholly erroneous and is the result of non-appreciation of legal position with regard to compulsory retirement under FR 56 j(i). Learned ASG would submit that the scope of interference in the matter of compulsory retirement under FR 56 j(i) is very limited. He further submits that if the Appointing Authority is satisfied that there is a steady fall in performance of the concerned officer, it could exercise its power under FR 56 j(i). Learned ASG would further submit that the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 j(i) is not a punishment and it would also not attach any stigma nor it would suggest any misconduct on the part of the - 9 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 officer, who is under compulsory retirement under FR 56 j(i). Learned ASG would submit that the Appointing Authority shall exercise its power under FR 56(j) keeping in mind the public interest and the appointing authority recording subjective satisfaction, could pass the order of compulsory retirement. Learned ASG would further submit that the government or appointing authority shall have to consider the entire records of the officer before passing order under FR 56(j). Learned ASG places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and also decision in the case of Posts & Telegraphs Board & Others Vs. CSN Murthy3 to contend that the judicial review and scope of the order of compulsory retirement is very limited, unless it is found to be arbitrary or capricious, malafide, overlooking or ignoring the relevant material, it is not open for interference. Learned ASG would submit that the finding of the CAT is not based on any material, whereas APAR gradings against the respondent are based on material, which the CAT failed to appreciate. Learned ASG would submit that 2 (2020) 1 SCC 801 3 (1992) 2 SCC 317 - 10 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 as directed by the CAT, the case of the respondent was considered afresh by the Review Committee and thereafter, the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 6.12.2021 was passed. Thus, learned ASG would pray for allowing the writ petitions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Abhishek Malipatil for the respondent would submit that the CAT after scrutiny of the material on record has rightly quashed the order of compulsory retirement as well as endorsements rejecting the respondent’s request for expunging the APAR grading for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were determined to compulsorily retire the respondent and as such, the finding of the CAT that the order of compulsory retirement is punitive is justified. Learned counsel would submit that in pursuance of the direction of the CAT for reconsideration of the order of compulsory retirement, there was no new material for change of opinion and the order of compulsory retirement was passed based on the material, which was available earlier. Learned counsel would place reliance on decisions of the Apex Court, which were cited - 11 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 before the CAT, which are noted in the impugned order. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration in these petitions: a) Whether the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 6.12.2021 warrants interference? and b) Whether the impugned order of the CAT warrants interference at the hands of this Court? 8. Answer to the above points would be in the “negative” and “affirmative” respectively and interference with the impugned order of the CAT is warranted. 9. It is well settled position of law that the compulsory retirement in exercise of the power under FR 56 (j) by the Government or Appointing Authority is not a punishment and this Court in its judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an appellate - 12 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 authority to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of compulsory retirement in terms of FR 56 (j). 10. The Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. District Medical Officer4 while considering a case of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j) has laid down certain principles, which read as under: “(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 retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as a appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance 4 (1992) 2 SCC 299 - 13 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on showing that, while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 11. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patil5, placing reliance on a decision in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case supra and other decisions has reiterated the principles, which read as under: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystalised into a definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus: (i) whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the office can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory 5 (2001) 3 SCC 314 - 14 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 12. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav supra, relied upon by the learned ASG has held that a single adverse entry is sufficient for compulsory retirement. 13. In the case of Posts & Telegraphs Board supra, the facts of which were akin to the facts of the present case, while considering the compulsory retirement in exercise of power under FR 56 (j), the Apex Court at paragraphs-4 & 5 has held as under: “4. In the present case, the service records of the petitioner were reviewed by a high powered committee. It is true that there was no material adverse to the respondent upto the year 1969-70. - 15 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 But there were adverse entries for the financial years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The purport of the confidential reports of these years has been placed before this court and had also been referred to by the High Court. These have been set out in letters addressed to the respondent by his superiors on 29.4.1971 and 15.4.1972 respectively. A perusal of these letters shows that they were objective appraisals of the petitioner’s work during the two financial years in question. They point out that certain aspects of the respondent’s working were quite satisfactory but they also emphasise that certain deficiencies were found in his work during these years for which he was duly cautioned. In the first letter he was cautioned to take more interest in Auto Manual Positions’ functioning and against indulging in disrespectful language towards superiors. The petitioner’s capacity for tact and courtesy was described as not satisfactory. It was also observed that he had not taken adequate interest in his job, that his handling of staff has also not been satisfactory leading to several complaints, and that there were cases of delays, bad relations and technical neglect, calling for improvement. The letter dated 15.4.72, likewise, after referring to the favourable remarks earned by the respondent emphasised three aspects on which the petitioner’s conduct was unsatisfactory. He had been warned for delay in disposal of complaint cases, for delay in confirming a deceased official and for not taking timely action for clearance of jungle on “main line Cuddapah-Tadparti.” 5. It will be clear from the extracts referred to above, that though the respondent’s conduct was quite satisfactory till March 1970, his standard of work had declined in the last two years under review. In both these years, it was found that he was not taking adequate interest in his work and was responsible for delays of various kinds. As has already been pointed out, an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. Fundamental Rule 56(j) authorises the Government to review the working of its employees at the end of their period of service - 16 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service if, in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of the delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record. No mala fides have been urged in the present case. The only suggestion of the High Court is that the record discloses no material which would justify the action taken against the respondent. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, there was material which showed that the efficiency of the petitioner was slackening in the last two years of the period under review and it is, therefore, not possible for us to fault the conclusion of the department as being mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. The Division Bench seems to have thought that, since the adverse remarks mentioned in the earlier letter of 29th April, 1971 were not repeated in the subsequent letter, it should be taken that they had been given up subsequently or that the respondent had improved in the subsequent year. We do not think that this is a legitimate inference, for the report for 1971-72 only shows that the respondents’ propensity to delay matters persisted despite the warning of the previous year. But, even if one assumes that the High Court was correct on this, the adverse remarks made against the respondent in relation to the period 1971-72 standing by themselves, can constitute sufficient material for the department to come to a conclusion in the matter. It is true that the earlier record of the respondent was good but if the record showed that the standard of work of the respondent had declined and was not satisfactory, that was certainly material enabling the department to come to a conclusion under Fundamental Rule 56(j). We are of opinion that the - 17 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 High Court erred in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement on the basis that there was no material at all on record justifying the action against the respondent.” 14. The Apex Court in the above decision has made it clear that if the record showed that the standard of work of the employee had declined and was not satisfactory, that was certainly material enabling the department to come to a conclusion under Fundamental Rule 56(j). In the instant case, the overall APAR grading of the respondent for the past few years is as under: Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Grading 7.6 6 6 6 4 4.75 Time Barred 4 The above would certainly indicate gradual decline in the performance of the respondent. 15. The representation made to modify the APAR grading for the year 2017-18 was rejected by the petitioners vide order dated 26.11.2018 and for the period 2018-19 vide order dated 16.9.2019. The Authorities while rejecting the representation observed that the remarks of APAR are based on the general assessment of officers’ day-to-day work, - 18 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 conduct and duties performed; except for the Reporting and Reviewing Officer, none else can have much knowledge about such performance, more so in an Intelligence Organization. The said reasoning is well-founded that too as stated in an Intelligence Organization. 16. Initially, the order dated 11.08.2020 for compulsory retirement of the respondent was issued in exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the CAT in OA No.400/2020, which was disposed of with liberty to the respondent to file representation before the Representation Committee. Thereafter, notification dated 17.11.2020 for compulsory retirement of the respondent was issued, which was the subject matter in OA No.521/2020. The said notification dated 17.11.2020 to compulsorily retire the respondent was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 9.12.2020. Thereafter, on reconsideration of the entire matter by the Review Committee and the Representation Committee, the impugned order dated 6.12.2021 retiring the respondent compulsorily under FR 56 (j(i) was passed. Minutes of the - 19 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 Standing Review Committee dated 31.08.2021 reads as follows: F.No.1/Adm(C)/2020(1)-SF[CF-3486431] Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Review Committee dated 31.8.2021 to review the case of Shri G.T. Rao, DCIO/Exe, IB under FR- 56(j)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules A meeting of Standing Review Committee was held on 31.8.2021 at 11 a.m. to consider the recommendation of the Representation Committee for reviewing the case afresh of Shri G.T. Rao, who had been served the notice of compulsory retirement under FR-56(j). The following members of the Standing Review Committee (SRC) were present:- (i) Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, Secretary (BM), M/o Home Affairs (ii) Shri R.K. Singh, Joint Secretary, D/o Industrial Policy & Promotion 2. It was apprised to the Committee that IB's Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) suggested for compulsory retirement of Shri G.T. Rao, DCIO under FR- 56(j) on the grounds of (i) no worthwhile contribution to public service, (ii) engagement in prolonged correspondence on trivial matters, (iii) steady fall in performance and; (iv) obstructs efficiency in public service. The suggestions of DSC were placed before the SRC who in turn recommended compulsory retirement of Shri G.T. Rao. Accordingly, he was served order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 11.8.2020 under the provisions of FR-56(j). On the directions of Hon'ble CAT Bangalore Bench, the representation of Shri G.T. Rao against compulsory retirement notice dated 11.8.2020 was considered by the Representation Committee (RC) in its meeting held on 4.12.2020. The RC recommended that the case of Shri G.T. Rao needed to be reviewed afresh by the Standing Review Committee. Also, on the directions of the Tribunal, IB withdrew the relieving order from duties under FR-56(j) of Shri G.T. Rao on 9.12.2020 and reinstated him in service. - 20 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 3. The meeting of the SRC was held on 2.3.2021 and 5.7.2021 wherein certain additional information was sought by the Committee. Subsequently, the meeting of the SRC was again held on 31.8.2021. 4. The Standing Review Committee went through the material on record including the recommendation of the Representation Committee and considered the case of Shri G.T. Rao afresh. Taking into account the facts of incompetence and inefficiency in the work allotted to him and his performance post Reinstatement from compulsory retirement, the Committee found the case fit for compulsory retirement of Shri G.T. Rao. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar) Joint Secretary Secretary (BM) D/o Industrial Policy & Promotion M/o Home Affairs 17. Minutes of the meeting of the Representation Committee dated 22.10.2021 of which the relevant paragraphs-4 and 5 read thus: 4. The Representation Committee went through the material on record including the recommendation of the Standing Review Committee and the report of the Head of Bangalore unit in respect of Shri G.T. Rao on his performance, post reinstatement. It was noted that as per the report, since he resumed his duties, Shri G.T. Rao did not furnish any report/findings on the tasks assigned to him prior to serving of the notice under FR-56(j) or submit any kind of proposal/plan of action for any new initiative. In addition, it was also observed by the Committee that earlier in 2019 too, Shri Rao was assigned specific task of sensitive nature, in writing, by the Head of the SIB. However, Shri Rao did not accord due priority to the task at hand and failed to complete the task. He was given several advisories and warning in this regard. To cite specific instances: i. On 11.9.2018, Shri G.T. Rao was warned for submitting a perfunctory report, lacking even basic details, on a matter of - 21 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 sensitive nature and for questioning the competence of his supervising authority; ii. On being tasked to undertake a study tour to prepare a self-contained report on an issue of importance, Shri G.T. Rao chose to ignore orders and acted in an insubordinate manner and indulged in unnecessary correspondence with Hqrs on trivial issues, which caused loss of time and disturbed the peace at the place of employment. He was issued an advisory in this matter on 17.9.2019; iii. Shri Rao was tasked to submit a study report on 'Illegal withdrawal of water from Tungabhadra river by tail end farmers'. However, he did not complete it even after lapse of 18 months. He was advised in this matter on 17.9.2019. 5. Shri G.T. Rao wrongly claimed in self-assessment column of his APARs submitted in 2021 that he had not been given any task/work. His action of questioning the competence of the Authority of his supervisory officer was found to be unacceptable, particularly in a sensitive organization. He has been consistently shirking responsibilities, for which he was given a warning and two advisories in this regard. It was also noted that APARs of Shri G.T. Rao show a general decline in his performance. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the Representation Committee was of the considered view that the case of Shri G.T. Rao was a fit case for compulsory retirement under FR- 56(j). 18. The above proceedings of the Review Committee as well as the Representation Committee amply make it clear that the relevant materials were considered and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the department and taking note of the fact that the respondent was consistently shirking the responsibilities for which he was given warning - 22 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 and advisory, it came to the conclusion that it is a fit case for compulsory retirement of the respondent under FR 56(j). 19. On perusal of the APAR grading of the respondent from the period 2014-15 onwards till 2021-22, the performance of the respondent has declined. As noted earlier, it is the subjective satisfaction of the Appointing Authority or the government, which would be relevant for taking decision to retire compulsorily under FR 56(j). Normally, the said subjective satisfaction could not be the subject matter of the judicial review unless it is shown that it is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides. As observed earlier, in a judicial review, this Court would not sit in judgment over the subjective satisfaction of the authorities to compulsorily retire the respondent from service under FR 56(j). 20. The CAT committed a grave error in coming to a conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement under FR 56 (j) dated 6.12.2021 is punitive in nature. As observed above, the CAT could not sit as an appellate authority to examine the subjective satisfaction of the government/appointing authority in coming to a conclusion to - 23 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 compulsorily retire the respondent under FR 56(j). The CAT in its judgment at paragraph-18 has noted certain instances to arrive at a conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement is punitive in nature. However, it is to be noticed that those are instances and material on which the Government/Appointing Authority as well as Review Committee and Representation Committee have arrived at subjective satisfaction and concluded that the respondent is to be retired compulsorily under FR 56(j). 21. The CAT has observed that the change of opinion is not based on any new material and absolutely there was no changed circumstance in the case for subjective satisfaction under FR 56 (j) to pass an order of compulsory retirement. The entire service record of the employee shall have to be examined and the appointing authority or the government shall be satisfied that continuance of such employee in service would be against public interest, apart from examining as to whether there is decline in performance of the duty. In the said circumstances, there need not be any new material or changed circumstance to pass order of compulsory retirement - 24 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 dated 6.12.2021 under FR 56(j). The CAT has also observed that there is no evidence of drastic decline in integrity or work quality of the respondent. It is not for the Courts or the Tribunals to assess the work quality of the employee or government servant. It is for the higher officers, reporting or reviewing authority to assess the quality of work of the employee. 22. The objective of writing APAR or ACR would be to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve his work or excellence. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Kashinath Kher6 in the matter of writing confidential report has held as follows: “...The object of writing the confidential report is twofold, i.e., to give an opportunity to the officer to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This Court in Delhi Transport Corpn. case (1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] pointed out the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with the 6 (1996) 8 SCC 762 - 25 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. Therefore, they should be written by a superior officer of high rank. Who are such high rank officers is for the appellants to decide. The appellants have to prescribe the officer competent to write the confidentials. There should be another higher officer in rank above the officer who has written confidential report to review such report. The appointing authority or any equivalent officer would be competent to approve the confidential reports or character rolls. This procedure would be fair and reasonable. The reports thus written would form the basis for consideration for promotion. The procedure presently adopted is clearly illegal, unfair and unjust. 23. In yet another decision, the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra7 has held as follows: "7. It would, thus, be clear that the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolis is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51- A(j) enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of 7 1997 (4) SCC 7 - 26 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidentials should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behaviour, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite being given such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, necessarily the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty. integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion." 24. FR 56(j) confers power on the authority to compulsorily retire government servants whose efficiency is on a decline and to weed out the dead wood from service, on examination of the entire service records, giving importance or preference to recent service records or APARs. In the instant case, the respondent was working in a sensitive - 27 - WP No.19796 of 2023 C/W WP No.19463 of 2023 department of Intelligence and his performance was on decline apart from non-submission of report on the entrusted work, which was the foundation for order under FR 56(j). 25. For the reasons recorded above, both writ petitions deserve acceptance. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Both writ petitions are allowed; b) The impugned common order dated 20.04.2023 passed in OA No. 170/01125/2019 & OA No. 170/00588/2021 by the CAT is hereby set-aside; and c) The said Original Applications are dismissed. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE JTR