[2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026 --------- Satyendra Kumar, son of Late Ram Khelwan Prasad, aged about 60 years, resident of House no.47, Teacher’s Colony, Dimna Road, P.O. and P.S.- Mango, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O. Sansad Margh, P.S.-Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Plate A, Ground Floor, Block-II, East Kidwai Nagar, P.O. Sarojini Nagar, P.S. East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-110023. 3. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, [BR & JH] and Appellate Authority, Zonal Office, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, [Ministry of Labour], Government of India, Bhawishya Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No.6, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, Pin Code-800001, Bihar. 4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, (Regional Office), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Hnoo, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [Regional Office], Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, State- Jharkhand … … Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025 --------- Satyendra Kumar, son of Late Ram Khelwan Prasad, aged about 60 years, resident of House no.47, Teacher’s Colony, Dimna Road, P.O. and P.S.- Mango, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Plate A, Ground Floor, Block-II, P.O. & P.S. East Kidwal Nagar, New Delhi-110023. 3. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, [BR & JH] and Appellate Authority, Zonal Office, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, [Ministry of Labour], Government of India, Bhawishya [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 2 Nidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No.6, Patna, P.O.-G.P.O. and P.S. Kotwali, Pin Code-800001, Bihar. 4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, (Regional Office), Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Hnoo, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [Regional Office], Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, State- Jharkhand. … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate [in both cases] For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to ASGI Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate [In both cases] ----------- CAV/Reserved on 04.05.2026 Pronounced on 14/05/2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 051/00008/2023 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner. 2. Another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed in R.A. No. 051/19/2025 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, the learned tribunal has dismissed the review application preferred by the petitioner in consequence of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025. Factual Matrix [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 3 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred here which reads as under: 3.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 01.12.2020 issued to him whereby and whereunder he was informed that it has been recommended in the meeting dated 24.02.2020 that he shall be compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rule and Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 which was affirmed by review committee in its meeting dated 25.11.2020. Thereafter, notice was served on him stating that the applicant shall be prematurely retired after lapse of three months from the date of notice. 3.2. He is further aggrieved by the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021 whereby the applicant was informed that he stands retired and relieved from service w.e.f. 10.03.2021. 3.3. The petitioner preferred a representation/appeal dated 29.12.2020 requesting for setting aside the notice dated 01.12.2020 but the same not considered before the final order of premature retirement dated 05.03.2021. 3.4. Thereafter, the applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal vide OA No. 051/00339/2021 assailing the above notice dated 01.12.2020 and the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021. 3.5. The said OA was disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer petition before the respondents to supplement his appeal dated 29.12.2020 within three weeks and with direction to the respondents to consider the representation along with appeal dated 29.12.2020, if pending within time as per spirit of the OM dated 28.08.2020 and communicate to the applicant. 3.6. In compliance of the order of Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a supplementary appeal/representation on 24.01.2022 against the orders of compulsory retirement and later in CP No. 23/2022 the respondents filed show cause annexing the reasoned order dated [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 4 10.08.2022 and the CP was dropped accordingly vide order dated 13.12.2022. 3.7. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid representations of the petitioner were considered in the meeting of the representation Committee dated 18.05.2022 and decided in terms of OM dated 28.08.2020 without considering the matter in entirety and only on false assumptions. 3.8. It was contended by the petitioner that while he was posted at Jamshedpur an FIR was instituted against him in Sadar P.S. Case No. 21/2015 corresponding to the G.R. Case No. 133/2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 377, 417 of the IPC and subsequently charges were framed on 05.09.2016. After facing the trial vide order dated 30.01.2017 passed in S.T. Case No. 225/2015 by Additional Sessions Judge-l, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa the petitioner was acquitted as none of the charges were proved against him. 3.9. For the same and similar charges, the petitioner was given a charge sheet for initiation of departmental proceedings based on a newspaper report only about the alleged criminal case and disciplinary authority without considering the materials on record and without discussing the evidence concluding arbitrarily in a most biased and unreasonable manner that the petitioner was held guilty and the punishment order dated 17.05.2019 was passed by imposing punishment of withholding seven increments of pay with cumulative effect. 3.10. On his appeal instead of exonerating the petitioner, punishment of petitioner was reduced to withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 16.03.2020. The petitioner assailed the said order before this Tribunal in OA No. 0051/328/2021(R) wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2021 quashed and set aside the appellate order and remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order on appeal. 3.11. The petitioner averred that the respondents again in an arbitrary and mechanical way passed a fresh appellate order dated 24.05.2022 [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 5 wherein the respondent no. 3 reduced the punishment to withholding of 3 increments of pay with cumulative effect without exonerating the petitioner. 3.12. As per the petitioner, the punishment as well as the appellate order is completely against the principles of natural justice and cannot sustain in the eyes of law since the case of the petitioner on same and similar facts has already been addressed in the criminal case for which he has languished in custody for more than 19 months. Proceeding on the same set of facts attracts double jeopardy apart from causing mental trauma and pain to the petitioner and his family for absolutely frivolous allegations. Since in the criminal case the petitioner has already been acquitted, punishing the petitioner on the same set of charges is against the rule of law as laid down in various judicial pronouncements. 3.13. It was further contended by petitioner that aggrieved with his APAR for the period 2019-20, wherein it is mentioned that petitioner lacks computer knowledge, requires technical training and hence was given a low score, he preferred a representation but no reply was received by him and the respondents have taken his negative APAR as one of the grounds for the order of premature retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 3.14. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the authority, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.051/00008/2023 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. 3.15. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed the original application being O.A. No.051/00008/2023 vide order dated 24.01.2025. 4. It is evident as per the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 01.12.2020 issued to him whereby and whereunder he was informed that it has been recommended in the meeting dated 24.02.2020 that he shall be compulsorily retired under Rule [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 6 56(j) of Fundamental Rule and Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 which was affirmed in the meeting dated 25.11.2020. 5. Thereafter, notice was served on him stating that the petitioner shall be prematurely retired after lapse of three months from the date of notice. He is further aggrieved by the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021 whereby the applicant was informed that he stands retired and relieved from service w.e.f. 10.03.2021. The petitioner preferred a representation/appeal dated 29.12.2020 requesting for setting aside the notice dated 01.12.2020. 6. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal vide OA No. 339/2021 assailing the above notice dated 01.12.2020 and the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021. The said OA was disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer petition before the respondents to supplement his appeal dated 29.12.2020 within three weeks and with direction to the respondents to consider the representation along with appeal dated 29.12.2020. 7. In compliance of the order of Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a supplementary appeal/representation on 24.01.2022 against the orders of compulsory retirement and later in CP No. 23/2022 the respondents filed show cause annexing the reasoned order dated 10.08.2022 and the CP was dropped accordingly vide order dated 13.12.2022. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of the authority, by which he has compulsorily been retired in exercise of power conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule has approached to the learned Tribunal by taking the ground that the aforesaid order is absolutely illegal and based upon the vice of malice but the learned Tribunal has declined to interfere with by referring the reason that the entire service report after being taken into consideration, it cannot be said that it suffers from any error rather the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the authority after going through the entire service career thoroughly. 9. Against the said order of the learned Tribunal, the applicant preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025, wherein liberty was granted to him to seek review of the aforesaid order before the learned Tribunal. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 7 Consequent thereto, a review petition was filed, but the same too came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal, against which the applicant has further preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026. 10. The orders passed by the learned Tribunal is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. 11. Since both the writ petitions are interlinked, they stand disposed of by this common order. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 12. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the following grounds: 12.1 It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration that the authority who has participated in the entire decision-making process is the immediate controlling authority, as such, there is vice of malice.] 12.2 The issue of promotion/upgradation which has been granted itself clarifies that the adverse entry has been washed away but the said aspect matter of the matter has not been taken into consideration. 12.3 The adverse entry recorded in the service record by the respective committees has not properly been appreciated and for no fault of the petitioner, harsh decision has been taken in the interest of the power conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule. 12.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court which are as follows :- (i) A.K.Kraipak and ors vs. Union of India and ors. reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262. (ii) Union of India vs. M.E.Reddy and anr. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 15. (iii) J.Mohapatra and anr. vs. State of Orissa and anr. reported in (1984) 4 SCC 103. (iv) Ram Ekbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 504. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 8 (v) S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa reported in (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424. (vi) Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braithwaite and co. ltd and ors. Reported in (2002) 2 SCC 290. (vii) Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 127. 13. Further learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 3183 OF 2019 passed on order dated 27.09.2019. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that all these facts since have not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, as such, the impugned order suffers from an error and needs to be interfered with. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent: 15. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: 13.1 It has been submitted that it is not a case where the allegation of any malice/vice of biasness is to be taken into consideration reason being that the petitioner is having several adverse remarks in the entire service career and the same after being taken into consideration thoroughly, the authorities have come to the conclusion in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule and based upon the aforesaid consideration, the impugned order has been passed of the compulsory retirement. 13.2 The issue of biasness which is being taken into consideration is not available to be agitated since the service record itself reflects the entry of the conduct of the petitioner during the entire service career. 13.3 The pleading of biasness was not available before the Tribunal and as such, it is not available for the petitioner to agitate the same before the High Court when this Court is exercising the power of judicial review to assess as to whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from error. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 9 13.4 Learned ASGI has further submitted that while taking decision of compulsory retirement on the principle of weeding out the deadwood even not communicated adverse entries to be taken into consideration and for the aforesaid, reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court which are as follows:- (i) Central Industrial Security Force vs. Om Prakash decided on 04.02.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 5428 of 2012. (ii) State of M.P. vs. Ganekar Motghare reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 703. (iii) Baikuntha Nath Das and anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and anr. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299. (iv) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jangir reported in (2013) 10 SCC 551. (v) Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2020) 1 SCC 801 (vi) Bank of India and ors. Vs. T. Jogram decided on 02.08.2007 in Civil Appeal Nos. 298 and 640 of 2005. 16. Further learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 4175 of 2014 and L.P.A. No. 734 of 2015 vide order dated 03.12.2025 and 19.01.2017 respectively. 17. Learned ASGI appearing for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs no interference. Analysis 18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order. 19. This Court deems it proper to refer herein that two writ petitions have been filed herein. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 051/00008/2023 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder, the original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 10 20. It requires to refer herein that during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as come across the materials subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, as such, he may be permitted to file a review petition before the learned Tribunal, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025, had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned Tribunal. 21. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred review petition before the learned Tribunal and the said review petition also got dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2025 passed in R.A. No. 051/19/2025 against which the second writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026 has been filed challenging the said order. 22. Accordingly, this Court is first delving with W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025 as the fate of the said writ petition will have bearing upon the second writ petition, i.e., W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026. 23. The fact which is not in dispute in the present case is that the petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 01.12.2020 issued to him whereby and whereunder he was informed that it has been recommended in the meeting dated 24.02.2020 that he shall be compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rule and Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 which was affirmed in the meeting dated 25.11.2020. Thereafter, notice was served on him stating that the petitioner shall be prematurely retired after lapse of three months from the date of notice. He is further aggrieved by the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021 whereby the applicant was informed that he stands retired and relieved from service w.e.f. 10.03.2021. The petitioner preferred a representation/appeal dated 29.12.2020 requesting for setting aside the notice dated 01.12.2020. 24. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing original application being OA No. 339/2021 assailing the above notice dated 01.12.2020 and the final order passed by the respondents dated 05.03.2021. The said OA was disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to prefer petition before the respondents to supplement his appeal dated 29.12.2020 within three weeks and with direction to the respondents to [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 11 consider the representation along with appeal dated 29.12.2020 in spirit of O.M. dated 28.08.2020. 25. In compliance of the order of Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a supplementary appeal/representation on 24.01.2022 against the orders of compulsory retirement and later in CP No. 23/2022 the respondents filed show cause annexing the reasoned order dated 10.08.2022 and the CP was dropped accordingly vide order dated 13.12.2022. 26. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of the authority dated 10.08.2022, by which he has compulsorily been retired in exercise of power conferred under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule has approached to the learned Tribunal by preferring O.A. No.051/00008/2023. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed the original application being O.A. No.051/00008/2023 vide order dated 24.01.2025 on the following reasons: “11. During the hearing, a specific query was put to the counsel for the applicant whether the applicant was granted any promotion or whether there was any acknowledgement by the organization of any of his positive contributions in recent years. Ld. counsel mentioned that his last posting/promotion was on 01.11.2008 as Senior Social Security Assistant. 12. We also observe record that the applicant's misconduct started from the year 1999 and continued till 2016 with regard to repeated non- performance of duty. The applicant was even accused of rape in the trial court though acquitted later on account of turning hostile of the prosecutrix and her mother during trial. The order of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 262/2020 as mentioned above is clearly distinguishable from the present case since the applicant in that case was awarded a penalty of withholding of two increments only with non-cumulative effect and since he was given promotion to the post of Senior Social Security Assistant in 2016 the Tribunal accordingly questioned how in just three years he lost complete utility to the organization and his continuation was no longer in public interest 13. It is clear from above discussions that the Review Committee's recommendation cannot be called arbitrary or without any material. The Committee's report shows the consideration of applicant's service records including the APARs, memorandums and warnings issued in past for dereliction of punctuality and diligence as well as absenteeism, applicant's general conduct reflected through registration of FIR, his arrest and subsequent acquittal by the trial court on account of turning hostile of the prosecutrix and her mother during trial. There were no promotions or any good work by the applicant in recent years which could mitigate the adverse service records or warnings etc. The Representation Committee, after examining in detail various points raised by the applicant in his representation, upheld the decision to retire the applicant under FR 56(j) [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 12 in public interest. Thus, we find no legal infirmity or violation of rules in the impugned order. 14. Considering the facts and legal aspects discussed above, we find that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.” 27. This Court is of the view that since this Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is by way of power of judicial review upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 but that does not mean that there may be any miscarriage of justice. 28. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph- 99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as under: “99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” 29. This Court, in order to assess as to whether two grounds placed before this Court, i.e., error apparent on the face of the order or element of perversity, has thought it proper to refer the power of judicial review which has also [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 13 been deliberated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is to be considered while exercising the said power only to the extent that if any order is being passed found to be having error on the face of the order or without jurisdiction or suffers from perversity. The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to be exercised. 30. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39, has held at paragraph-30 that the power of judicial review must be exercised by the Court after determining that the impugned is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and not the same has been established by a process of reasoning. Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under: "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] . ---." 31. In the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr., (1955) 1 SCR 250, their Lordship have held that the patent error in a decision can be corrected when it is manifested by the error apparent on the face of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: "11. ... An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. ...." 32. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal position it is evident that the power of judicial review can be exercised, if error on the face of the order impugned, challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, appears to be there. 33. This Court is also of the view that the reference of the provision of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule is required to be made by which the power [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 14 is to be exercised by the employer to take decision in the public interest by weeding out the deadwood. The said provision is being referred as under: “56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of less than three months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice: (i) If he is, in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years; (ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years;” 34. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the service of one or the other employee is to be dispensed with by passing the order of compulsory retirement if the service of such public servant is found not to be proper/satisfactory. 35. The pre-condition is that the service period before the age of 35 years after he has attained the age 50 years is to be considered before taking such decision. 36. This Court further deems it fit and proper to refer the judicial pronouncements in this regard. 37. The law is well settled with respect to the issue of pre mature retirement rendered by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vrs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under – “32. We may not be understood as saying either that adverse remarks need not be communicated or that the representations, if any, submitted by the government servant (against such remarks) need not be considered or disposed of. The adverse remarks ought to be communicated in the normal course, as required by the rules/orders in that behalf. Any representations made against them would and should also be dealt with in the normal course, with reasonable promptitude. All that we are saying is that the action under F.R. 56(j) (or the rule corresponding to it) need not await the disposal or final disposal of such representation or representations, as the case may be. In some cases, it may happen that some adverse remarks of the recent years are not communicated or if communicated, the representation received in that behalf are pending consideration. On this account alone, the action under F.R. 56(j) need not be held back. There is no reason to presume that the Review Committee or the government, if it chooses to take into [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 15 consideration such uncommunicated remarks, would not be conscious or cognizant of the fact that they are not communicated to the government servant and that he was not given an opportunity to explain or rebut the same. Similarly, if any representation made by the government servant is there, it shall also be taken into consideration. We may reiterate that not only the Review Committee is generally composed of high and responsible officers, the power is vested in government alone and not in a minor official. It is unlikely that adverse remarks over a number of years remain uncommunicated and yet they are made the primary basis of action. Such an unlikely situation, if indeed present, may be indicative of malice in law. We may mention in this connection that the remedy provided by Article 226 of the Constitution is no less an important safeguard. Even with its well known constraints, the remedy is an effective check against mala fide, perverse or arbitrary action. 33. At this stage, we think it appropriate to append a note of clarification. What is normally required to be communicated is adverse remarks — not every remark, comment or observation made in the confidential rolls. There may be any number of remarks, observations and comments, which do not constitute adverse remarks, but are yet relevant for the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. The object and purposes for which this power is to be exercised are well stated in J.N. Sinha [(1970) 2 SCC 458 : (1971) 1 SCR 791] and other decisions referred supra. 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (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 an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide 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 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 the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.” [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 16 38. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Raju Vrs. State of Orissa, reported in (1994) Suppl. 3 SCC 424 has been pleased to hold at paragraph-10, as under:- “10. Keeping these principles in mind and on considering the facts extracted hereinbefore we find that the exercise of power by the Government falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power or failure to take the total record of service into consideration objectively. It has taken only the solitary adverse report for the year 1987-88 as a foundation to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. The Review Committee as well considered only that report, neither earlier reports nor subsequent reports were considered. It is seen that admittedly the appellant was promoted as a Reader after the adverse report and the adverse comments were communicated to him and in a mechanical way they rejected the report (sic representation) to expunge the adverse remarks, even without going into the contention of the appellant that the then Principal was actuated with mala fides by submitting wrongly or falsely in confidential reports which appear to have some foundation or suspicion for such a contention. Consistent record earlier and later periods would establish that the appellant has meritorious record of service as a teacher and that his devotion to the service is good and fair and that he maintains discipline, good relations with the students and imparts teaching to the students fairly with good knowledge as a teacher. Therefore, in that background the exercise of the power is illegal.” 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in yet another case, as has been held in the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Gurdas Singh, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 92, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- “10. In Union of India v. V.P. Seth [1994 SCC (L&S) 1052 : (1994) 27 ATC 851 : AIR 1994 SC 1261] a decision to retire the respondent was taken on his completing fifty years of age and after perusing his record of service. He challenged this order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. The Tribunal set aside the order of premature retirement on the sole ground that certain adverse remarks made in the confidential report of the respondent had not been conveyed to him and yet they were taken into consideration in passing the impugned order. The stand of the Union of India was that the entire record of service of the respondent had been taken into consideration and it was realised that his integrity was suspect and, therefore, decision was taken to compulsorily retire him from service. This Court noticed that it would be clear that on overall assessment of the officer his integrity was found to be suspect and, therefore, it was decided to exercise the power of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that as the adverse remarks of 1985-86 and 1986-87 had not been communicated and as the earlier adverse remarks in connection with the integrity of the respondent stood eclipsed by his subsequent promotions, the authorities were not justified in terminating his services by way of compulsory retirement. Relying on two decisions of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] and C.S.N. Murthy [(1992) 2 SCC [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 17 317 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 710 : (1992) 21 ATC 664] this Court observed that the position of law has been settled and the order of the Tribunal could not be sustained as the same runs counter to the principles laid down in the said two decisions. 11. The facts in the present case are quite similar to that in Union of India v. V.P. Seth [1994 SCC (L&S) 1052 : (1994) 27 ATC 851 : AIR 1994 SC 1261] . Here also the only ground on which the order prematurely retiring Gurdas Singh was set aside was that two adverse entries after his promotion from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector were not communicated to him and earlier adverse entries could not be taken into account because even when those existed Gurdas Singh had earned his promotion. It is not necessary for us to again reiterate the principles where the Court will interfere in the order of premature retirement of an employee as these have been accurately set down by various pronouncements of this Court and particularly in Baikuntha Nath Das case [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] . Before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well.” 40. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the principle has been laid down before taking decision of compulsory retirement under the weeding out principle. 41. It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that the entire service record is to be seen for compulsory retirement in public interest and only on sole incident, it cannot be. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Hari Krishan Verma ((Civil Appeal No.4784 of 2007) reported in (2015) 13 SCC 156 has laid down the proposition at paragraph-12, as under :- “12. Coming to the case at hand, as we find from the order it has reflected on the order passed in the past, taken note of the ACRs and opined that the respondent was unfit and accordingly the order of compulsory retirement came to be issued. In this backdrop the question that has emerged for consideration is whether such an order can be treated as stigmatic? It is well settled in law that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It also does not cast a stigma. But when by any incorporation or some reference or otherwise some stigma is attached to the order of compulsory retirement, it would be treated as an order of punishment, falling in a different compartment altogether losing its features of order of compulsory retirement under the Rules or Regulations under which he is not allowed to continue after attaining a particular age.” [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 18 43. It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that while taking decision of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of one or the other public servant is required to be considered and based upon that such decision is to be taken. 44. This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect along with the rival submissions of the parties. 45. The vice of malice has been agitated since the concerned authority, i.e., the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was party to the proceeding even though he was the immediate controlling authority. The plea of biasness has not been agitated before the learned Tribunal and it is being raised for the first time before this Court. 46. It requires to refer herein that Judicial review is supervisory, not appellate. The High Court examines whether the Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, followed due process, and observed principles of natural justice. It does not function as a court of first instance for fresh factual or legal issues. In the case of in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that service tribunals function as the court of first instance in such cases, with the high court’s role limited to judicial review. 47. It is trite law that a ground not urged before the learned Tribunal cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Judicial review is not an appellate jurisdiction but a supervisory one, confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process. Save and except questions of jurisdiction or pure questions of law, the High Court will not entertain fresh issues which were never canvassed before the Tribunal. 48. In the case of M/S Bharti Airtel Limited vs. A.S. Raghavendra 2024 INSC 265 the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that as regards the power of the High Court to re-appraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court, to justify interference. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 19 49. Further the plea of biasness which is being taken is that the immediate controlling authority who has made adverse entry was also the party to the other meetings. The question of biasness or non-observance of the principles of natural justice is to be tested on the facts of each and every case individually. 50. This Court, therefore, has posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to whether he is questioning the reference of the adverse imputation as has been made in the service record so that the element of malice can be said to be available. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same cannot be since the same is available on record and even the same was communicated during the relevant time. 52. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if the factual aspect, based upon which the authorities have proceeded to pass the order of compulsory retirement on the principle of weeding out, then, the material available in the service record is to be examined thoroughly as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Hari Krishan Verma (Supra) and if such adverse entry is available having known to the concerned public servant, then, the element of malice cannot be said to be just and proper since whatever decision has been taken is based upon the scrutiny of the entire service record and based upon that, the subjective satisfaction has been raised at by applying the principle of weeding out in the public interest. 53. The narrative which has been considered by the different committees found to be available in the service record which has been considered by the different committees thoroughly is being referred as under: “(A) SH SATYENDRA KUMAR, SSSA Shri Satyendra Kumar, SSSA presently posted at DO, Sahebganj under the jurisdiction of Regional Office, Ranchi has joined EPFO on 16.06.1993 on the post of LDC in SRO, Jamshedpur. A perusal of his service book, APAR, personal as well as vigilance file, shows the following actions unbecoming of a Government Servant. These actions have been described in a chronological order. 1. A memorandum vide no. BR/SRO/JSR/Adm./Pers/387/374 dated 04.01.99 was issued to him for non performance of his duty, as he kept pending a [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 20 pension claim (Death Case) of applicant having A/C No BR/13/3371 even after it was ordered by the APFC on 19.11.98 to return the claim as there were some defects. This being a death case, top most priority should have been given by the official. Further, RPFC, not being satisfied with his explanation, directed to keep him under observation for some time before initiating disciplinary proceeding. This shows his habitual insincerity towards office work. (C 19, 20 & N 5 of personal file) Annexure Ai (Pg 1 to 3) 2. A Confidential report dated 26.05.99 submitted by Sh. N. C. Chatterjee, APFC to RPFC, Jamshedpur shows the rude behaviour of Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA towards his superiors, resulting in the issuance of a warning fide no. BR/SRO/JSR/Adm/387/128 dated 24.06.99 to Sh Satyendra humar, SSSA for his inappropriate behaviour with APFC, Sh. C. Chatterjee. This shows his arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline (C-24 & 29 of personal file) Annexure A2 (Pg 1 to 2) 3. An advice vide letter no BR/SRO/JSR/Adm/384/882 dated 24.07.2000 was issued to Sh Satyendra Kumar regarding getting his leave sanctioned well in advance before leaving Head Quarter but the official didn't bother about that advice and continued to remain absent from the office without prior sanction of leave. An explanation was called from him vide letter no BR/SRO/JSR/ADM/384/1402 dated 21.02.2001 for his habitual absence from duty. This shows his arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline. (C 38 & 55 of personal file) Annexure A3 (Pg 1 to 2) 4. Further a memorandum vide No. BR/SRO/JSR/Adm/Personal/384/550 dated 01.11.2001 was issued to him for his absence from his seat and non performance of duties assigned to him. This shows his habitual insincerity towards office work. (C-72 of personal file) Annexure A4 (Pg 1) 5. Again during the round of the office, the RPFC, JAMSHEDPUR on 28.02.2002 wanted to know the oldest pending accounts at the table of Sh Satyendra Kumar, the then UDC, but he refused to give the information. This act of the official shows nothing but insubordination and sheer contempt for the authority, for which an explanation was called for vide Memorandum No. BR/SRO/JSR/Adm./384/829 dated 28.02.2002. (C-82 of personal file) Annexure A5 (Pg 1) 6. An explanation was called from Sh Satyendra Kumar vide Memo No. JH/SRO/JSR/Cash/2005/3603 dated 08.06.2005 regarding misrepresentation of the fact before RPFC Jamshedpur and further a warning was issued to the official vide Memo No. SRO/JSR/APFC/Cash/Misc/2005 dated 17:01 2006 for completion of the work of reconciliation of EPF A/c No1 by 22.01.2006. This shows his habitual insincerity towards office work (C-135 & 136 of personnel file) Annexure A6 (Pg 1 to 2) 7. Further an incidence of misbehaviour by Sh. Satyendra Kumar with Sh A P Singh, the then PRO was reported and a memorandurn vide Issued JH/SRO/JSR/JA/06/104 dated 12.05.2006 was issued to Sh. Satyendra Kumar for misconduct committed by him intentionally with Sh A P Singh, the then PRO. This shows his arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline. (C 138 of personal file) Annexure A7 (Pg 1 to 2) 8. A JH/SRO/JSR/RPFC/Vig./07/451 dated Memorandum vide 28.01.2008 was issued to Sh Satyendra Kumar for imposition of penalty under Rule 12 of the EPF (CCA) Rule, 1971 in respect of action done by the official in contravention of the provisions laid down under the Manual of Accounting Procedure which resulted in the payment to the member for which they were [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 21 not entitled under EPS95. During settlement of two claims in respect of JH/13032/88 & JH/13032/97, Sh Satyendra Kumar, the then DA had blatantly ignored the date of joining in Form-9 and changed the date of joining so as to illegally benefit the members who were entitled for Scheme Certificate instead of withdrawal benefit. This action caused financial loss to the organization and was a violation of rule provisions. This again demonstrates his incorrigible insincerity, arrogance and utter contempt for any discipline, norms, rules and authority. (See also para-22) (C 14 to 17 of Vig file 1) Annexure A8 (Pg 1 to 4) 9. An explanation vide Memo no JH/SRO/JSR/Memo/Adm/672 dated 28.04.2009 was called from Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA for the lapses in work, as the official was responsible for making entry in service book which was incomplete. This shows his habitual insincerity towards office (C 36 of vig file 1) Annexure A9 (Pg 1) 0. On the recommendation of Zonal Vigilance Director (ZVD), a memo vide no 54 dated 29.04.2011 was issued to OIC Jamshedpur by RPFC-II (Vig.), Ranchi to initiate Departmental Proceeding under Rule 10 after withdrawing the charge memo no 451 dated 28.01.2008 issued under Rule 12 of EPF(CCA) Rule, 1971. Further, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA, the charged memorandum in JH/SRO/JSR/RPFC/Vig/07/451 dated 28.01.2008 was withdrawn and a fresh charge under Rule 10 of EPF(CCA) Rule, 1971 vide Memo no JH/SRO/JSR/RPFC/Vig./11 1070 dated 24.05.2011 was issued, (See also para-22) (C 58 & 68 of vig file 1) Annexure A10 (Pg 1 to 9) 11. An explanation was called from Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA vide No. JH/SRO/JSR/Adm/1202 dated 30.03.2012 for inaction and negligence of duty assigned to him. As the official has wilfully kept bills pending in respect of payment of commission to State Bank of India in spite of repeated direction from time to time. This shows his habitual insincerity towards office work. (C 72 of vig file 1) Annexure All (Pg 1) 12. a Further, a letter by name to Sri R. M. Verma, RPFC, Jharkhand was issued by the then RPFC-II, Jamshedpur Sh. Altamash Ali vide no JH/SRO/JSR/RPFC/VIG/SK/08/1203 dated 30.03.2012 with request to transfer Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA, a regular mischief monger from SRO Jamshedpur to DO, Chaibasa, as the official had acted in total disregard of the office interest with an intention to disrupt the functioning of the office. Accordingly, Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA was transferred to DO, Chaibasa, vide Regional Office Order no 05 dated 03.04.2012 and relieved vide SRO Jamshedpur Office Order no 01 dated 03.04.2012 (C 73 to 75 of vig tile 1) Annexure A12 (Pg 1 to 3) 13. A Complaint against Sh Satyendra Kumar from Sri Shyam Singh alias Karim Ali was received in the office with a copy of FIR as enclosure vide no 145/12 filed against Sh Satyendra Kumar and his wife at Mango Police Station. Complainant had made an allegation of outraging the modesty of a girl namely Arti (daughter of complainant) and assault on his mother and brother. (Also refer to para 14,16,19,20 & 21) (C 2 of vig file 2) Annexure A13 (Pg 1 to 3) 14. A Memorandum vide no. was JH/SRO/JSR/ADM/Pers/S.K./93/384/669 dated 10.01.2013 issued to him for his abusive language, threatening and misbehaviour with Susanta Kumar Roy, SS(Admn) on the basis of complaint filed by SS vide his letter dated 02.01.2013. Further APFC (Admn) vide his letter dated 10.01.2013 written to Thana in-Charge, Mango is also enclosed [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 22 herewith. On their request, case no 24/13 dated 10.01.2013 was registered at MANGO PS Jamshedpur against Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA. (Also refer to para 13,16,19,20 & 21) (C 203 of pers. & vig C 2, 6 & 7) Annexure A14 (Pg 1 to 7) 15. Further, it was informed to the office through FAX by Sh. Satyendra kumar, SSSA regarding his absence from the office due to death of his relative at Patna. He had requested for casual leave from 14.01.2013 to 18.01.2013 with a permission to leave the head quarter on 13.01.2013 (A/N). It was again informed through fax on 21.01.2013 to extend the leave up to 25.01.2013. In this context, office had issued a letter to Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA vide no JH/SRO/JASR/Adm/per/sk/93/394/696 dated 28/01/2013 with a direction to join the office immediately, otherwise, action to send him before medial board for the exarnination would be initiated, as the fax was done by the official from Jamshedpur itself. This shows his arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline. (C 206, 207 0 212 of pers. file) Annexure A15 (Pg 1 to 3) 16. A letter no JH/SRO/JSR/VIg/s.k.2012/1369 dated 26.02.2013 issued to the then RPFC, RO, Jharkhand in response to complaint made by Smt. Anita Devi, w/o Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA (posted at DO, Chaibasa) against Sh Shashi Kant, SSSA (posted at SRO Jamshedpur) throws light on the background of Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA. This shows that the official has a mischievous and criminal bent of mind and propensity to hatch conspiracy. (Also refer to Para 13, 16, 19, 20 & 21) (C 46 of vig file) Annexure A16 (Pg 1 to 7) 17. issued to vide Again, lapses towards his duties is reflected by the memorandum Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA JH/SRO/JSR/Adm/prs/PKS/05 dated 03/04/14 for lapses in his duties as he has not performed his duty sincerely and did not comply with the order of the penalty of stoppage of two increments for the period of two years w.e.f. 01.07.2008 in respect of Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, SSSA. Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA was the then dealing hand whose respensibilty was to implement the penalty imposed w.e.f. 01.07.2008 but the same was implemented one year later i.e. 01.07.2009. This shows his arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline. This also shows his habitual insincerity towards office work. (C 241of pers. file) Annexure A17 (Pg 1) 18. dated A Memorandum vide No. JH/SRO/JSR/ADM/431 03.09.2014 was issued to him due to absence from his seat without taking any prior permission from competent authority. This shows his habitual insincerity toward office work, arrogance, insubordination and sheer contempt for authority and any form of discipline. 19. An inquiry against Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA under Rule 10 of the EPF (CCA) Rules 1971 in terms of the provision of Rules 9 (3) of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971, was initiated vide memo JH/SRO/JSR/vig./SK 12/1726 dated 18.03.2015 for cheating and sexual exploitation of a lady by name of Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma, D/o Sh Bandhu Vishwakarma of Garikhana, Chaibasa, East Singhbhum through false promise of marrying her. Having been cheated and exploited by Shri Satyendra Kumar, the concerned lady, Ms. Rajni Viswakarma filed a criminal case vide no. 21/15, dated 05.03.2015 (u/s 417/376/377 of IPC) with the Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa. In the loged FIR dated 05/03/2015, Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma stated that Shri Satyendra Kumar while functioning as SSSA at SRO (Now RO), Jamshedpur befriended her with ulterior motives and later extracted amounts of Rs 23,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs 30,000/- (Cash) from her. Of these three amounts, the first two ones got deposited in S B. Account of Shri Satyendra Kumar, SSSA maintained with SBI, This was done by Shri Satyendra Kumar on the promise of marrying Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma and to get the pregnancy [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 23 of Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma terminated which was a result of their physical intimacy. In this process, he took Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma to different places like Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Kolkata etc. and stayed there as live-in-partners and also used to remain in contact through his cell Phone no 9470355238 with Ms. Rajni Vishwakarma on her Cell Phone 8877693909 Shri Satyendra Kumar, Sr.SSA has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of CBT in violation of Rule-3(1) (i), (ii) and 3(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of EPFO in terms of Regulations 27 of the EPF (Staff and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1962 and Regulations 18 and 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees' conditions of Services) Regulations, 2008". (Also see Paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 20, 21 & 24) (C 79 TO 90, 135,137&154 OF VIG FILE) Annexure A19 (Pg 1 to 16) 20. Again a letter no JH/SRO/JSR/Vig/S.K/2012/1727 dated 19.03.2015 issued to RPFC, Jharkhand by the OIC of the then SRC. Jamshedpur regarding the conduct and character of Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA with a request to change the head-quarter of the official and take a decisive stand to keep the office atmosphere peaceful. This again demonstrates that the official is an inveterate miscreant not fit for even a civilised society, not to talk of a being a public servant. (Also see Paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 19 & 21) (vig. C 97) Annexure A20 (Pg 1 to 6) 21. Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA was deemed suspended vide letter no JH/SRO/JSR/Vig/ SK/2012/50 dated 20.07.2015 in the light of his arrest at 6.00 AM on 17.07.2015 and sent to jail on that very day by the police Authority, Chaibasa Sadar in connection with Criminal Case No 21/15 (u/s 417/376/377 of IPC) as mentioned at point 19 above. (Also see Paragraphs 13, 14, 16, 19 & 20) (Vig. C 157) Annexure A21 (Pg 1) 22. In the matter of Disciplinary Proceedings (as mentioned at point 10 above) in respect of Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of "CENSURE" upon Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA in order to mete out justice for the lack of devotion to duty by him as established during the proceedings and also ordered to recover an upto-date interest on the overpaid amount at the prevailing rate from the salary as the amount paid as withdrawal benefit had been recovered from the salary of charged official (Dealing Assistant Share) on the overpaid amount. (C 277 OF pers. file) Annexure A22 (Pg 1 to 3) 23. Although, Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA was acquitted by the District and Session Judge- I, Chaibasa vide order dated 30.01.2017, the acquittal has to be examined in the light of CVC guidelines and court judgements. The direction issued by Central Vigilance Commission on 1st July 2018 is crystal clear. In aforesaid circular, the commission states the following: "The departmental proceedings are unduly delayed by Departments/Organizations by keeping them in abeyance on the ground that the matter is under trial in the Court. Such an approach in finalizing disciplinary matters is a matter of serious concern and is also not a correct approach. The Disciplinary Authority has been vested with the powers to carry out its statutory duty/obligations by initiation of appropriate departmental actions. This is as much to ensure that a delinquent public servant does not get undue benefit either by the long pendency of court proceedings or by the higher standards of proof required as it is to protect innocent public servant from vexatious proceedings. It is not open to Disciplinary Authority to await the outcome or decision of investigating/ prosecuting agency or the Court trial" [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 24 In the same circular, the Central Vigilance Commission mentions a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in states of Rajasthan Vs B.K.Meena & ors (1996) 6SCC 417: "It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings if he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to low. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, ie., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings". In this regard Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training issued a circular dated 21 July 2016 which is relevant to the case. The relevant extract of the case being reproduce..... "In Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court has observed that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately "The issue was explained in the following words by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the following words in Ajit Kumar nag Vs GM, (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764: Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force. The proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to records the commission of delinquency are different. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation". 24. Inquiry was conducted and inquiry Officer has submitted his repon on 28.12.2018. Based on Inquiry Officer report, Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA was awarded the penalty of" withholding of 07 increments of pay with cumulative effect" by the Disciplinary Authority in the light of disciplinary proceeding under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971 vide order no JH/RO/RNC/vig/Satyendra Kr/2015/34/5654 dated. 17.05.2019. Annexure A23 (pg 1 to 45) 35 Annexure A24 (Pg 1 to 17) 25. In APAR of the official for the year 2000-2001, the Reviewing Officer has remarked that "his table is not kept up to date. Evades hard work && does [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 25 not sign the scrolis. Not more than 10 letters are typed in a day". Later on, the adverse remarks were expunged by the competent authority with an advice to attend the work allotted to him with sincerity and devotion. In the year 2017-18, it was pointed by the Reporting and Reviewing officer that the official has hardly performed the duty, his performance in processing of PD files was too abysmal. He was awarded numerical grading 3.6 (ZERO) by both the officers which remained unchanged even after the representation of the official. And in the year 2018-19, he got numerical grading 3.9 (ZERO) by the Reporting as well as Reviewing Officer. The Reviewing officer remarked that "the official is not very conversant with computer. As most of the works are being done electronically now, he is not able to the work smoothly, sincerely and sense of responsibility towards work is below average. Communication skill is satisfactory. Training may be given in computer related work," Annexure A25 (Pg 1 to 11) Conclusion The misdeeds and misconducts of the official Sh. Satyendra Kumar, SSSA are far too numerous to be counted. The above mentioned-incidents of indiscipline, insincerity, lack of dedication to the work. misbehaviour, criminal conducts are only those which have been reported and are available on the files. There may be numerous other misconducts which might have gone unreported. Just compiling and narrating his misconducts has been an onerous and painful task. The mind of any sane person would go numb thinking about as to how such a person who is unfit to be a member of a Civilized society has managed to enter a public service and survive for so long. It is a matter of regret that such a person who has wreaked havoc in his office and society has been a part of our organisation. It is also a matter of regret that such an official has escaped the implications of violating all conducts rules with impunity and that too in a repeated manner. Thus the Committee members are of the firm opinion that Sh Satyendra Kumar, SSSA is found FIT for compulsory retirement under FR-56 J (B) SH PRADEEP KUMAR, SSSA Shri Pradeep kumar, SSSA presently posted at DO, Dhanbad under the jurisdiction of Regional Office, Ranchi has joined EPFO on 01.02.1990 as LDC. The perusal of APAR of Sh Pradeep Kumar, SSSA for the year 2018-19 shows that the official is not able to discharge the work assigned to him properly. Being a handicapped, limited work has been assigned to vide DO/DHN/him. Further, Memorandum ADM/Memorandum/2019/350 dated 18.09.2019 issued to him regarding non- performance of duty indicates that his performance is below the normal standard which is adversely affecting the work & performance of District Office, Dhanbad. The Committee is of the opinion that the official has outlived his utility to the organization. Therefore, he should be compuzisorily retired under FR 56(J) and Rule 48 of (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Annexure E (pages 1to 5)” 54. It is evident that in the entire service career, several adverse entries have been made as recorded in the service record of the applicant. It further appears that all the adverse inputs were communicated to the petitioner during the relevant time. But, at no point of time, the same was challenged by the petitioner, meaning thereby, whatever adverse entries have been recorded, the same has been accepted by the petitioner. [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 26 55. The question of subjective satisfaction is of paramount consideration for the purpose of weeding out the deadwood. Law has been laid down as referred hereinabove, as such, this Court is of the view that as per the requirement, the entire service record is to be taken into consideration thoroughly and then only, it is to be said that the authorities have come out with the subjective satisfaction. 56. This Court has only assessed as to whether the learned Tribunal has considered the element of subjective satisfaction based upon the imputation which has been recorded in the service record or not. 57. This Court is of the view that by going through the reference of the imputation/adverse entries which has been made in the service record, the same has been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and based upon that the Tribunal has come to the conclusive finding that the authorities have come to the subjective satisfaction before issuance of the impugned orders. 58. The question of grant of promotion has been agitated by advancing the ground that the moment the petitioner was granted promotion, all the imputation made in the service record will be washed away. 59. This Court is of the view that such argument is not worth to be accepted reason being that when the law is made applicable on the spirit of weeding out to go through the service record thoroughly in the public interest to adjudge as to whether any public servant is to be retained in the public service or not at the cost of public interest, then, merely grant of one promotion will not dilute the other adverse entries which has already been recorded in the service record rather the principle is that the decision is to be taken by going through the entire service record thoroughly and then only the subjective satisfaction is to be arrived at as to whether by merely grant of one promotion, the other conduct which has been taken note as has been recorded in the service record, can be given go-by or not. 60. Herein, although the promotion was granted in the year 2001 but the adverse entry which has been recorded as has been taken note by the committees for making ground of weeding out principle, in such circumstances, if the authority has come to the satisfaction that merely on [2026:JHHC:14956-DB] Page | 27 account of grant of one promotion, the other adverse entry which has been recorded in the service record cannot be diluted. 61. The requirement of such subjective satisfaction, therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from error and the learned Tribunal has also taken the same view. 62. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5331 of 2025 fails and stands dismissed. 63. In consequence of the dismissal of the said writ petition, another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2026 also stands dismissed. 64. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree, (Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 14th May, 2026 Saurabh/- A.F.R. Uploaded on 15.05.2026