New Delhi, Sep 22 (PTI) The Delhi High Court Wednesday dismissed a plea by an IRS officer challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had refused to interfere with the government's decision of compulsorily retiring him in 2019.

The high court said the Central government has to weed out the dead woods and those who are not useful into the services and interested only in litigation in courts and not obeying the orders of the government during their service tenure.

Also Read | Bengal BJP Chief Prevented from Campaigning Near CM’s Residence Read: … – Latest Tweet by IANS India.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice V Kameswar Rao, in its 49-page judgement, said it was in full agreement with the reasons given by the tribunal in its 2020 verdict and added that the petitioner has already been compulsorily retired since June 2019, that is, approximately for the last 27 months, he is not into the government service.

It said even if the employee has succeeded in one or two cases or a few cases against the Central government, that does not make him a ‘compulsory retirement proof' employee.

Also Read | Pune Shocker: Man Beats Wife To Death in Yerawada; Arrested.

"There can be waterproof tents or heatproof houses but there cannot be ‘compulsory retirement proof employee' even if he has succeeded in a few cases against the Central government,” it said.

The bench said compulsory retirement is absolutely an independent decision arrived at by the review committee keeping in mind the entire service record of the petitioner and his usefulness into the services of the authorities.

“In the 34 years span of his career, for 20 years, the petitioner has been busy in litigation with the respondents. The conduct of the petitioner has shaken the confidence of the respondents to post him on public posts which involves public dealing,” it said while dismissing the appeal filed by IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.

The bench said order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it attach any stigma to an employee and added that the petitioner had developed a tendency of not following government instructions of writing Annual Performance Appraisal Reports.

“Thus, after considering all these materials available on record including relating to the departmental inquiries against the petitioner and taking a holistic view of the record, the review committee concluded that conduct of the petitioner is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest.

“Hence, the services of the petitioner are no longer useful to the general administration. The conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a public servant and obstructs efficiency in public services. Therefore, the review committee had recommended that the petitioner be compulsorily retired in the public interest under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules,” it said.

The court said power is given to the government to energise its machinery and to make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those, who in its opinion should not be into the services in the public interest and that there is no ban or bar for the authorities that no compulsory retirement order can be passed whenever there is quashing of the charges in any litigation between an employee and the Central government.

“What is to be seen is an overall assessment of the performance of an employee and his usefulness into the services and not one or two matters and decisions in those matters. This opinion is a subjective satisfaction of the review committee. In the present case, there is no procedural error committed by the review committee while taking the decision under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules,” the bench said.

It further said even if there are observations about malice in law while deciding a few matters between the Petitioner and Union of India, that does not mean that there is presence of malice when the review committee has taken a decision.

The court said from the very inception into the government service till the age of 50 years there is enough and ample scope for an employee to improve his performance to prove his faithfulness and loyalty to the authorities, to make his services necessary and useful to the government for the rest of the years of his service.

“Government is taking the work from honest hands and dishonest hands. Sometimes they are enthusiastic and sometimes they are lethargic. Sometimes there is combination of both, that is, honest man may be lethargic and dishonest man may be enthusiastic, but, all these employees for any reason whatsoever, sometimes because of even quashing of the charges against them, they have been continued into services, but, enough is enough,” it said.

The court said after a prescribed age of an employee, there is an assessment by the government through the review committee and if looking to the entire service record of the employee, his performance and usefulness into the remaining services, if he is to be weeded out, the Union of India has all powers, jurisdiction and authority under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules to make such an employee compulsory retired, even if there is acquittal from some of the charges levelled against him by the government.

The court said there are serious allegations against the petitioner of corruption and disproportionate assets including CBI cases for which sanction was given for prosecution and the SLPs are pending before the Supreme Court.

The court noted that not only the petitioner but as many as 64 persons have been compulsorily retired by the government.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)