OA NO. 1181/2021 – SATYAKAM V.

M/o DEFENCE BEFORE CAT, PB, NEW DELHI– LISTED

ON 16.11.2021

PRAYER@PAGE 18 of the OA.

a. Allow the present Original Application.
b. Quash the impugned Order No. 581/Review/Per/G/S dated 26.03.2021 whereby three months
notice was given to the Applicant to pre mature / compulsory retirement from the services.
c. Call for the records of all documents on the basis of which impugned order dated 26.03.2021
was being passed;

LIST OF DATES

Dates Events
01.06.1998 Applicant joined Indian Ordnance Factory on the post ot AWM(OP) in the grade of
JTS.
15.10.1999 Transferred to Ordnance Factory Badmal

14.01.2003 Transferred to Ammunition Factory Khadki

01.04.2009 Granted Up-gradation to STS (NF).

19.12.2012 Promoted to Junior Administrative Grade (F).

09.04.2016 Transferred to Ordnance factory Chanda.

22.08.2016 Granted NFU to SAG pay scale.

12.06.2019 Advise letter No. AGM/NKA/Instructions/2019 sent by AGM, OFCH to applicant on

account of delay in clearing specification for fabrication of Water Tender.
Annexure R-3 @Pg 12.06.2019
15.07.2019 Reviewed by review Committee as he was about to attain age of 50 years.
Decision was made to retain the Applicant. The review committee took note of
the adverse remarks in APAR 2010-11, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18. It was
however opined that the remarks were advisory in nature and he was
recommended to be fit to continue service.

Year Adverse Remarks Representations/Dispos

al

2017-18 “Though a knowledgeable officer, he needs to improve his Nil

ability to work in a team spirit. He also needs to improve
his ability to develop and guide his subordinates”.

2016--17 “Officer has to adopt better team building approach by Nil

keeping the subordinates motivated for better results”.

2015-16 “The officer can improve his performance drastically if he Shri Satyakam has
settles the intersectional/inter-departmental issues of trivial preferred a
nature through discussions across the table rather than representation on APAR
entering into avoidable written communications. If the for the period 2015-16,
officer develops and guides his subordinates by using soft which has been
skills, the subordinates will be motivated and give better considered and
results by working in a team”. rejected by Competent
Authority at OFB and
same has been
communicated vide
OFB memorandum No.
410/S/PER/G Dated
09.05.2018.

2014-15 “The officer needs to develop leadership quality. He is Nil

required to pay attention towards developing the
subordinates working with him. At times, he behaves
arrogantly. He requires to pay attention towards
maintaining relations with outside agencies like-SQAE, NAI,
Account officer. He requires to take more initiative in his
work”.

2010-11 “He has yet to contribute significantly and his best is yet to Nil
come”.
19.03.2020 to Several complaints received against the Applicant. Details @Pg 14-15 of the CA
08.03.2021
21.07.2020 & Advisory Letters dated 21.07.2020 (Insubordination) – Annexure R-4 @Pg 45
28.07.2020 of the CA
& 28.07.2020 (defacing official communication) - Annexure R-15 of the Sur-
rejoinder @Pg 12-13 issued to the Applicant.
28.08.2020 DoPT issued OM DoPT No. 25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV stating that there is no bar
on the Government to review any such case again in public interest where it was
decided earlier to retain the officer in case of changed circumstances. Authority to
show ‘visible meticulousness’ in such review. Annexure R-1 @Pg 23 of the CA
28.10.2020 Applicant transferred to Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu.

08.03.2021 2nd Review Committee Meeting Held at OFB Kolkata.

26.03.2021 Impugned Order under FR 56(j) passed and served to Applicant. Annexure A-1
@Pg 21 of the Petition
19.04.2021 Representation made by the Applicant against the Order dated 26.03.2021
Annexure A-11 @Pg 121
04.06.2021 OA No. 1181/2021 filed by the Applicant

02.07.2021 Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondents.

05.08.2021 Rejoinder filed by the Applicant

11.09.2021 Sur-rejoinder filed by the Respondents.

MATERIAL CONSIDERED BY REVIEW COMMITTEE –

1. APAR of year 2018-19 and adverse comments by reporting officer NK Aggarwal, AGM, OFCH
‘may like to maintain harmonius industrial relations…’ ‘may like to maintain cordial relations
with subordinate and peers.’
2. Inputs from superiors –
i. NK Aggarwal – issued advisory after counselling but no signs of improvement @Pg 4
of the CA – Advisory dated 12.06.2019 @ Annexure R-3 - Pg 44 of the CA
ii. Sanjeev Bhola – Reporting officer for period of June 2020 to October 2020 – Officer
refuses to take responsibility – shows verbal displeasure – argumentative and shows
no improvement despite counselling and advisories. @Pg 5,6 of the CA – Advisory
letters @Annexure R-4 - Pg 45 of the CA @Annexure R-15 @Pg 12-13 of Sur-
rejoinder.
iii. Rajeev Puri, GM of OFCH – Officer shows insubordination and refuses to take advice
or improve – shown misconduct and no efforts to change attitude – arrogant,
argumentative and rigid – likely to have adverse impact on the grooming personality
and development of subordinates.
3. Committee noted that Applicant in the habit of returning official correspondence without
proper without proper action, while defacing the communication. List of communication
@Pg 8 of the CA.
4. Committee noted complaints made by Applicant against various officers wherein he has
made allegations without any supporting evidence, directly asked the chairman to inform
him of the status of his complaint, illegally recording conversations with juniors on call and
forwarding the same. @Para 8 of the CA
5. Committee noted complains received against the Applicant from other officers. Applicant
was seeking info about day to day working of OF Chanda despite being transferred.
Pressurising officials on phone. Distracting the officers with repeated emails and calls.
Intimidating tone and tenor of calls and emails. Created unconductive environment and
disturbed officers in discharging their duties. @Para 14 of the CA
6. Further, complaints were received where applicant had recording informal conversations
with a junior without knowledge, amounting to breach of privacy. Applicant showed
disrespect towards competent authority. Instigated his head of section to not work after
office timings. Misbehaving with senior officials, disturbing the morale of the factory. @Para
14 of the CA
REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS @PG PARA 12.6 – PG 15 OF THE CA

(i) The Applicant had been recently transferred on administrative grounds from Ordnance
Factory Chanda to Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu vide order dated 27.10.2020 after receipt
of a communication dated 20.10.2020 from the factory wherein it was reported that Shri
Satyakam had become habitual of conduct(s) that are not only prejudicial to the interests
of higher authorities but also to the reputation of senior officers.
(ii) The Applicant instead of focusing on improving his own skill set, competency, efficiency
and performance, often renders unsolicited advice to others, even outside his area of
responsibility.
(iii) Besides above, he has also been instigating others especially his juniors to indulge in
nuisance, non-productive work which is totally against the team spirit required and
expected of a senior officer like him.
(iv) He has grossly misused official email provided to him by sending unsolicited email with
unfounded allegations to several senior officers of OFB demanding to be intimated of the
action taken on his mails & threatening to report to other authorities in case the same was
not done.
(v) The entries in APAR dossier spread over a long span and made by different senior officers
as mentioned above bring out following main points:
a) That the Applicant has been having serious issues which impede his functioning as a
team member.
b) The officer shows insubordination and refuses to take the advice in right sprit as an
input for improvement.
c) The officer is argumentative, arrogant and rigid in his attitude.
d) The officer expresses inability to manage routine tasks and not completing the
assigned work in time bound manner.
(vi) There has been a progressive decline in the overall attitude of the Applicant. He continues
to create nuisance and divert attention from productive action. This has been having a
seriously adverse impact on the morale of others in the team/unit.
(vii) The continuity of the Applicant in the service is likely to have an adverse impact on the
grooming, personality development and overall growth of his subordinates. It may also
encourage others to follow in his step, which shall be detrimental to system in the long
run.

POINTS IN REJOINDER
1. Adverse comments in APARs not endorsed by Reviewing and Accepting authority. @Pg 2 of
the Rejoinder
2. The comments in APAR for 2019-20 are similar to earlier comments which were earlier
considered to be advisory in nature in earlier review.
3. Respondents have mislead the court by stating ‘several complaints’ whereas only 2
complaints dated 19.02.2021 and 20.02.2021 were received against the Applicant as stated
in Para 12.5 a & b of the CA. (Para 10 @Pg 5 of rejoinder)
4. If officer found to be shirking responsibility, then why no advisory was issued to him in that
regard when his APAR is Very Good for 2018-19 and 2019-20. (Para 10 @Pg 6 of
rejoinder)
5. 2nd Review based on frivolous and unverified complaints. Extraneous material considered.
(Para 10 @Pg 6 of rejoinder)
6. APAR 2019-20 i.e the latest performance appraisal was not taken into considered despite
being complete when the review was undertaken. (Para 11-12 @Pg 7)
7. Endorsing remarks suddenly at the end of year without advisory and without putting any
advisory is against principles of natural justice. (Para 11 @Pg 7)
8. Applicant brought complaint against senior officers for misusing vehicles. One of the officers
was NK Aggarwal, who was also the reporting officer for apart 2017-18 and 18-19. (Para
11 @Pg 8)
9. Re: 12.06.2019 advisory @Pg 44 of the CA : Work completed by 14.06.2019. Applicant
was on leave and work required application of mind. Could not be done without due
diligence. (Para 12-12.4 @Pg 9)
10. Only opinion of officers where applicant was posted till October 2020 was taken. Opinion of
officers from Cordite factory, Aruvanakadu not taken, where he was posted for last six
months preceding the review. Amounts to cherry picking. (@Pg 10)
11. NK Aggarwal is seeking revenge indirectly. Possibility of biasness not ruled out. Review
Committee ought to have considered the serious complaints made by the Applicant against
senior officials. (Para 12-12.4 @Pg 11)
12. NK Aggarwal being mentioned as Reporting Officer is misleading. He was not reporting
officer for the year 2019-20. He is not authorized to assess the performance of the
Applicant. (@Pg 14)
13. Opinion of SK Bhola obtained, who was not being regularly reported to by applicant,
whereas GSR Prabhakar’s remarks not taken into consideration, to whom applicant was
regularly reporting. (@Pg 14)
14. Remarks from Reviewing officer Rajnish Lodwal not obtain for the period of April 2020 to
June 2020. (@Pg 15)
15. Review Committee cannot hold that the allegations made by Applicant were ‘ without any
supporting evidence’. No basis for the same. Review Committee cannot sit on judgement
and reject the complaint of the Applicant summarily. (@Pg 19)
16. Review Committee decision based on biased remarks and two frivolous complaints of
officers in previous units. (@Pg 22)

POINTS IN SUR-REJOINDER

1. Counter affidavit based on documentary evidence i.e. APAR reports, junior officer’s
submissions qua breach of privacy and instigating in activities detrimental to Government
Interest. (@Para 6 -Pg 2 of CA)
2. Even DPC did not find him competent to be promoted to SAG level for the 2021 panel.
(@Para 6 -Pg 2 of CA) Letter dated 06.08.2021 – Annexure R-14 – Pg 11 of
Rejoinder.
3. Time for completion of APAR was extended upto 31.03.2021 by DoPT for year 2019-20 in
light of Covid-19 vide OM no. 21011/02/2015-Estt(A-II)-Part II dated 11.06.2020. (Para 7
@Pg 3) The performance review under Rule 56j was done on 08.03.2021 therefore the
processing of APAR for year 2019-20 was incomplete and hence could not be considered by
the review committee. APAR was accepted only on 07.04.2021 (@Para 14 @Pg6)
4. Comments from all reporting officers for the year 2019-20 were obtained –
Name of Officer Controlling Officer Period
Shri Satyakam Shri N K Aggarwal, AGM 15/04/2019 to
13/08/2019
Shri Satyakam Shri G S R Prabhakar, AGM 14/08/2019 to
21/06/2020
Shri Satyakam Shri G S R Prabhakar, AGM 22/06/2020 to
& Shri S K Bhola, AGM 09/09/2020

Shri Satyakam Shri S K Bhola, AGM 10.09.2020 to

release

NK Aggarwal was the reporting officer for more than 3 months. Being senior to GSR
Prabhakar, his remarks are vital. (Para 7 @Pg 4)
5. It is untrue to state that the Applicant’s performance was ‘Outstanding’ in APAR 2019-20.
(6.81) @Pg 32 of the Rejoinder. (Para 7 @Pg 4)
6. Applicant has selectively highlighted Para 12.5 a & b of the CA and conveniently not taken
note of communications mentioned in Para 12.1, 12.4A & B of the CA i.e Advisory Letters –
Annexures R-3 and R-4 of the Counter Affidavit. (Para 12 @Pg 5 )
7. Contradictory statement – Applicant asserting that he had made a complaint against
unauthorized use of vehicles whereas vide email dated 28.12.2020 the Applicant had stated
that he has not made any complaint. (Para 13 @Pg 5 – Annexure R-16 @Pg 14.
8. Applicant has complains of instigating junior officers not to work beyond working hours.
Applicant records calls with junior officers without authorization and forwards them to other
officers. There are unrecorded instances of arrogant behavior with senior officers. (Para 16
@Pg 6)
9. From statements of the Applicant it is evident that he works with an isolated mindset.
Interpersonal skills and cordial relations are essential for better teamwork and output. (Para
16 @Pg 6)

Judgments -

Nisha Priya “54…. It is settled law that the scope of judicial Para 54, 71
Bhatia vs. Union review is very limited in cases of compulsory @Pg 88 , 97
of India, C.A. No. retirement and is permissible on the limited grounds
2365/2020 such as non-application of mind or mala fides.
Regard can be had to Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of
Jharkhand and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 693. The above-
quoted set of events are so eloquent that it leaves
us with no other conclusion but to hold that the
action of compulsory retirement was the just option.
Assuming that some other option was also possible,
it would not follow that the decision of the
competent authority to compulsorily retire the
Appellant was driven by extraneous, malicious,
perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations.
71. The decision to retire an officer compulsorily is
purely an executive function exercised in light of the
prevailing circumstances. The scrutiny by the Court
is restricted to an examination of whether such
order is smitten by mala fides or extraneous
considerations.”

Ram Murti Yadav “6…… The scope for judicial review of an order of Para 6 @Pg
vs. State of Uttar compulsory retirement based on the subjective 116
Pradesh and satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow
Others reported in and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on
(2020) 1 SCC 801 arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by
malafides, overlooks relevant materials, could there
be limited scope for interference. The court, in
judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the
same as an Appellate Authority. Principles of natural
justice have no application in a case of compulsory
retirement.”
O.A. No. 703/2020 “20. At the end of the day, an order of compulsory Para
dated 09.12.2020 – retirement is the result of an administrative exercise 20,21,24
Pramod Kumar undertaken by the concerned authority. Such orders @Pg 129,
Bajaj are no doubt amenable to judicial review.. However, 131
the scope thereof is some what restricted and
limited.
21. What the Courts are to be satisfied is about the
existence of the material, compared to the nature or
content of the material.
24. Fundamental Rule 56 (j) empowers the
Government to retire the employees, in case of
Group-A and B, who cross 50 years of age on
compulsory basis, if it is found that their
continuance is not in public interest. Not only the
judicial pronouncements but also administrative
decisions and circulars issued from time to time,
have thrown light on the interpretation of the
provision.”

O.A. No. 1835 of “23.The verification, in matters of this nature, would Para 23, 38
2020, Ashok be as to whether there existed any material at all to @Pg 152,
Kumar Agarwal vs. enable the appointing authority, to form the 157
Union of India & opinion, which of course, is nothing but subjective
Ors satisfaction. The Tribunal, however, cannot go into
the adequacy of the material.
 …
38. The situation may not have existed for
imposition of penalty. However, the gist of
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court on the
subject is to the effect that the overall record of the
employee can certainly be taken into account. At
the end of the day, it is subjective satisfaction of
the appointing authority, which in turn is not easily
available for judicial review, compared to other
administrative decisions.”

O.A. No. 2990 of “14. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Para 14
2019, Atul Dikshit Court held that an order of compulsory retirement @Pg 167
vs. Union of India passed, by invoking FR 56 (j) is not a punishment
& Ors. and the judicial review of such order, is highly
restricted. It is only when a plea of malafides is
taken and proved to the satisfaction of the Court or
when it is shown that there did not exist any
material whatever to warrant invocation of such
extraordinary provision, that it may become
feasible, to review such orders. It was also
mentioned that the ACRS/APARs need not be the
sole guiding factor and that the appointing authority
would be entitled to take a comprehensive view
based on the evaluation of the entire service
record.”

Shyam Lal v. State “an officer who is compulsorily retired does not lose Para 18
of U.P, 1955 1 SCR any part of the benefit that he has earned. On @Pg 178
26: AIR 1954 SC compulsory retirement he will be entitled to the
369 pension etc. that he has actually earned. There is
5 Judge’s Bench no diminution of the accrued benefit. It is said that
compulsory retirement, like dismissal or removal,
deprive the officer of the chance of serving and
getting his pay till he attains the age of
superannuation and thereafter to get an enhanced
pension and this is certainly a punishment. It is true
that wide sense the officer may consider himself
punished but there is clear distinction between the
loss of benefit already earned and the loss of
prospect of earning something more. In the first
case it is a present and a certain loss and certainly a
punishment but the loss of future prospect is too
uncertain, for the officer may die or be otherwise
incapacitated from serving a day longer and cannot,
therefore, be regarded in the eye of law as a
punishment. The more important thing is to see by
compulsory retirement the officer loses the benefit
he has earned as he does by dismissal or removal.
The answer is clearly in the negative”
Union of India v. 9. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by Para 9, 12
M.E Reddy & the Government of India it would appear that the @Pg 185,
Another, reported order fully conforms to all the conditions mentioned 187
in 1980 (2) SCC in Rule 16 (3). It is now well settled by a long
15 catena of authorities of this Court that compulsory
retirement after the employee has put in a sufficient
number of years of service having qualified for full
pension is neither a punishment nor a stigma so as
to attract the provisions of Art. 311 (2) of the
Constitution. In fact, after an employee has served
for 25 to 30 years and is retired on full pensionary
benefits, it cannot be said that he suffers any real
prejudice. The object of the Rule is to weed out the
 dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of
efficiency and initiative in the State Services. It is
not necessary that a good officer may continue to
be efficient for all times to come. It may be that
there may be some officers who may possess a
better initiative and higher standard of efficiency
and if given chance the work of the Government
might show marked improvement. In such a case
compulsory retirement of an officer who fulfils the
conditions of Rule 16 (3) is undoubtedly in public
interest and is not passed by way of punishment.
Similarly, there may be cases of officers who are
corrupt or of doubtful integrity and who may be
considered fit for being compulsorily retired in public
interest, since they have almost reached the fag
end of their career and their retirement would not
cast any aspersion nor does it entail any civil
consequences.
Union of India v. “9….in certain key post public interest may require Para 9 @Pg
Colonel J.N. Sinha, that a person of undoubted ability and integrity 200
reported in 1970 should be there”
(2) SCC 458
State of U.P. v. “15. The aforesaid decisions unmistakably lay down Para 15
Vijay Kumar Jain, that the entire service record of a government @Pg 209
(2002) 3 SCC 641 servant could be considered by the Government
while exercising the power under FR 56(c) of the
Rules with emphasis on the later entries. FR 56(c)
of the Rules read with Explanation (2), empowers
the State Government with an absolute right to
retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years.
It cannot be disputed that the dead wood need to
be removed to maintain efficiency in the service.
Integrity of a government employee is foremost
consideration in public service. If a conduct of a
government employee becomes unbecoming to the
public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public
services, the Government has an absolute right to
compulsorily retire such an employee in public
interest. The Government's right to compulsorily
retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency
in public service and while doing so the Government
is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into
account the entire service record, character roll or
confidential report with emphasis on the later
entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact,
entire service record, character roll or confidential
report furnishes the materials to the Screening
Committee or the State Government, as the case
may be, to find out whether a government servant
has outlived his utility in service. It is on
consideration of totality of the materials with
emphasis on the later entries in the character roll,
the Government is expected to form its opinion
whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired
or not.”
 YEAR Page
2014-15 (6.6) 67 of the Petition
2015-16 (6.1) 50 of the Petition
2016-17 (7.0) 36 of the Petition
2017-18 (7.0) 28 of the Petition
2018-19 (6.51) 22 of the Petition
2019-20 (6.81) 28 of the Rejoinder
APAR