No.25013/0 I /2013-Estt.A-1V Government of India Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training
Establishment A-1V Desk **St** North Block, New Delhi Dated Il th September,
2015.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM.
Subject: Strengthening of
administration-Periodical review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972.
The undersigned is
directed to refer to this Department's OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated
21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS
(Pension) Rules. 2. Various instructions issued on the subject deal with
compulsory retirement under the above mentioned provisions. The Supreme Court
has observed in State of Gtyaral Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 as
follows:
(i)
Whenever the services of a public servant are no
longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily
retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii)
(ii)
Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a
punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii)
(iii) "For better administration, it is
necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the
officer."
(iv)
(iv) Any
adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be
given due weightage in passing such order.
(v)
(v) Even
un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into
consideration.
(vi)
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall
not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is
more desirable.
(vii)
(vii) If
the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the
confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii)
(viii)
Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 3. In every
review, the entire service records should be considered. The expression
'service record' will take in all relevant records and hence the review should
not be confined to the consideration of the ACR / APAR dossier. The personal
file of the officer may contain valuable material. Similarly, the work and
performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt
with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would
be useful if the Ministry/Department puts together all the data available about
the officers and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review
Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs may be taken into
consideration. 4. In the case of those officers who have been promoted during
the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken into account
if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on
the basis of merit. -2- 5. As far as integrity is considered, the following
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may, while upholding compulsory
retirement in a case, may be kept in view: The officer would live by reputation
built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence
to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct
and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to
public service and•iniurious to public interest. S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State
of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC 424] Thus while considering integrity of an employee,
actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above
board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions,
for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental
proceedings, may be taken into account. Judgement of the Apex Court in the case
of Shri K. Kandaswamy, L.P.S. (TN:1966) in K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India
& Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6) 162 is relevant here. There were
persistent reports of Shri Kandaswamy acquiring large assets and of his getting
money from his subordinates. He also indulged in property transactions which
gave rise to suspicion about his bonafides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld
his compulsory retirement under provisions of the relevant Rules. 6. Similarly,
reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for
compulsory retirement. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of U.P.And
Others vs Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002: If 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. 7. Many changes in the
nomenclature and in the areas of responsibility of various
departments/Ministries have taken place. In order to simplify and speed up the
procedure of review, a need is felt to reconstitute the Review Committees. In
partial modification of the OM 25013/15/86-Estt (A) dated 27/06/1986, it has
been decided that the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities will
constitute Review Committees consisting of two Members at appropriate level.
The Review Committees in the case of various levels of employees will be as
under: (A) In case of officers holding Group A posts: (a) In r/o ACC
appointees: Review Committee may be headed by the Secretary of the concerned
Ministry/Department as Cadre Controlling Authority. (b) In r/o Non-ACC
appointees: (i) Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, Postal
Board, Telecom Commission, etc. the Review Committee may be headed by the
Chairman of such Board. -3- (ii) Where no such Boards/Comrnissions exist, the Review
Committee may be headed by Secretary of the. Ministry/Department. (B) In case
of Group B (Gazetted) officers: Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level
officer will head the Review Committee. (C) In the case of Non-Gazetted
employees: (i) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the
Committee. However in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a
Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will
be the head. (ii) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralized
cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organization shall decide the
composition of the Review Committee. 8. CVO in the case of gazetted officers,
or his representative in the case of non-gazetted officers, will be associated
in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee. 9. hi
addition to the above, the Secretary of the Ministry/Department is also
empowered to constitute internal committees to assist the Review Committees in
reviewing the cases. These Committees will ensure that the service record of
the employees being reviewed, along with a summary bringing out all relevant
information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at least three months before
the due date of review. 10. The procedure as prescribed from time to time has
been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to the OM issued by this Department
on 21/03/2014. As per these instructions the cases of Government servant
covered by FR 56(j), FR 560), or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
should be reviewed six months before he/she attains the age of 50/55 years, in
cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years of qualifying service
under FR 56(I)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the following
calendar: SI Quarter in Cases of employees who will be attaining the No which
age of 50/55 years or will be completing 30 review is to years of service or 30
years of service be made qualifying for pension, as the case may be, in the
quarter. 1 January to July to September of the same year March 2 April to
October to December of the same year June 3 July to January to March of the
next year September 4 October to April to June of the next year December -4-
11. All Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above instructions
and periodically review the cases of Government servants as required under FR
56(j)/FR56(I)/Rule 48(1)(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 12. Instructions on
composition of the Representation Committees will be communicated separately.
(Gh Cha edi) Director (Establishment)
