Rule 16(3) – Compulsory retriement – Of the five preceding year, record would reveal that in the immediate preceding year the respondent was graded ‘Outstanding’, the three preceding years to the immediate preceding year had respondent No.1 being graded ‘ Very Good and the next preceding year ie. fifth going backward had the had the ACR grading ‘Good’ – of the 31 year’ service for one year i.e. 1996-97 there was a no report certificate – Respondent No. 1 had ‘Average’ grading full or part yeras, only thrice; ‘Good ‘ grading seven; ‘Good and part ‘Average’ twice; Very Good’ eleven; Outstanding’ four and ‘Below Average’ once – Order based on penalty imposed which has been found to be not sustainable Entry of integrity doubtful on the basis of the penalty order also not sustainable – Concluded that there is a taint in the decision making process pertaining to respondent No.1 being compulsorily retired – Order og the Tribunal setting aside the order not interfered with. Union of India v. Umesh Nanda, 2014(3) SCT 571(Delhi)(D.B.)
Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/