The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to expeditiously start hearing in the case related to the forced compulsory retirement of an IRS officer of the 1985 batch, who was compulsorily retired in 2019, in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56 (j).
The three-Judge Bench, presided by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and also comprising Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, passed the order on a petition filed by IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
The apex court directed the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court D.N. Patel to either expedite this matter or any other connected matter within 15 days by taking the matter before himself or constitute a bench for disposal of the same.
According to the petitioner, he was compulsorily retired by the competent Authority in 2019 in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56(j), assailing the Delhi High Court Order, wherein his case was kept sub-judice since December, 2020, after his plea against compulsory retirement got dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the retired IRS officer, argued before the court that Aggarwal is about to retire within a year. This is a very extraordinary matter and is pending before two benches of High Court of Delhi and the petitioner has won all litigations so far, noted Singh.
He said, “I have only 1 and 4 months remaining. I cannot reap the fruit of the SC judgment. I am beseeching my lord, no malafide was found against me…There are two vacancies coming up, one should be kept for me. I am beseeching that SC should hear the matter. It is about my career, my juniors are getting promotion and I am being denied due promotion.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, prayed before the Bench to fix the matter for tomorrow.
He submitted, “As a Govt officer I am not saying anything, but this should not be allowed.”
To this, the CJI said, “We have already said that the matter is before the CJ bench of Delhi HC, it is for the Chief Justice to decide. We have no objection for early hearing of this matter.”
Singh replied, “The Bench of Indira Banerjee has heard this matter as part heard.”
The CJI said, “No we are not going to hear it. If you are not interested in listening to us, then leave it. The matter is listed for hearing on October 1, 2021. We request the Chief Justice to hear the matter himself or assign a bench to hear. It is for the Chief Justice to take up himself or nominate. Both parties agree to argue the matter within a week’s time.
SG said, “There are five vakalatnamas, which the petitioner has put on record. You (Mr Singh) are bringing a bad name to this institution.”
Singh replied, “So are you, as you are disobeying the orders of this court.”
Earlier, the three-Judge Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, vide order dated October 5, 2020, on the writ petition filed under Article 32, gave him the option to to pursue remedy before CAT and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the same within four months from the date of filing the petition.
It was also observed by the bench that the retired IRS officer had filed a Writ under Article 226 on the grounds of maintainability. The High Court of Delhi had preferred to dismiss the said petition and asked the petitioner to approach CAT.
Substantial issue was raised by Kumar before CAT as to whether the order of compulsory retirement passed against him is legal and valid. The Tribunal, while dismissing his petition on merits, had observed in para 40 of its judgment, “The hardship caused to the civil servants on account of dismissal from service after an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules or by invoking the provisions akin to Article 311 (2), is phenomenal, if not colossal. The pension, which is almost in the form of estate, stands withdrawn.
“Other attendant benefits, which are provided as a reward for the service rendered by the employee for major part of his life, are forfeited. In contrast, the compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) would have the effect of just advancing the age of retirement and nothing more. Major punishments such as dismissal and removal are almost lethal weapons, whereas compulsory retirement is just a tranquilizer,” it added.
Background
Petitioner Ashok Kumar Aggarwal is an IRS officer of 1985 batch. In 1996, he was appointed as Deputy Director of Enforcement (Delhi Zone). At that time, he looked over cases akin to infraction of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and proceeded against various influential persons. He had severe pressure from higher authorities of ED in relation to the these cases. He was kept on compulsory wait and transferred from the post of Deputy Director. The CBI, in turn, is said to have registered a case against unknown officers of ED, with an intention to implicate the applicant, for the steps taken by him against some notorious economic offenders.
Kumar remained in suspension from December 28, 1999. A charge sheet was filed on June 28, 2020, thereafter a case of disproportionate assets of about Rs 12 crore was registered against him on November 26, 2020. The suspension order was set aside by CAT and in the meantime, another separate order of suspension was issued against Kumar.
CBI allegedly harassed the family of the applicant. On the directions of the High Court, separate FIRs were registered against two officers of CBI.