Govt decision to compulsorily retire officer vindicated, CAT dismisses Bajaj’s appeal

New Delhi, Dec 16 (SocialNews.XYZ) The government's bold step of compulsorily retiring some black sheep in the tax administration last year had now got the seal of approval from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The principal bench of CAT has dismissed an application from former commissioner of Income Tax
Pramod Kumar Bajaj challenging the government's decision to compulsorily retire officers of central services.

In one of the first such cases, the CAT Principal Bench headed by Justice L. Narasimha Reddy as Chairman and Aradhana Johri as Member (Admn) in its order pronounced through video conferencing dismissed Bajaj's application, who was one of the 85 officers compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(J).

"We do not find any merit in the OA (Original Application) and the same is accordingly dismissed. The MA (Miscellaneous Application) No.1931/2020 also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs," the CAT principal bench said.

Agreeing with the government's contention that the scope of interference with the order passed by invoking FR 56 (J) is very limited and not warranted in the instant case, the Principal Bench has come out very straight on the face of complainant Bajaj, stating that the record of the applicant speaks for itself, and it was no longer in the interest of the department to continue the applicant in service, as "the personal life of the applicant was not only extraordinary but also dented the very reputation of the department. When such is the status, which the applicant has acquired for himself, the respondents (the government and the CBDT) are left with no other alternative except to invoke Rule 56 (j)."

Fundamental Rule 56 (j) provides for conditions under which central service officers can be retired from service prematurely.

The Principal Bench said in its order that "we examined the request in all its seriousness. But on perusing the material before us in the form of pleadings and annexures, we are of the view that there is no necessity to summon the record, having regard to the nature of judicial review, in matters of this nature. 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."

CAT Principal Bench took cognizance of the fact that the Income Tax Department has undertaken "a comprehensive exercise" in 2019 "to identify the officers, whose continuance in service is not in the public interest. About 15 officers have been identified and the applicant was one among them. The background of each and every officer is mentioned in the note prepared for that purpose."

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in the Union of India & Ors. vs. Dulal Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179, and a catena of judgement in other cases, the Bench underlined that "an order of a compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment and ...no order of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order." Therefore, an order of compulsory retirement, even if amenable to judicial review, is the result of an administrative exercise undertaken by the concerned authority, and thus, has "restricted and limited" scope to review because the court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision and it does not sit as a court of appeal.

"For all practical purposes, the applicant has chosen to challenge the very authority of the department in every form and at every stage. No department of government, not to speak of a sensitive one like the Income Tax, can afford to function with such officers at senior positions," said the CAT Principal Bench Order dismissing the OA. The case on behalf of the Central Government was pleaded by counsel Ravi Prakash.

It may be recalled that PK Bajaj, the then CIT was compulsorily retired by the Government on 27.09.2019 under Fundamental Rules 56 (J) on various charges and complaints alleging demand of bribe and concern over the quality of orders passed by him, besides a large number of irregularities noticed during vigilance inspection. His name was included in the Agreed List for the year 2018 jointly by the CBDT and the CBI.

Besides several indiscipline and serious integrity issues, Bajaj was accused of bigamy by his ex-wife and also of amassing wealth disproportionate to his income. He allegedly purchased a flat in Ashok Vihar, Delhi and handed over the same to his estranged wife by way of alimony without furnishing any intimation as required under Conduct Rules.

Bajaj had allegedly married one Renu and then Rakhi without any judicial separation/divorce from Sapna, thereby committing bigamy.

Source: IANS