"Integrity Doubt Cannot Be Lightly Inferred Without Cogent Material": Delhi High Court Orders Reinstatement of Retired Municipal Engineers, Terms Action Arbitrary and Unwarranted
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Sharma quashed the compulsory retirement orders issued to two municipal engineers by the South and North Delhi Municipal Corporations, respectively. The Court held that the orders were issued without proper consideration of the full-service records, and that there was no justification in concluding the petitioners' integrity was doubtful. The Court directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The writ petitions challenged the compulsory retirement of two engineers under Fundamental Rule 56(j) read with Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Both petitioners, one from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and the other from the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), contested Office Orders issued in 2019 that prematurely ended their services.
The first petitioner had been compulsorily retired via Office Order dated 13 September 2019, which stated that a review committee constituted under the SDMC had examined his case and found his integrity doubtful due to two prior disciplinary penalties. A representation against this order was rejected by a subsequent Office Order dated 13 December 2019.
The petitioner’s background includes promotion as an Assistant Engineer on 23 July 2009 and 26 years of service marked by ‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’ Annual Confidential Report (ACR) ratings. Two penalties were imposed: (i) stoppage of two increments for two years with future effect in 2007, and (ii) reduction to a lower pay scale for two years with cumulative effect in 2019. The latter punishment was under appeal to the Lieutenant Governor. The petitioner argued that no finding of doubtful integrity had been made during the disciplinary proceedings and that compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) was being used punitively, contrary to established jurisprudence.
The Review Committee’s minutes referred only to the penalties and pending disciplinary proceedings. The basis of the decision, as recorded, was that "his integrity is indeed doubtful."
The second petitioner was an Executive Engineer from NDMC, compulsorily retired by order dated 31 October 2019. He had faced two penalties over a 21-year career: (i) reduction in pay by one stage for a year with cumulative effect (major penalty), and (ii) withholding of two increments without cumulative effect (minor penalty). Five other charge sheets were dropped, and one was pending. He was promoted to Executive Engineer on 24 August 2009 and confirmed in 2017 after UPSC approval. His ACRs from 2014 to 2019 consistently rated him ‘very good’ or ‘outstanding’ with integrity marked ‘beyond doubt’.
Despite these facts, the order claimed the decision was in the public interest. A representation was similarly rejected on the grounds that no new facts had emerged.
The petitioners argued that both Office Orders were cryptic and lacked proper application of mind, violating DOPT guidelines and judicial precedents which mandate consideration of full-service records and prevent the use of retirement provisions as punitive substitutes.
The Court observed that "the decision to compulsorily retire an employee must be based on a holistic assessment of their service record and not merely on isolated punishments".
It stated that "no conclusion of doubtful integrity can be lightly drawn; it must be founded on cogent material capable of convincing a reasonable person".
On the SDMC petitioner, the Court noted: "Apart from the two penalties, one of which was awarded in 2007 and the other in 2019 (under appeal), there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner’s service warranted such an extreme measure".
It recorded that "The ACRs of the petitioner uniformly reflect very good or outstanding performance and integrity beyond doubt. The decision does not consider this at all".
The Bench observed that "the Committee’s reasoning is perfunctory and fails to consider the relevant criteria under the DOPT OMs dated 21 March 2014 and 11 September 2015".
It stated: "The Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299 makes it clear that the decision must not be arbitrary, and adverse remarks should be weighed with full-service records".
Regarding the NDMC petitioner, the Court noted: "The fact that several charges were dropped and that the only penalties are more than a decade old (except one), with excellent ACRs thereafter, undermines the finding of doubtful integrity".
It remarked: "The Committee relied heavily on quantity of disciplinary proceedings rather than the quality and outcome thereof".
The Court found that: "Promotion by UPSC in 2017 undermines any suggestion that the petitioner was unfit for continued service. No adverse material from post-2017 was considered".
It held that "compulsory retirement must not be a shortcut to avoid disciplinary proceedings or to punish employees without proper enquiry".
The Court recorded that "the impugned judgments/orders passed by the Tribunal are unreasoned and proceed on extraneous and, in certain cases, even on erroneous factual considerations." It further held, "We do not find the decisions to be sustainable on facts or in law."
The Court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. It also quashed and set aside the orders of compulsory retirement issued to both petitioners.
The Court held that the petitioners would be entitled to consequential reliefs in accordance with law. It directed that if the petitioners had not yet crossed the age of superannuation, they would be entitled to reinstatement with effect from the date of their compulsory retirement, along with notional fixation of pay and other consequential benefits, but without any arrears. If they had crossed the age of superannuation, they would similarly be entitled to notional fixation of pay and computation of retiral benefits accordingly.
The Court directed that the benefits be disbursed within four weeks from the date the judgment is uploaded on the website of the Court.
The writ petitions were allowed with no orders as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohinder J S Rupal, Advocate; Mr. Sanjiv K. Jha & Mr. Sachin Bhatt, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Standing Counsel for MCD
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Sharma v. Commissioner, SDMC & Anr. and S.K. Chauhan v. North DMC
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4466-DB
Case Number: WP(C) 1823/2021 & WP(C) 6590/2021
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Sharma
[Read/Download order]
