The Supreme Court has struck down the compulsory retirement of a former Indian Trade Service officer, holding that the decision to push him out of service despite an exceptional record and a recent merit-based promotion was arbitrary and tainted by mala fides.
The Court ordered the Centre to pay the officer ₹15 lakh — ₹9 lakh as compensation for the damage caused to his reputation and ₹6 lakh towards costs. In an unusual additional direction, it asked the Director General of Foreign Trade to invite him back to the office and give him a formal farewell with full honour.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu found it impossible to reconcile the government’s decision to promote the officer to the level of Joint Secretary and then, barely two months later, declare him “deadwood” and retire him prematurely.
The officer’s service record, the Court noted, contained consistently high assessments, including “Outstanding” gradings. His promotion had also been granted on merit after scrutiny by the Union Public Service Commission and approval from the competent authority.
The Court said the two decisions — first entrusting him with higher responsibilities and then treating him as someone who had outlived his usefulness — could not stand together.
Compulsory retirement, the Court observed, is intended to remove from service those whose continuation is no longer considered beneficial in the public interest. But that power cannot be used mechanically or on grounds that collapse when tested against the officer’s actual service record.
According to the Court, a merit-based promotion shortly before a compulsory retirement order is a significant circumstance and can itself cast serious doubt on the legality of the decision to retire the officer.
The Bench found that the officer’s recent promotion was a clear acknowledgment that his department considered his service highly satisfactory and meritorious. Having recognised his suitability for higher responsibilities, the authorities could not shortly afterwards portray him as “deadwood” merely to justify his removal in the name of public interest.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the power had been exercised, saying the attempt to label an officer who had devoted decades to public service as “deadwood” reflected a colourable exercise of authority.
It found no convincing material to demonstrate that the compulsory retirement had genuinely been ordered in public interest.
A Career Cut Short Five Years Before Retirement
The officer joined the Indian Trade Service in 1989 and rose through the ranks over the following decades. He was promoted as Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade in 1994 and later as Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in 2001.
In 2014, he was appointed as Additional Director in the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping. He was placed in the Senior Administrative Grade, at the level of Joint Secretary, in November 2017 and received regular promotion in February 2018.
Just over two months later, in May 2018, the authorities ordered his premature retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j), nearly five years before his scheduled superannuation.
The decision had been recommended by a Review Committee that considered certain entries in his performance appraisal records, a confidential note prepared by a former senior official and other material.
His challenge was unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Delhi High Court, prompting him to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the conclusions drawn against him could not survive scrutiny when placed alongside his long record of high performance and his recent promotion on merit.
Setting aside the earlier findings and the compulsory retirement order, the Court concluded that the decision to remove him from service could not be sustained.
Beyond restoring his dignity through compensation, the Court’s direction for a formal farewell ensured that the officer’s exit from public service would not remain defined by the “deadwood” label that it found unjustified.
