- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The challenge is to the order of compulsory retirement of appellant who was an Income tax Officer. He has been retired in exercise of powers vested in Fundamental Rule 56 (j). The ground of retirement is recorded thus: While considering the case of Shri B. D. Arora, the Committee noticed that his rating for the year 1980-81 is average and similar is the 99 position for the year 1982-83. The noting for the year 1981-82 is that he is good for routine work in mofussil charges. These nothings show that this officer has lost his effectiveness as well as utility to the government. The Committee, therefore, recommended that he is not fit for further retention in government service and recommended his case under FR 56 (j).
(3.) We are surprised that this should be the conclusion from the material catalogued in the order. The very assessment shows that the officer is effective if posted in rural areas. This follows that he has not lost his effectiveness. There would be several officers with such record who are not being retired and we do not find any justification as to why the appellant should have been picked up.;