The Patna High Court has clarified that the remedy of filing a representation under executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions governing compulsory retirement of government servants. In a significant ruling, the Court held that the absence of a mandatory representation requirement under the Indian Railway Establishment Code renders the administrative remedy directory and non-exhaustive, preserving the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Subrat Kumar Jena, a Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (Loco) in the Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE), Group ‘A’, was compulsorily retired by an order dated 03.12.2019 under Rule 1802(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), Vol. II, 1987 Edition. The order was issued on the ground that his continued service was not in public interest, following a review by the Railway Board’s Review Committee. The petitioner challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his original application with liberty to file a representation under RBE No. 130/2019. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Patna High Court.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed to Group ‘C’ service on 13.06.1989 and promoted to IRSEE (Group ‘A’) on 04.03.2004.
- He was promoted to Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer on 27.12.2013 and to Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer on 10.05.2018 (notional from 01.01.2016).
- He attained the age of 50 years on 29.04.2016.
- Periodic reviews under Rule 1802(a)/1803(a)/1804(a) of IREC were conducted in 2019.
- In September 2019, 168 officers were reviewed; 150 were found fit for continuation, while 18, including the petitioner, were shortlisted for review by the Review Committee.
- The Review Committee noted the petitioner’s APAR gradings as Outstanding (2017-18, 2018-19) and Good (2016-17), but cited a single vigilance case dated 17.01.2018 regarding irregularities in open tender acceptance.
- The Review Committee’s report dated 19.11.2019 recommended compulsory retirement of three officers, including the petitioner, without individualized reasoning.
- The order of compulsory retirement was issued on 03.12.2019 and served on the petitioner on 10.12.2019.
- The petitioner received the order under protest and challenged it before CAT on 12.12.2019.
Procedural History
- 13.06.1989: Initial appointment in Railway Group ‘C’ service
- 04.03.2004: Induction into IRSEE (Group ‘A’)
- 11.03.2009: Promotion to Executive Electrical Engineer
- 27.12.2013: Promotion to Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer
- 10.05.2018: Promotion to Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (notional from 01.01.2016)
- 29.04.2016: Attained age of 50 years
- 01.10.2019: Zonal Screening Committee recommended continuation
- September 2019: Review of 168 officers; petitioner shortlisted
- 14.11.2019: Review Committee meeting
- 19.11.2019: Review Committee recommends compulsory retirement
- 03.12.2019: Order of compulsory retirement issued by Under Secretary, Railway Board
- 06.12.2019: Notice of service termination issued
- 10.12.2019: Petitioner received order under protest
- 12.12.2019: Original Application (OA/051/01130/2019) filed before CAT
- 10.12.2019: CAT issued notice to respondents
- 22.02.2024: CAT dismissed OA with liberty to file representation
- 20.07.2024: Patna High Court quashed retirement order and directed reinstatement
- 03.11.2025: Supreme Court quashed High Court’s 20.07.2024 judgment and remanded matter for fresh consideration
- 28.04.2026: Present judgment delivered by Patna High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the compulsory retirement order dated 03.12.2019 and notice dated 06.12.2019, reinstatement with full service and monetary benefits for the intervening period, and a direction to recalculate pension including all arrears with interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the remedy of filing a representation under RBE No. 130/2019 is mandatory under Rule 1802(a) of the IREC, and whether failure to exhaust this remedy bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 1802(a) of the IREC is a statutory provision conferring absolute discretion on the appointing authority to retire an officer in public interest, with no statutory requirement to file a representation. RBE No. 130/2019, being an executive instruction, cannot override statutory rules. The use of the word “may” in RBE No. 130/2019 renders the representation remedy directory, not mandatory. The CAT’s reliance on the representation remedy was erroneous, especially since the same authority that passed the retirement order would decide the representation, creating a conflict of interest. The petitioner had already been heard for four years by the CAT, and relegating him to a representation would be an empty formality, as the decision-making materials were not disclosed.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that RBE No. 130/2019 mandates a representation remedy before approaching the tribunal, citing Rule 1805(1) of the IREC. They argued that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not attract Article 311 protections, and that judicial review is limited to cases of mala fide, arbitrariness, or lack of evidence. The Review Committee had considered the petitioner’s APARs from 2014 to 2017, which contained adverse remarks, and the decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of service record, vigilance history, and integrity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Rule 1802(a) of the IREC, which grants the appointing authority the absolute right to retire a Group ‘A’ officer after attaining 50 years if it is in public interest, subject only to a three-month notice or pay in lieu. The Court noted that Rule 1802(a) contains no provision requiring a representation to be filed prior to or after the retirement order.
"The provision contained in Rule 1805(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code nowhere postulates a statutory remedy of preferring a representation against notice / order of premature retirement under Rule 1802(a), 1803(a) & 1804(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II."
The Court emphasized that RBE No. 130/2019 is an executive instruction and cannot override statutory rules. The use of the word “may” in Clause 6(a) of RBE No. 130/2019 was held to be directory, not mandatory, in line with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigan and Vidarbha Industries v. Axis Bank. The Court observed that the CAT had already issued notice to the respondents in December 2019 and heard the matter for over four years, thereby exercising its discretion under Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The Court further held that the CAT’s direction to file a representation was legally unsustainable because:
- The representation mechanism is structurally flawed, as the employee is not provided access to the materials relied upon by the Review Committee.
- The same authority that passed the retirement order would decide the representation, inviting post-facto rationalization.
- Clause 6(h) of RBE No. 130/2019 itself contemplates that representation becomes inoperative upon judicial intervention.
The Court concluded that the CAT erred in refusing to adjudicate the matter on merits and in relegating the petitioner to an illusory remedy. The Court found that the retirement order lacked individualized reasoning, failed to correlate the four review criteria (performance, vigilance, integrity, reputation) to the petitioner’s record, and ignored his improved APAR gradings post-2016.
The Verdict
The writ petition was partly allowed. The Patna High Court quashed the CAT’s order dated 22.02.2024 and remanded the original application (OA/051/01130/2019) to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the judgment, with the case to be listed before an appropriate Bench on 06.05.2026. The Tribunal was instructed to consider all arguments and materials on record, including the petitioner’s APARs, vigilance history, and the absence of individualized reasoning in the Review Committee’s report.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Representation Is Not a Jurisdictional Bar
- Practitioners must now argue that executive instructions using “may” cannot create mandatory preconditions to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- CATs and High Courts retain discretion to entertain petitions even if representation has not been filed, especially where the remedy is illusory.
- The burden shifts to the administration to prove that the representation remedy is both available and efficacious.
Individualized Reasoning Is Non-Negotiable
- Compulsory retirement orders must reflect a case-specific, objective analysis of the entire service record.
- Generic references to “performance,” “integrity,” or “vigilance history” without linking them to the officer’s actual record are legally unsustainable.
- Subsequent improved APAR gradings cannot be ignored if they contradict earlier adverse remarks.
Judicial Scrutiny Extends Beyond Mala Fide or Arbitrariness
- Courts may now examine whether the decision-making process was rational and transparent, even if the order is not mala fide.
- The absence of a reasoned record, even if based on subjective satisfaction, may constitute a jurisdictional defect under Baikuntha Nath Das.
- The principle that “no evidence” or “no application of mind” invalidates an order now applies to procedural deficiencies in review mechanisms.
