JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner – Dr.R.K.Khola, Senior Scientist/Engineer S.F. being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 04.04.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No.407 of 1993. 1.1 The petitioner appeared Party-in-person and invited attention of the Court to the fact that he had filed Civil Application No.7493 of 2005 seeking amendment which was allowed by this Court by order dated 23.08.2005. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner has added the following prayer in this petition:- "7(A), Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the Constitution of the Review Committee and its decision (dated 22-12-1992 (Annexure at page 312 of the petition), the Constitution of Representation Review Committee and its decision dated 20-8-1993 (Annexure at page 313 of the petition) and the decisions of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet dated 22-4-1993 (at Annexure A-1B) and dated 01-02-1994 (at Annexure A-1C). Further be pleased to quash and set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 04-4-2001 (at Annexure-A) and dated 31- 10-2001 (at Annexure A-1A) passed in O.A. No.407/93 and R.A. No.91/2001, respectively." 1.2 The petitioner has also prayed the following further reliefs:- "7. (B) Consequent upon the grant of relief in above para (A), the petitioner prays for the following further reliefs:- (i) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order of premature retirement of the petitioner and be pleased to declare the said order as absolutely illegal and bad, unconstitutional, null and void and that the petitioner continues in the service of the respondents as if the said order was never passed against the petitioner and to confer upon him all consequential benefits accordingly. (ii) To declare the order of retirement dated 3.5.1993 (at Annexure A-10) of the OA) as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same. (iii) To declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation by passing the order dated 17.2.1994 (at Annex A-12 of the OA) as arbitrary, illegal, violative or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also rule FR 56(j) and to quash and set aside the same. 2. (iii) To declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation by passing the order dated 17.2.1994 (at Annex A-12 of the OA) as arbitrary, illegal, violative or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also rule FR 56(j) and to quash and set aside the same. 2. The petitioner - party-in-person filed O.A. No.407 of 1993 seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) To quash and set aside the order of premature retirement dated 3.5.1993 (Annex. A-10) of the petitioner and be pleased to declare the said order as absolutely illegal and bad, unconstitutional, null and void and that the petitioner continues in the service of the respondents as if the said order was never passed against the petitioner and to confer upon him all consequential benefits accordingly. (ii) To declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation by passing the order dated 17.2.1994 (Annexure A-12) as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also Rule 56(j) and to quash and set aside the same." 2.1 The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the rival, recorded from para-34 onwards as under:- "34. So far as the present case is concerned while taking a decision to retire the applicant under FR 56(j), the authorities had not relied at all on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and this did not constitute or form back ground motive to the decision. It is also not the case here that the main reason for prematurely retiring the applicant is the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the levelling of the charges. The decision to prematurely retire the officer was taken on the basis of other materials. When there are deemed proceedings under Rule 9 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules the statutory rules set up a bar for release of gratuity (Rule 69(1) (c) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules) and for commutation of pension. When it is held that orders under FR 56(j) can be issued even when the disciplinary proceedings are pending the non-release of gratuity and declining permission to commute part of the pension will naturally follow and such decisions cannot be regarded as not a "clean decision". When it is held that orders under FR 56(j) can be issued even when the disciplinary proceedings are pending the non-release of gratuity and declining permission to commute part of the pension will naturally follow and such decisions cannot be regarded as not a "clean decision". In the present case, the order under FR 56(j) cannot be regarded as penal only on the ground of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings which did not influence the authorities while issuing the order under FR 56(j) and the fact that the applicant did not get all his retirement dues viz. Gratuity, commutation of pension etc. at the time of retirement and they were released only later. 35. Following the Supreme Court decision referred to supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings (which were subsequently dropped) and the omission to release all the retiral dues does not vitiate the order of prematurely retiring the applicant. 36. We hold that the impugned decision has been taken after considering his A.C.Rs dossier as a whole and that it is not mala fide or arbitrary. The opinion formed by the authorities to retire the applicant on the basis of such materials is not at all perverse. As such, this is not a fit case for the Tribunal to interfere. 37. The O.A. is dismissed with no orders as to costs." 3. The matter was argued at length by the petitioner-party-in-person and it was his insistence that the case pleaded by him and contentions raised in the memo of the petition be allowed to be read. The facts giving rise to the present petition are set out in paras 2.1 onwards of the petition, which read as under:- "2.1 The petitioner was working as Scientist/Engineer-SF (Grade Rs.4500-5700) in the respondent organisation at Ahmedabad. The petitioner possesses M.Sc. (Physics), M.Sc. (Electronics Engg.) and Ph.D. Degrees to his credit. The petitioner was the highest scientifically and technically qualified person in the respondent organisation. His original and independent research publications were second to none in the satellite communication area of Space Application Centre (SAC), Ahmedabad. Further the systems and sub-systems hardware designed and developed by the petitioner have been excellent throughout and are second to none in the respondent organisation among all the similarly situated officers. His original and independent research publications were second to none in the satellite communication area of Space Application Centre (SAC), Ahmedabad. Further the systems and sub-systems hardware designed and developed by the petitioner have been excellent throughout and are second to none in the respondent organisation among all the similarly situated officers. The petitioner had been working with the respondent organisation SAC-ISRO for the last more than 20 years at the relevant time with a neat and clean service record and his performance has been excellent throughout. The petitioner is an acknowledged person of merit which is clear from the certificates issued by his Reporting Officer and Group Director copies of which are annexed with the OA. 2.2 By way of this humble petition, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Hon’ble High Court against the absolutely illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and inhuman action on the part of the respondents herein in pre-maturely retiring the petitioner from service on attaining the age above 50 years. The action of retiring the petitioner prematurely is absolutely illegal, bad and vitiated on account of the prejudice and bias mainly on the part of UR Rao against the petitioner. 2.3 The petitioner has been subjected to injustice and victimisation since 1975 because he has represented his grievance of the Chairman ISRO vide his letter dated 18.2.1975 and also the Prime Minister of India, when the petitioner was denied his well deserved promotions to SE and SF grades by the respondents due to malafide intention and biased approach against the petitioner. The petitioner has always been subjected to stepmotherly and discriminatory treatment by the respondents in each and every respect and he has been victimised beyond limits. The petitioner was the only highest qualified research and development Engineer in the organisation in the grade of Scientist/Engineer SF who has never been given any dedicated manpower, funds, laboratory facility, equipments and other supporting facilities, to carry out his research and development work. The petitioner further states that he has successfully and efficiently completed all the tasks assigned to him by the authorities and his performance has been excellent throughout. Even the posts, manpower, funds, laboratory facilities etc. which are given to four of his juniors are not given to him. Copies of the representations made to the concerned authorities for requesting for project work, manpower funds etc. are annexed with the OA. Even the posts, manpower, funds, laboratory facilities etc. which are given to four of his juniors are not given to him. Copies of the representations made to the concerned authorities for requesting for project work, manpower funds etc. are annexed with the OA. Inspite all sorts of harassment the petitioner has contributed significantly and has generated nine very good proposals single-heartedly (sichandedly) which are of great interest to ISRO activities and which are appreciated by the Chairman ISRO also. Most of them are approved and funded but none of them is given to the petitioner. 2.4 The petitioner submits that he was given a merit promotion to SF-grade (Rs.4500-5700) in the year 1986. This fact alone clearly establishes that the adverse remarks made by Prof. UR Rao (the then Chairman, ISRO) in the 1990 and 1991 ACRs of the petitioner that "He (petitioner) has contributed nothing to the organisation at all last almost 10-12 years" are absolutely false, fabricated and baseless and are made only due to malafides. 2.5 The petitioner states that including the petitioner eight candidates were promoted to SF Grade w.e.f. 1.1.1997. The bias and prejudice against the petitioner becomes more evident from the order of the petitioner wherein the respondent No.4 herein has used the discriminatory language only in the order of the petitioner out of more than hundred officers of SF grade with a view to further victimise the petitioner in the matter of his promotion to the higher grade of Scientist/Engineer SG. 2.6 The petitioner states that the adverse and unfavourable remarks and low gradings are recorded in his ACRs for the years 1986 to 1990 due to malafide intention of Shri OPN Calls, Shri PP Kale and Prof. UR Rao, which are communicated to the petitioner after a delay of several years. The authorities have got vindicative attitude against the petitioner since long because the petitioner made complaints against their illegal acts to the Prime Minister of India and the petitioner was having strained relations with these authorities and the petitioner has reason to believe that these authorities have forced Mr.Pramod Kumar, his Reporting Officer to give adverse and unfavourable remarks in his ACRs. These facts will become evident from the perusal of the ACRs and the Certificate given by the Reporting Officer. These facts will become evident from the perusal of the ACRs and the Certificate given by the Reporting Officer. The petitioner has got the apprehension that his ACRs for the years 1986 to 1989 were destroyed and again written with adverse and unfavourable entries by forcing the Reporting Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the communication of adverse remarks was grossly delayed without any justification. It is submitted that such adverse ACRs have been used by the authorities to screen him out and for not placing his case before the DPC for considering for promotion to SG-Grade. Therefore, the acts of screening committee and DPC in the year 1990 for not considering the petitioner properly and with the due application of mind becomes arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 2.7 The petitioner states that the adverse remarks given in his ACRs for the years for from 1986 to 1991 have been communicated to the petitioner after a very long delay of about six years without any justifications and all the rules and procedures of writing and maintaining ACRs have been violated. The adverse remarks of 1991 were communicated on 30.1.1992, whereas the remarks of the ACRs of 1986 to 1990 were communicated only on 17.2.1992 to the petitioner at one time. The petitioner submits that the adverse remarks in his ACRs were given by UR Rao was not all all concerned with the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his detailed representation against these adverse entries on 16.4.1992 which was also rejected by UR Rao himself and that too by a bald order and without any reasons. The petitioner submits that at the time when the order of his premature retirement was issued, the ACRs of the petitioner were subjudice is nature. The petitioner therefore submits that these adverse remarks deserves to be totally ignored and may not be relied on for any purpose whatsoever. 2.8 The petitioner submits that he had filed the original application for challenging his premature retirement under apprehension and till that time he was not served with the order. The said order of premature retirement was dated 3.5.1993 and it was sent to the petitioner by post alongwith the communication dated 5.5.1993 which was received by the petitioner only on 10.5.93. The said order of premature retirement was dated 3.5.1993 and it was sent to the petitioner by post alongwith the communication dated 5.5.1993 which was received by the petitioner only on 10.5.93. The petitioner submits that the order of premature retirement dated 3.5.93 did not contain any cheque or payment dated 3.5.93 and a cheque for a payment of Rs.30,409/- was received by the petitioner by post only on 15.5.1993. 2.9 The petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of FR 56(j) the appropriate authority has the right to retire, if it is necessary to do so in the public interest, any Government employee, the relevant portion of this rule which is applicable to the petitioners case has been annexed and discussed in the OA. The petitioner submits that all the rules and statutory guidelines have been violated and the petitioner has been retired arbitrarily and illegally and his representation was also rejected arbitrarily and illegally by a bald and non-speaking order. 2.10 The petitioner submits that the order of his premature retirement is punitive in nature because he has not been paid his full pension and other retirement benefits for several years even after issuing the said order and the order has caused several other evil consequences also to the petitioner. The order of retirement dated 3.5.1995 read with the order of continuance of pending enquiry and read with the order of non-payment of full pension, other retirement benefits and the denial of stagnation increment, etc. make the action of the respondent of prematurely retiring the petitioner becomes hybrid and punitive in nature which becomes illegal in view of the settled position in law by a catena of judgments." 3.1 The aforesaid facts lead to passing of an order under F.R. 56(j) which gave rise to the present petition. 4. It will be appropriate to mention that the petitioner-party-in-person had challenged his non-promotion from S.F. to S.G. on various grounds including that, he was wrongly screened out on the basis of the adverse entries in the ACRs for the period 1986 to 1989, which were written in one-go and were communicated to the petitioner after several years. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and that judgment and order was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.9192 of 2004 which is allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 04.04.2013. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and that judgment and order was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No.9192 of 2004 which is allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 04.04.2013. In the said judgment and order, the Court has come to conclusion that ACRs for the period 1986 to 1989 could not have been written in one-go and the same could not have been taken into consideration for screening out the petitioner and therefore a direction is given to the Department to consider the case of the petitioner only on the basis of the material available at the relevant time and to decide his promotion from S.F. to S.G. Accordingly. 4.1 What is important is that, it is during the pendency of the said O.A. that the order under F.R. 56(j) came to be passed which is challenged in this petition. What is important is that the Department had initiated departmental inquiry against the petitioner for imposing major penalty and while that inquiry was pending, the Department decided to pass an order under F.R. 56(j). It is in light of these facts, the Court is required to consider whether exercise of passing an order under F.R. 56(j) can be said to be a bonafide exercise or it is a shortcut resorted by the Department to close the chapter of the petitioner. 4.2 In light of the aforesaid fact situation, the averments made by the petitioner from para-2.11 onwards of the petition are also relevant. The same are as under:- "2.11 The petitioner states that as has been mentioned above, he was not communicated any adverse remarks whatsoever till 30.1.1992. He completed 50 years of age on 15.3.1992. He was charge sheeted on 7.8.1991. According to FR 56(j) rules his case was to be reviewed for premature retirement in September, 1991. The petitioner states that till 30.1.1992 when he was not shown any adverse remarks regarding his work performance or efficiency or integrity or honesty then there is no question of believing that there was any ground for making a decision for premature retirement in his case, because, an employee who has been found to be efficient and honest till 30.1.1992 cannot become totally inefficient one month thereafter. In fact a deliberate design has been engineered by UR Rao in order to punish the petitioner against whom he (UR Rao) had great hatred. The way in which the respondents have acted against the petitioner for his premature retirement speaks volumes and it undoubtedly goes to prove that the respondents have not acted fairly and bonafide but have acted with malafide. The petitioner therefore states that the action of the respondent in deciding to retire the petitioner prematurely is absolutely arbitrary, unjust, mamafide, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the order has been passed by way of colourable exercise of power. It is also worthy of mention at this stage that on the one hand it has been stated in the adverse remarks that the petitioner has not done any work at all from 1979 onwards whereas on the other hand he was given purely merit based promotion w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and that too to a very senior and responsible post of Scientist/Engineer-SF (in the grade of Rs.4500- 5700) and his basis pay as on 1.1.1993 was Rs.5850). This fact alone goes to establish the malafides on the part of UR Rao. It was a predecided and motivated act done by Mr.UR Rao, Mr.P.P.Kale and Mr.OPN Call etc. due to malafide intentions and prejustice (sic prejudice) against the petitioner. It was a very serious case of victimisation where not only the bright career of a highly qualified, honest and competent R&D engineer has been ruined but his whole family has been made to suffer a lot due to acts of gross misuse of authority by Mr.Rao, etc. Mr.UR Rao has openly and unambiguously has tried to intimidate an honest, efficient and competent engineer by threatening to oust him from the office and actually passing the order of forced retirement by creating false and fabricated record. The petitioner submits that it is a fittest case for the Hon’ble Court to exercise its extraordinary powers and impose exemplary punishment to Mr.Rao, Mr.Kale and Mr.Calla etc. to deter such illegal sufferings and vitimisation of honest and efficient Government servants." 4.3 The petitioner after having invited attention of the Court to the aforesaid facts invited attention of the Court to the various contentions raised by him, incorporated in the memo of the petition. to deter such illegal sufferings and vitimisation of honest and efficient Government servants." 4.3 The petitioner after having invited attention of the Court to the aforesaid facts invited attention of the Court to the various contentions raised by him, incorporated in the memo of the petition. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that on various grounds, the order of premature retirement is vitiated and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court as the Hon’ble Tribunal has failed to do so. 4.4 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that under the settled legal position, payment of three months salary and allowances is to be made simultaneously along with order of retirement. It is the case of the petitioner-party-in-person that the order of retirement was passed on 03.05.1993, but the said order was not accompanied by such payment. The order of retirement was received on 10.05.1993 and the payment was sent to him subsequently, which was received by him on 15.05.1993. The case of the petitioner-party-in-person is that payment made was not of the required amount under the Rules. 4.5 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that he made representation against the order of premature retirement raising several points, but the said representation was rejected by the authorities by a cryptic and bald order. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that a detailed procedure is prescribed for consideration of the representation made and it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to get considered that representation by a Committee which has to take into consideration all important aspects of the matter and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that in his case, the representation is not considered by the Committee and no speaking order is passed on the representation of the petitioner. 4.6 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that the authorities have failed to take into consideration the important and undisputed facts of the case which are set out in para-2.15 of the petition, which reads as under:- "2.15 Some of the important and undisputed facts of the case are as under:- (i) It is not in dispute that petitioners ACRs of 1990, 1991 and 1992 years were not written by his reporting and reviewing officers which is mandatory under the statutory rules of writing ACRs and it is a settled point in law also. (ii) It is not in dispute that U.R.Rao (stationed at Bangalore) who was not concerned with the petitioner (stationed at Ahmedabad) has recorded absolutely false and concocted adverse entries and incorrect gradings in the ACRs of the petitioner for the years from 1986 till 1992. (iii) It is not in dispute that the petitioners representation made against adverse ACRs was also rejected by U.R.Rao himself and that too by a cryptic three lines bald order. Thus the Tribunal has seriously erred in not appreciating the contentions of the petitioner that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) It is not in dispute that the petitioners representation made against adverse ACRs was also rejected by U.R.Rao himself and that too by a cryptic three lines bald order. Thus the Tribunal has seriously erred in not appreciating the contentions of the petitioner that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. (v) It is not in dispute that rules of writing ACRs have been grossly violated while writing the adverse entries in the petitioners ACRs. (v) It is not in dispute that even under the rules framed by the respondents it is mandatory to write the ACRs of an officer in accordance with the time schedule laid down under the rules of writing ACRs, even if the officer does not write his self-appraisal. (vi) It is not in dispute that ACRs of the petitioner of the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 were written in one go at the same time on the same day on 2.8.1990. (vii) It is not in dispute that the adverse entries of the petitioners ACRs were communicated to him after a gross delay of 5 to 6 years. (viii) It is also is also not in dispute that when the order of premature retirement was passed on 3.5.93 the ACRs of the petitioner of the years from 1986 till 1991 were sub-judice in nature in view of his OA No.44/92 which was pending in the Hon’ble Tribunal. (ix) It is not in dispute that when the order of premature retirement dated 3.5.93 was passed, the departmental enquiry for major penalty under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was pending against the petitioner and the same enquiry was continued even after passing order of premature retirement. (ix) It is not in dispute that when the order of premature retirement dated 3.5.93 was passed, the departmental enquiry for major penalty under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was pending against the petitioner and the same enquiry was continued even after passing order of premature retirement. (x) It is also not in dispute that the retirement benefits such as full pension, gratuity, communication of pension, encashment of EL, etc. were not paid to the petitioner even after passing the order of premature retirement. It is also not in dispute that under the rules of premature retirement dated 5.1.78 there is absolutely no provision either for continuation of pending disciplinary enquiry or denial of retirement benefits after passing the order of premature retirement. (xi) It is not in dispute that the work done report, research papers published and project proposals generated by the petitioner and also the recommendations of his Group Director etc. were not placed before the Review Committee. (xii) It is also not in dispute that even in the year 1992 the Reporting Officer and Group Director of the petitioner had given recommendation that the work performance of the petitioner was satisfactory. (xiii) It is also not in dispute that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 7.8.1991 and the detailed letter dated 9.1.1991 which the petitioner wrote to the Prime Minister of India were also not placed before the Review Committee, Representation Committee and the ACC. (xiv) It is also not in dispute that the Review Committee consisting of U.R.Rao, Secretary, DOS and B.R.Prabhakara, Addl. Secretary, DAE was not constituted legally and had got no jurisdiction in the case of the petitioner which is clearly established from the Office Memorandum No.25013/15/86-Estt. (A), Government of India, Department of P&T dated 27.6.1986. It is submitted that the Central Establishment Board consisting of five members is the legally constituted Review Committee in case of the petitioner who was appointed by ACC. (xv) It is not in dispute that even the Civil Service Board which has acted as the Representation Committee was also not constituted legally because it must consists of five members. It is submitted that the Central Establishment Board consisting of five members is the legally constituted Review Committee in case of the petitioner who was appointed by ACC. (xv) It is not in dispute that even the Civil Service Board which has acted as the Representation Committee was also not constituted legally because it must consists of five members. (xvi) It is not in dispute that Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) must consists of Prime Minister, Home Minister and Finance Minister in case of the petitioner (refer AIR 1995 SC 568 para 16 page-571) which establishes the fact that even the ACC which approved the recommendations of the review committee and representation committee was not constituted properly and legally. 4.7 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that if the authorities had taken into consideration the aforesaid facts in right perspective, the authorities would not have passed the order of premature retirement under F.R. 56(j). The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that if the Hon’ble Tribunal had taken into consideration all these facts and the contentions raised by the petitioner in O.A. (Original Application) and subsequently in M.A. (Misc.Application), the Hon’ble Tribunal would have quashed and set aside the order of premature retirement, but having failed to get any relief from the Hon’ble Tribunal, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition. 4.8 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that even at the cost of repetition, he may be allowed to reiterate the contentions raised in the Grounds set out in the petition, particularly Ground-F), etc. Grounds-F) and I) read as under:- "(F) The Tribunal has seriously erred in not considering the fact that most competent authority who can comment about his work performance and technical competence was his reporting officer and Group Director (Mr.Rambilas) in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993 and therefore in view of the settled law the petitioners case for premature retirement must have been initiated with the recommendations of his reporting officer and Group Director (i.e. Mr.Rambilas) and after that the same must have been processed through his reviewing officer and Dy. Director (Mr.OPN Calls) and after that the cast must have been forwarded to his counter-signing authority and Director of the Centre (Mr.P P Kale) for making his bonafide, true, honest and unbiased recommendation after considering in totality the facts and circumstances of the case which was not done by the respondent authorities and, therefore, the order becomes absolutely arbitrary, capricious, malicious and per se, illegal in eye of law. (I) What has been upheld by the Tribunal in para Nos.17, 18 & 19 in its judgment is completely erroneous and illegal. It is submitted that as per the statutory rules of premature retirement, the Central Establishment Board must act as the review committee in the case of the petitioner because he was appointed to the Scientist/Engineer-SF post with the approval of ACC. These facts are clearly established from the perusal of Oms dated 27.6.1986 and 27.10.1970 which are annexed hereto and marked as Annex A-7 and Annex A-8. From the OM dated 27.6.1986 (Annex A-7) it is clearly established that Review Committee consisting of UR Rao and B.R.Prabhakara was constituted by the Government only to review the case of the lower grade Gazetted officers whose appointments were need not be approved by the ACC. The Tribunal has seriously erred in not considering the repeated submissions of the petitioner that Central Establishment Board must act as the review Committee but the Tribunal took the wholly erroneous view and passed illegal decision based on the misrepresentation of facts by the respondents and their advocate, Mr.Akil Kureshi (as he then was). The respondents have committed an act of perjury by not showing correct orders of the constitution of the review committee and representation committee." (emphasis supplied). 4.9 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that he belongs to Department of Space and for this Department, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) consists of Prime Minister, Home Minister and Finance Minister. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. N.P.Dhamania, reported in AIR 1995 SC 568 He invited attention of the Court to para-16 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- "16. The relevant portion of the procedure contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 18/42/50-Estts. The relevant portion of the procedure contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 18/42/50-Estts. Dated 27- 11-1950 is reproduced below: "The Government of India have decided that where the Union Public Service Commission has been consulted in regard to any appointments the recommendations made by the Commission should not be departed from unless, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Minister concerned, exceptional circumstances exist which in the public interest require such departure. In such a case the reasons for holding this opinion should be communicated to the Commission and the Commission given an opportunity of further justifying their recommendations. On the receipt of the observations of the Commission, their recommendations should be considered further by the Ministry concerned, if, after further consideration, the Ministry still considers that the recommendations made by the Commission should not be accepted, the case should be referred with a self-contained summary to the Establishment Officer of the Government of India who will place it before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet consisting of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs and the Hon’ble Minister concerned administratively with the appointment(s). In cases in which the Hon’ble Home Minister or the Hon’ble Prime Minister happens to be the Minister concerned with the appointment, the Hon’ble Finance Minister will be added to the Committee. The decision reached by the Appointments Committee in all such cases should be communicated to the Commission by the Minister administratively concerned. Final orders in accordance with the decision will also be issued by that Ministry, copy being endorsed to the Commission.” 4.10 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that thus it is clear that the Review Committee which reviewed the case of the petitioner for prematurely retiring him, the Representation Committee which rejected the representation of the petitioner and the ACC which approved the order of his premature retirement, were not properly, legally and in accordance with the Rules constituted. 4.11 The petitioner-party-in-person next invited attention of the Court to Ground-K), which reads as under:- "K" The entire service records of the petitioner including the chargesheet dated 7.8.2992 issued to him and also his letter dated 9.1.1991 which he has sent to the Prime Minister have not been considered by the Review Committee, Representation Committee, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and the Government. Admittedly the review committee has taken its decision solely based on the ACRs of the petitioner upto the year 1991 (Refer Annex A-25) annexed to the OA). It is a well settled point of law by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that the entire service records and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the concerned officer should be considered by the Review Committee and the Government at the time of review." 4.12 The petitioner-party-in-person next submitted that an order under F.R. 56(j) can be passed in the public interest and the sole object of this Fundamental Rule is to remove inefficient persons. To decide inefficiency, the Department was required to place before the authorities the details of the work out-put of the petitioner and to see that the same could be appreciated in right perspective, it was necessary to place the details of the work in-put, i.e. the work assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring this important aspect of the matter, viz. the Department has not produced one single order assigning the work to the petitioner from the year 1980 till 1993. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that if the case of the Department is accepted that the work was not assigned, the Department has no explanation as to why the work was not assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that in case, the Department contends that, the work was not assigned to the petitioner because he was not making any substantial contribution then the Department must show as to what action was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that the Department must not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong, viz. either non-assigning any work or not taking any action against the petitioner for not making any substantial contribution. 4.13 The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that it is a settled position of law that pending departmental inquiry or even contemplated departmental inquiry form an integral part of the service record of a Government servant and the same cannot be lost sight of while assessing suitability or otherwise for retention in service after the Government servant has attained the age of 50/55 years. The petitioner-party-in-person submitted that in the present case, the Department is not able to produce any material much less the relevant material to establish that the factum of pending departmental inquiry, i.e. charge sheet dated 07.08.1991 was ever placed before the authorities at the time of taking decision for issuing pre-mature retirement order under Fundamental Rule 56(j). In this regard, the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 331 : 1996 Lab IC 2062. The petitioner invited attention of the Court to para-7 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "7. It is Contended for the respondent that adverse entries for the two years referred to earlier and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant on the premise that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed. It is true that the Government servant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks tore part of service record and character role. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, nevertheless remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. The material question is: whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the Government servant is justified or not. It for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries mere made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsorily retirement of the Government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the Government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits." (emphasis supplied) 4.14 Besides, the petitioner-party-in-person also contended that the order of compulsory retirement could not have been passed without dropping or closing all pending or contemplated departmental inquiry proceedings in regard to matter which form the 'background motive' for the decision in question. In support of this contention, the petitioner-party-in-person relied upon a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of H.O.Kaushik HSE (Retd.) v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 1992 LAB I.C. 772. The petitioner-party-in-person invited attention of the Court to para-4 of the judgment, relevant part of which reads as under:- "4. The approach of the respondents is illegal and once a decision to retire an official compulsorily is taken it is expected that it would be a clear decision to order compulsory retirement without anything more and after dropping or closing all pending or contemplated proceedings in regard to matters which form the background motive to the decision. The statement of allegation intimated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated June 23, 1986 indicates that the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner is based on the allegation pertaining to the year 1982. Respondent No.1 did not think it proper to institute regular inquiry against the petitioner before ordering his premature retirement. If there was any substance in the allegations, it would have been apt for respondent No.1 to frame proper charge sheet against the petitioner and hold the enquiry. He might have been exonerated. If found guilty any major penalty under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 could not have been imposed. If there was any substance in the allegations, it would have been apt for respondent No.1 to frame proper charge sheet against the petitioner and hold the enquiry. He might have been exonerated. If found guilty any major penalty under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 could not have been imposed. Respondent No.1 did not think it proper to proceed with the inquiry presumably for want of evidence. The same might have neighed with respondent No.1 to order premature retirement of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 having once taken the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner, it should have dropped all the pending or contemplated proceedings against him....." In the case on hand, the aforesaid decision is not squarely applicable because in the present case, while departmental proceeding was pending, the Department deemed it proper to pass an order of premature retirement and later on decided to drop the departmental proceedings. 4.15 The petitioner-party-in-person then invited attention of the Court to the charge sheet issued to him, which is at page No.54 in SCA No.3136 of 2005. The charge sheet is dated August 7, 1991. It is issued under the signature of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The opening para of the charge sheet reads as under:- "The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Dr.R.K.Khola, Scientist/Engineer 'SF', Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad under Rule 11 of the Department of Space Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The substance of the imputations of the misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, in support of each article of charge, is enclosed (Annexure- II). A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III & IV)" It will be appropriate to peruse Articles-I and II of the charge against the petitioner, which read as under:- "ARTICLE-I That the said Dr.R.K.Khola, Scientist/Engineer 'SF', Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad directly addressed vide his letter dated 9-1- 91, the then Prime Minister and the then Deputy Prime Minister for redressal of his grievances, with a copy marked to Chairman, ISRO, and Director, SAC without routing the letter through proper channel, despite specific instructions not to written the same. 2. Dr. Khola has thus violated the instructions contained in MHA OM No.118/52-ESTD dated 30-4-52 as amended from time to time, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant Civil Services (Conduct) Rules-1964. ARTICLE-II That the said Dr.R.K.Khola, while functioning as Scientist/Engineer 'SF' in the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad has contrary to the advice given to him earlier at the level of the then Minister of State (S&T), addressed letters to higher authorities, and replied to his superiors in a derogatory, intemperate, abusive and offensive language making wild and baseless allegations vide his letter dated 21-3-91 when he was called upon to explain why inspite of addressing higher authorities, making wild and baseless allegations against his superior authorities. 2. Dr.R.K.Khola has thus acted in a manner which is inconsistent and incompatible with the due discharge of his duties and the letter in question is insulting and insubordinate to such a degree as to be incompatible with the continuation of employer-employee relation, and is therefore an act highly unbecoming of a Government servant of his position thereby violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. In the statement of imputation, in support of articles of charge, certain portion of the letter dated 21.03.1991 of the petitioner (Dr.Khola) are reproduced. The said extracts are reproduced hereinbelow for ready perusal:- "(i) "You people have been abusing the powers and have been continuously launching a slanderous and provocative campaign against me." (ii) "The way in which you have been manoeuvering the false and untrue entries in my ACRs, in connivance with Mr.Pramod Kumar and Mr. OPN Calla it absolutely deplorable and disgusting." (iii) "Because you elite people are jealous of my qualifications and R&D achievements, you had dropped my name from INSAT-1A team based upon unfair and extraneous criteria." (iv) "It will not be incorrect if I say that you have been using all sorts of wicked and inhuman methods to finish me." (v) "You people have grossly abused the power by using discriminatory language in the office orders of my SE and SF grade promotions." (vi) "I am still, ready to prove in front of any impartial and experts audience that my R&D competence and achievements in the fields of electronics and communications engineering are second to none in ISRO including Prof. U.R.Rao, Mr.N.Pant, Dr.Kasturirangan and you. U.R.Rao, Mr.N.Pant, Dr.Kasturirangan and you. But it is unfortunate that you people have manipulated top posts based upon favouritism and extraneous criteria whereas I am still struggling for survival at a relatively low post of Engineer-SF." The aforesaid extracts suggest that the petitioner had complaints against the persons named therein. What is important to note is that, it is an admitted fact that ACRs of the petitioner, starting from 1986 to 1989 were not written and the same were written at one-go and the explanation for the same is that, as the petitioner did not submit his self-appraisal form, the Department lost sight of writing ACRs of the petitioner. The explanation proceeds further saying that, It was only when the case of the petitioner was put before the Screening Committee for consideration for promotion to the higher post, the Department noticed that ACRs of the petitioner are not written and therefore, on the basis of the available material, by the available officer ACRs for the years 1986 to 1989 were written at one-go. It is also a matter of record that in those ACRs, entries were made which were adverse in nature and were communicated to the petitioner subsequently. The petitioner had a grievance about the same as the same resulted into denial of promotion from SF to SG. The adverse entries in the years 1986 to 1989 were the subject-matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in another proceedings being O.A. No.44 of 1992, which was dismissed by the Tribunal against which SCA No.9192 of 2004 was filed which is allowed by this Court. (emphasis supplied) 4.16 This makes it clear that the petitioner did not have smooth relations with the Management and had reason to make grievance. In such situation, the Court is required to consider whether writing a letter without routing it through proper channel could be a ground for issuing charge sheet and above it is also required to be considered whether during the pendency of such charge sheet/departmental proceedings, an order of premature retirement could have been passed. In such situation, the Court is required to consider whether writing a letter without routing it through proper channel could be a ground for issuing charge sheet and above it is also required to be considered whether during the pendency of such charge sheet/departmental proceedings, an order of premature retirement could have been passed. 4.17 The petitioner-party-in-person next relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of O.P.Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., reported in 1981 LAB I.C. 1202 and submitted that, "So long as the Government does not cancel the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner the continuation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained in law". 5. The aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, in the present case, the Department first passed order of premature retirement and then dropped the departmental proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court has to examine the matter from a specific angle, i.e. whether, "order of premature retirement is camouflaged one and is passed resorting to a short-cut to the departmental proceedings". 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.Ketan Dave appearing for the Department, to answer this contention of the petitioner, relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Abhai Kishore Masta, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 336 : 1995 Lab IC 1401, wherein the Hon’ble the Apex Court was pleased to hold that, "order of compulsory retirement passed during the pendency of departmental inquiry cannot be held to be necessarily penal and its true nature is to be decided on verification of relevant record or material on which the order is passed". True it is that an order of compulsory retirement passed during the pendency of departmental inquiry cannot be held to be necessarily penal, but then the Hon’ble the Apex Court has specifically provided that the true nature of an order is to be decided on verification of relevant record or material on which the order is passed. In the present case, the Department has failed to give much less substantiate any valid ground justifying the order of premature retirement. In the present case, the Department has failed to give much less substantiate any valid ground justifying the order of premature retirement. 5.2 The case of the Department is that, the petitioner was not making any substantial contribution in the Department and therefore, on his reaching age of 50, the Department decided to take his case in review and at the end of the review, decided to prematurely retire him. But then, it is not the case of the Department that, the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful or that there was any complaint with regard to his integrity. In absence of that, the material made available on record is taken into consideration by this Court while deciding the validity of the order of premature retirement. It is not in dispute that the Department has not issued one single memo specifically during the period in which it is stated that the petitioner did not make any substantial contribution to the petitioner for his so-called inefficiency. In absence of any material to bring home the charge that the petitioner was not making any significant contribution for which order of premature retirement is passed, is found without any basis. The order is without necessary support from the record and hence, it has to necessarily fall. In this regard, decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of M.S.Bindra v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310 : 1998 Lab IC 3491 provides necessary guidance. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble the Apex Court was dealing with the following facts:- "Appellant was an officer of Indian Revenue Service who made a steep rise in his career and was held in high esteem but suddenly at the age of 52 years, his integrity was doubted and he was compulsorily retired. The Screening Committee gave the following reasons for recommending his compulsory retirement, "On the basis of the specific cases and other material...., he (the appellant) is found to be of unreliable integrity and unfit to the entrusted with any position of responsibility in the Government service as he has widely and systematically indulged in extortion of moneys from the parties and adopted methods which have the effect of bringing down the esteem of the Government in the public eye." 5.3 The order of compulsory retirement was challenged by Mr.Bindra before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said challenge failed. The said challenge failed. Against that, he approached the Hon’ble the Apex Court by filing appeal by special leave, which came to be allowed by the Hon’ble the Apex Court by the aforesaid judgment and order. The Hon’ble the Apex Court was pleased to consider various aspects of the matter and ultimately allowed the appeal by observing as under : "21. We have no doubt that there is utter dearth of evidence for the Screening committee to conclude that appellant had doubtful integrity. Such a conclusion does not stand judicial scrutiny even within thelimited permissible scope. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order under attack including the order by which premature compulsory retirement was imposed on the appellant. The department concerned shall now work out the reliefs to be granted to the appellant as sequel to this judgment." 5.4 The Hon’ble the Apex Court considered the matter in detail in Paras-13, 14, 15, 17 and 19. Instead of preparing all these paras, gist of these paras from the Head Notes is reproduced for ready perusal :- "Want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". On facts, the three cases which formed the basis for proceeding against the appellant do not reveal anything for which the appellants integrity should have been doubted. In fact in the first case, it was the appellant who headed the operation against the mill and unearthed a huge amount of concealed excise duty. This work should have won him appreciation but instead of doing so, it was alleged against him that he willfully created lacunae in confiscation for providing an escape route to the defaulter. This allegation was levelled on the reasoning that confiscation order which was nearly of 100 pages was prepared in too short period. Normally it is an achievement that an order of 100 pages was prepared within a short period. There was nothing wrong in preparing the order promptly. Possibility is that the officer hearing the case for several days would have prepared its prefatory portion as well as statement of summary of evidence during the days when arguments were in progress, leaving out crucial discussion to be dictated after conclusion of hearing. Such course of action is not objectionable. If so, achievement in preparing an order of confiscation within a short time should not have been frowned at, instead there is a scope of compliment for his promptitude. It is also not possible to conclude that the appellants omission to issue show-cause notice before imposing penalty and fine was a deliberate attempt to help the defaulter mill because it was open to the appellate authority to set aside the order and direct the appellant to pass fresh order after issuing show-cause notice. The ground taken against the appellant in second case is equally untenable. Minimum which should have been done before drawing any inference against the appellant was to ascertain circumstances under which appellants subordinate officer kept investigation in abeyance. Attributing a sinister motive to the appellant for his subordinate had done, without ascertaining true facts, is seemingly unfair. In the third case, there was nothing objectionable when the appellant took steps for cancellation of bail granted to defaulters. It is prima facie a point in favour of appellant's tenacity. Attributing a sinister motive to the appellant for his subordinate had done, without ascertaining true facts, is seemingly unfair. In the third case, there was nothing objectionable when the appellant took steps for cancellation of bail granted to defaulters. It is prima facie a point in favour of appellant's tenacity. Role played by him was of a dutiful and efficient officer of the department. The Screening Committee formed opinion about the appellants doubtful integrity on the basis of allegation made by the defaulters who in turn stated that some other person told them the appellant was to be paid Rs.10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings. Nobody checked up the truth, instead hearsay was believed. If integrity of senior officers, who established unblemished reputation and earned encomiums from all concerned till then, is proclaimed as doubtful merely on the strength of statements of persons prosecuted by such officer, what is the safety of such officers more so when they have to embark on hazardous operations risking their lives against big business houses?" 5.5 While other paras are dealing with the facts of that case, para.-13 deals with scope of judicial scrutiny and serves purpose of providing helpful guidance which are of great help in the present case. In the present case, the case of the Department is not about doubtful integrity of the petitioner. The case of the Department is that the petitioner was dead-wood, but then, there is no material placed to substantiate the said allegation - branding the petitioner was dead-wood. If the present petition is dismissed, it will amount to putting seal of approval on the decision of the Department which decision is without any support in record. Therefore, the expression used by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that, "..... there is utter dearth of evidence.....", will be appropriate in the facts of the present case. In the case on hand also, there is no evidence which will satisfy the judicial conscious that the decision reached by the Department of branding the petitioner a dead-wood has any support in the record. Hence, the said decision deserves to be quashed and set. 5.6 The petitioner-party-in-person relied upon various other judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court and other High Courts, but the same are not referred to as they are found not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Hence, the said decision deserves to be quashed and set. 5.6 The petitioner-party-in-person relied upon various other judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court and other High Courts, but the same are not referred to as they are found not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Learned Advocate Mr.Ketan Dave for the Department strenuously tried to support the order of premature retirement and the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Tribunal, which was pleased to uphold the same. 6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent invited attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Department in O.A. No.407 of 1993, which is affirmed by one Shri P.B.Giridharan, working as Administrative Officer-II in the office of Space Applications Centre. Learned Advocate relied upon contents of para-8 of the affidavit, which reads as under:- "8. As regards para VI(7), it is denied that the ACR gradings of the applicant are given due to malafide intentions. The adverse remarks recorded for the years 1986-90 were communicated in letter No. 1/4(9)/1-1 dated 14/02/92. Adverse remarks in the ACR for 1991 were communicated in letter No. 1/4(9)/91-1 dated 28/01/92. His representations were considered by the competent authority and rejected. The adverse remarks were therefore, confirmed. The applicant challenged the above said gradings in OA 44/92 which is pending before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The applicant had not submitted his self-assessment reports for the years 1986 to 1990. It is mainly due to the fact that the applicant had not done any work during the said period. The ACRs reflect that no work was done by the applicant, as reported by the Reporting Officer. The other allegations are imaginary. The applicant has prayed before the Hon’ble Tribunal vide para 7(g) of M.A. No.50/92 in OA No.44/92 that the ACRs of the years 1986 to 1991 be sent to the forensic laboratory situated in Ahmedabad. The said prayer was rejected by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 03/05/93 (copies of MA and orders are marked as Annexure R-3, collectively). The ACRs were written as per Rules. Delayed communication of adverse remarks does not vitiate the remarks. Reliance is placed on judgment in Ravjis v. Union of India, AIR (2) CAT 157 (Delhi), wherein it was held that instruction regarding communication of adverse entries in Confidential Reports are in the nature of guidelines, breach of which does not render the remarks void. Delayed communication of adverse remarks does not vitiate the remarks. Reliance is placed on judgment in Ravjis v. Union of India, AIR (2) CAT 157 (Delhi), wherein it was held that instruction regarding communication of adverse entries in Confidential Reports are in the nature of guidelines, breach of which does not render the remarks void. Reliance is also based on Baldev Kapoor v. Union of India and others, reported in 1980(2) SLR 309 (Punjab and Haryana) where it was held that non-compliance of the executive instructions, having no statutory force, does not render the decision illegal. This being the legal position, I submit that there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that the delayed communication of adverse remarks vitiates the order of premature retirement. I further say and submit that the applicant prayed for interim relief to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the SG grade as on October, 1990 by the DPC to be held in March, 1992 and April, 1993, before the Hon’ble Tribunal vide Mas No.52/92 and 132/93 in OA No.44/92 respectively which were rejected by the Hon’ble Tribunal by speaking orders. Hence there is no merit in the applicants allegation that the respondents action in not placing his case before the DPC became arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. I say and submit that the Hon’ble Tribunal held in their orders dated 03/05/93 in MA No. 132/93 that the screening procedure followed in respondents organisation is in order. I further say and submit that the Ernakulam Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal in K. Venkatarao v. Union of India and others (OA No.461/89) upheld the procedures followed by the respondents in the matter of promotion to higher posts of Scientific and Technical Officers, by a speaking order. The relevant portion of the judgment is enclosed as Annexure R-4." 7. From the aforesaid para, it is clear that the adverse remarks recorded for the years 1986-1990 were communicated by letter dated 14.02.1992, whereas adverse remarks in ACRs for the year 1991 were communicated by letter dated 28.01.1992. There cannot be more clear an admission on the part of the Department than the one which is made in the aforesaid para. It is specifically stated that, "..... The applicant had not submitted his self-assessment reports for the years 1986 to 1990. There cannot be more clear an admission on the part of the Department than the one which is made in the aforesaid para. It is specifically stated that, "..... The applicant had not submitted his self-assessment reports for the years 1986 to 1990. It is mainly due to the fact that the applicant had not done any work during the said period. The ACRs reflect that no work was done by the applicant, as reported by the Reporting Officer.....". 7.1 In this para, the deponent has tried to derive a support from a decision wherein it is held that, "Delayed communication of adverse remarks does not vitiate the remarks" Ravji v. Union of India AIR(2) CAT 157 (Delhi). Similarly, the deponent has also placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Baldev Kapoor v. Union of India and others, reported in 1980(2) SLR 309 (Punjab and Haryana), to support the contention that, "non-compliance of the executive instructions, having no statutory force, does not render the decision illegal". 7.2 This Court is not able to accept any of these submissions for the simple reason that law is very well settled on this issue and in absence of any justifiable reason of not writing ACRs at the relevant time and communicating the adverse ACRs for the period 1986 to 1990 by letter dated 14.02.1992 renders the adverse entries in this ACRs not worthy of relying upon for passing an order of premature retirement and therefore, the submission made in the aforesaid affidavit in reply that, "This being the legal position, I submit that there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that the delayed communication of adverse remarks vitiates the order of premature retirement", does not find favour. 7.3 Now that the petition filed by the petitioner being SCA No.9192 of 2004 is allowed, the Court has upheld the challenge of the petitioner to the adverse entries made in the ACRs for the years 1986 to 1990 and has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from SF to SG on the basis of the other relevant material available, but ignoring the ACRs, the validity of the order of premature retirement is also required to be considered on the basis of the material available that is treating the adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner non-existent. 7.4 Coming to para-9 of the affidavit in reply, the deponent has made it clear by saying that, "..... I further say and submit that vide para 6 of the appeal the applicant himself had admitted that he had not submitted his self appraisal from 1985 to 1989 under protest. Even in the appeal the applicant failed to submit his work report. Though the applicant made representation against the ACR yearwise, he failed to bring on record the details of work performed by him. I say and submit that the applicant had nothing to say in this regard and is just trying to cover up his own lapses raising wild allegations on each and every superior officer.....". (Emphasis supplied). 7.5 This clearly shows that the Department was in know of the non-submission of self-appraisal report. Besides that, the Department was under an obligation to write his ACRs even in absence of self-appraisal report. The very fact that the Department did not opt for the other alternative available to it, the Department cannot be allowed to justify its action of the order of premature retirement. 8. The aforesaid reasons are the basis for passing an order dated 07.05.2013, which reads as under:- RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. :- 9. Heard Dr.R.K.Khola, who is appearing as partyin- person and learned advocate Mr. Ketan A. Dave, who is appearing for the respondents - Union of India, Prof. U.R.Roa and Prof. P.P.Kale. 2. For the reasons to follow, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, dated 4.4.2001 passed in O.A.No.407 of 1993 and judgment and order dated 31.10.2010 passed in R.A. No.91 of 2001 in O.A.No.407 of 1993 are quashed and set aside. The order of premature retirement dated 3.5.1993 (Annexure-A10 of the O.A.) is quashed and set aside. The consequences of the quashing of the premature retirement order should follow, meaning thereby the petitioner be deemed to have continued in service till he reached the age of superannuation i.e. 31.3.2002. The petitioner be entitled to all the benefits as if he was in service till he retired on superannuation. Since the petitioner is ordered to have continued in service upto 31.3.2002, his case will be required to be considered by the Department for whatever promotions he was entitled to on the basis of material available. The petitioner be entitled to all the benefits as if he was in service till he retired on superannuation. Since the petitioner is ordered to have continued in service upto 31.3.2002, his case will be required to be considered by the Department for whatever promotions he was entitled to on the basis of material available. The decision be taken about his promotion to Grade - G and H and in the event, he is found fit to be promoted to Grade-G and H, the consequential benefits should be given to him. 3. At this juncture, the petitioner - Shri R.K.Khola states before the Court that during the period 3.5.1993 to 31.3.2002, he had practiced as an Advocate and had earned an amount of Rs.2 lacs which he declares for being adjusted by the Department against the amount payable to him pursuant to this order. The department to take note of this declaration and adjust the amount payable to the petitioner accordingly. Order accordingly.