Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 9) set aside the compulsory retirement of a former Indian Trade Service officer, who was prematurely retired despite possessing an unblemished record and outstanding gradings. The Court awarded him ₹9 lakh as compensation for loss of reputation and ₹6 lakh as costs, and directed that he be called back to office by the Director General of Foreign Trade for a formal farewell with full honour.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that an officer with a consistently outstanding service record, who had been promoted to the post of Joint Secretary merely two months before his compulsory retirement, could not have been suddenly branded as “dead wood” or an officer of doubtful integrity in the absence of any intervening adverse material.

“The object of compulsory retirement is to enable the administration to dispense with the services of public servants who, when viewed in the prism of public interest, have been rendered dead wood and, thus, outlived their utility…However, a promotion earned on merits, and not by dint of seniority alone, immediately prior to such order of compulsory retirement being made would, by itself, render the order susceptible to invalidity.”, the Court observed.

Noting that the Appellant had outstanding gradings and was promoted to the post of the Joint Secretary just before two months of his compulsory retirement, the Court called the order of compulsory retirement to be full of arbitrariness, perversity and mala fides.

“…the appellant was found fit for promotion by none other than the UPSC and granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary barely two months prior to the order of retirement with the approval of the ACC. Such grant of promotion was an unequivocal recognition by the department concerned that the appellant's service was not only highly satisfactory and meritorious but that he was an officer who should be entrusted higher responsibilities. Having promoted the appellant, barely a couple of months later, the superior officers in the department could not have branded him, so to say, 'dead wood' to justify weeding him out in purported public interest. The two actions are mutually destructive and cannot co-exist.”, the Court said.

“To brand an officer like the appellant – who dedicated the best years of his life to the service of the nation – as dead wood and to weed him out from service by invoking the specious ground that it is necessary to do so in public interest smacks of a high degree of malice and colourable exercise of power. One would strain the eyes in vain to find out anything to show that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is, indeed, passed in public interest!”, the Court added.

Background

Appellant was appointed to the Indian Trade Service in 1989. He was promoted as Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade in 1994 and as Joint Director General of Foreign Trade in 2001.

In 2014, he was appointed as Additional Director in the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping (DGAD).

On November 16, 2017, he was placed in the Senior Administrative Grade at the level of Joint Secretary. He was thereafter granted regular promotion on February 27, 2018.

Barely over two months later, on May 10, 2018, the competent authority ordered his premature retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(j), nearly five years before his scheduled date of superannuation.

The Review Committee had recommended his premature retirement on the basis of certain entries in his APAR dossier, a confidential note prepared by the then Additional Secretary and Director General of Anti-Dumping, and an interaction with the former senior officer.

The Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently the Delhi High Court upheld the compulsory retirement, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Datta noted that since the Appellant had received predominantly “Outstanding” gradings during the earlier part of his career, followed by consistently high numerical APAR scores, therefore his recent merit-based promotion could not simply be brushed aside while considering whether an officer had become unsuitable for further service.

The Court rejected the authority's selective reliance on a subset favouring the department without considering the entire service record of the Appellant.

“The Review Committee placed its reliance upon those propositions which supported the power to take into account past adverse material, thereby skirting from meaningfully engaging with the equally material limitations and qualifications embedded in the same line of authority, particularly the requirement that the entire service record be considered, that the immediate past be accorded due weight, and that promotion notwithstanding earlier adverse material is a factor inuring in favour of the officer. Such a selective bureaucratic reliance only on a particular subset of precedents favouring the department, divorced from the qualifications and balancing principles which accompany the propositions relied upon, cannot furnish a rational basis for the exercise of power under FR 56(j).”, the Court observed.

“Law is well-settled that FR 56(j) can neither be invoked as a shortcut to avoid regular proceedings nor as a device to retire an officer either without material or to wreak vengeance or to satisfy vested interests. When 'OUTSTANDING' gradings are followed by a promotion, a subsequent subjective satisfaction that the service is not up to the required mark, without any intervening adverse material, could be declared ex facie arbitrary, perverse and a colourable exercise of power.”, the Court added.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, granting the Appellant all service benefits in accordance with law as if he had not been compulsorily retired. This would include notional promotion if any of his juniors had been promoted during the period in which he remained out of service.

“…we direct that the appellant shall be called back in office by the Director General of Foreign Trade for being bidden farewell with full honour and in like manner, which he would have received on the date of his superannuation but for the unceremonious premature severance of relationship.”, the Court ordered, along with the costs of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 9 lakhs for the loss of reputation.

Notably, in April 2026 also, the bench led by Justice Datta had ordered that a formal farewell be organised for an ex-Air Force Personnel, to restore his honour, who was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding despite having been discharged in criminal proceedings on the same charges.

Cause Title: S.S. DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 921

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Anurag Ojha, AOR Mr. Mrinal Singh, Adv. Mr. Tathagat Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rohan Mandal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Pranjal Singh, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Nasadiya Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma B, Adv. Ms. Anju Kaushik, Adv.

Related: 

Tags: