The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has upheld the compulsory retirement of Alok Kumar Mitra, a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer of the 1992 batch, holding that the Union Government acted within the framework of Fundamental Rule 56(j) and followed the prescribed procedure while retiring him in public interest.
The Bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 10 June 2019, as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow’s decision dated 20 February 2023, which had earlier rejected Mitra’s plea.
Alok Kumar Mitra, an IRS officer appointed through UPSC, rose to the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax (Senior Administrative Grade). He served in the Income Tax Department between 1995 and 2014 and was later deputed as Chief Executive Officer of the State Agency for Comprehensive Health and Integrated Services (SACHIS) in Uttar Pradesh. He was compulsorily retired while serving as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–III, Kochi.
The compulsory retirement was ordered by invoking Fundamental Rule 56(j), which empowers the Government to retire a Group ‘A’ officer in public interest after attaining the age of 50 years. Mitra’s representation against the order was rejected in August 2019, following which he approached the CAT and subsequently the High Court.
The petitioner contended that the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary and punitive, amounting to victimisation. Mandatory Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and 11.09.2015 governing compulsory retirement were not followed. Approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) was mandatory but not obtained. The Review Committee relied on non-existent and stale material, including a charge sheet dated 15.07.2013 that had already been quashed by the CAT in 2018. His Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and APARs consistently rated him as an “outstanding officer” with unquestioned integrity, especially after promotion. Compulsory retirement was used as a substitute for disciplinary action, which is impermissible in law.
The Union of India defended the action, asserting that a duly constituted Review Committee, headed by the Secretary (Revenue), examined Mitra’s entire service record, including complaints, vigilance inputs, disciplinary history and supervisory performance. The Review Committee formed a subjective satisfaction that the officer’s integrity was doubtful and that he had become ineffective as a supervisory authority. The decision was taken in public interest and approved by the President of India, who is the appointing authority. A separate Representation Committee, constituted as per DoPT guidelines, independently reviewed and rejected Mitra’s representation.
The Bench held that the President, being the appointing authority of the petitioner, was fully competent to pass the order under FR 56(j). Approval of the ACC was not mandatory for compulsory retirement. The Review Committee was properly constituted and assisted by internal vigilance members, as mandated by the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015. The Committee examined the entire service record and recorded detailed reasons.
Even though the charge sheet against Mitra was quashed on technical grounds, the Court held that the Review Committee was not barred from considering the underlying allegations while assessing integrity for compulsory retirement.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer, the Court reiterated that compulsory retirement does not carry stigma and does not amount to punishment.
The Court noted that action under FR 56(j) was taken against 67 officers, negating allegations of targeting or personal malice.
Case Details
Case Title: Alok Kumar Mitra Versus UOI
Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 2736 of 2023
Date: 02/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Counsel For Respondent: A.S.G.I., Devrishi Kumar
