Synopsis

The petitioner, an officer of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), was prematurely retired under Regulation 22(2A) of the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971. The petitioner had earlier been reviewed in 2017 and retained in service, was promoted to General Manager in 2019, and had recent Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) consistently grading him as “Very Good” and “Outstanding”, with integrity recorded as “Beyond Doubt” in the latest year. The impugned retirement was ordered within days of a favorable judgment by the Orissa High Court granting him notional promotion with seniority benefits. The FCI relied on stale material – two disciplinary proceedings from 2012 ending in minor penalties, an isolated “Good” grading from 2009, and the fact that his integrity had for some years been recorded as “Nothing Adverse Reported/Noticed” rather than “Beyond Doubt”. The Delhi High Court quashed the retirement order, holding that under FCI’s own Circular dated 09.07.2021 (adopting DoPT OM 28.08.2020), a second review after earlier retention required “changed circumstances” and “visible meticulousness” – both absent. The court found the material insufficient to justify doubtful integrity, the interpretation of “Nothing Adverse Reported” as negative was untenable, and the timing of the order suggested a colourable exercise of power. The petitioner was deemed to have continued in service until superannuation with all consequential benefits.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 5th May, 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 1274/2024 (unreported)

Core Law: Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971 – Regulation 22(2A) (compulsory retirement in public interest); Judicial review of administrative action – principles of arbitrariness, colourable exercise of power; Service law – consideration of stale adverse material, effect of subsequent promotion and good APARs

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

W.p.(c) 1274/2024

Prasant kumar satapathy (petitioner) vs. Food corporation of india & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sanjeev narula

Date of decision: 5th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Food corporation of india staff regulations, 1971 – regulation 22(2a) (compulsory retirement of a member of the staff in public interest on attaining prescribed age or on completion of service period, with three months’ notice or pay in lieu)

Food corporation of india circular no. ep-01-2021-24 dated 09.07.2021 – adopting the framework of the department of personnel and training (dopt) office memorandum dated 28.08.2020, including criteria for review, second review only on changed circumstances, visible meticulousness, and the “five-year rule” for ineffectiveness

Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction), article 311 (protection to civil servants – not attracted in compulsory retirement)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an order of compulsory retirement in public interest passed under Regulation 22(2A) of the FCI Staff Regulations is liable to be set aside when: (i) the employee had already been retained after a previous review; (ii) the employee was subsequently promoted with consistently high APARs; (iii) the employer relies on stale adverse material known at the time of retention and promotion; (iv) the employer’s own circular requires “changed

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.