State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Others

Core point: Under Rule 16(3)second committee on the same record—unless new, exceptional facts arise or the next scheduled review is due.

Also: Ideas from preventive detention cases about fair representation do not apply to compulsory retirement. Retirement is a service rule step and carries no stigma like a criminal or liberty matter.

1. Is a second Review Committee under Rule 16(3) justified on the same materials?
2. Do preventive detention principles on representation govern compulsory retirement orders?

• Binding instructions: Government instructions under Rule 16(3) are part of service conditions and ensure uniform practice. They are binding.
• Second review test: Not allowed on the same record unless new exceptional circumstances arise or the next review stage arrives.
• Detention vs retirement: Detention safeguards are about personal liberty. Compulsory retirement is administrative and non-stigmatising.

• Instructions bind: Rule 16(3) lacks internal criteria; official instructions supply a fair, uniform procedure and are binding.
• No second review on same record: After a favourable first review and no contrary Central decision, a second Review Committee has no warrant unless new exceptional facts emerge or the next review is due.
• Different domains: Preventive detention principles about representation do not apply to non-stigma compulsory retirement.

Government must follow Rule 16(3) instructions. A second review on the same material is barred unless new exceptional circumstances arise or the next review stage arrives.

• Prevents repeat reviews used to reach a harsher outcome without new facts.
• Protects fairness and uniformity in civil service decisions.
• Separates liberty cases from service rule retirements.

• Rule 16(3) instructions are binding.
• No second review on the same record without new, exceptional material.
• Compulsory retirement ≠ preventive detention; different rights and tests.

Mnemonic: “ONE REVIEW, THEN NEW VIEW”

1. One Review: First committee decides per instructions.
2. Then? Only if new facts or next stage arises.
3. Else: No second review on the same material.

Issue: Could the State set up a second Review Committee under Rule 16(3) on the same record?

Rule: Instructions under Rule 16(3) are binding; second review needs new exceptional material or the next scheduled review.

Application: First review cleared continuance; Centre did not disagree. No new facts surfaced before the second review.

Conclusion: Second review had no warrant; compulsory retirement based on it could not stand.

Rule 16(3)

AIS (DCRB) Rules process to review an officer’s continuance at certain ages/stages.

Compulsory Retirement

Administrative exit without stigma, based on service interest; not a punishment.

Exceptional Circumstances

Fresh, significant facts justifying a new look before the next scheduled review.