1 2025:CGHC:17580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3312 of 2020 Order Reserved on 25.03.2025 Order Pronounced on 17.04.2025 1 - Rajendra Kumar Vaid S/o Watuji Vaid Aged About 53 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Qr. No.- 32, Bijapur (C.G.) Present R/o Ward No. 7, Shankarpur, C/o Narmada Paan Bhandar, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh High Court Through Registrar General Bodri, Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur, (C.G.), District : Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 - District Judge South Bastar Dantewara, Dist- Bastar (C.G.), District : Dantewada, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Order 1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 29.8.2018 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner has been sent on compulsory retirement and order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.8.2018 has been rejected. 2. Challenge has been made on the ground that without any valid reason, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired invoking the provisions of Rule 56 (2) of the Fundamental Rules and Sub-rule (1)(B) of Rule 42 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially he was appointed as “Process Writer” on 30.09.1995 in the Establishment of District Court, Jagdalpur (Bastar). His performance was 'good' and he has been granted timely promotions. In the year 2018, he was posted as Assistant Grade-II in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beejapur, District Dantewada (C.G.). A Committee constituted by District Judge, subsequently, which was reconstituted by District Judge appointing himself as Chairman of the Committee, considered the service records of 12 employees of the District Establishment including petitioner, who have completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service. After scrutiny of record, vide impugned order, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on the basis of adverse entries made in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the year 2011, 2014 and 2016 without considering his complete service record, 3 therefore, the petitioner filed instant writ petition challenging the order dated 29.8.2020 (Annexuer P-2) and order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-5). 4. Contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per Report dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure P-1) prepared by Scrutiny Committee, it is evident that for compulsory retirement of petitioner, his ACRs of 'only selective years' i.e. of the year 2011, 2014 and 2016 have been taken into consideration whereas as per Circular dated 25.4.2017 issued by Govt. of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department (GAD) for compulsory retirement, complete service record of the concerned employee ought to have been scrutinized. He further submits that adverse entries of the aforesaid years made in ACRs of the petitioner were never communicated to him and except those adverse entries, grading of petitioners for other years are either 'good' or 'very good', but complete service record of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to rejoinder filed by him would submit that out of 23 (24 ACRs) years of service, only in 2 ACRs, he has been reported to be 'not honest' and in one ACR, his integrity has been recorded “doubtful” whereas, there is overwhelming presence of his honesty in ACRs of entire carrier. Referring to the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others 1 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authority cannot consider ACRs of certain years selectively, rather satisfaction should be arrived at on the basis of relevant materials. In this regard, he also relied upon the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel 2 . While referring to case of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India and another 3 he would submit that power to compulsorily retire a government servant cannot exceed 1 2012 (3) SCC 580 2 (2001) 3 SCC 314 3 (2023) 2 SCR 30 4 the parameters prescribed by law, even extraneous or irrelevant factors also cannot be taken into consideration. But, in instant case, Scrutiny Committee without considering complete service record of the petitioner, merely on the basis of adverse entries made in the ACRs of three years selectively taken it and retired the petitioner vide impugned order, hence, he prays that impugned order may be set aside and the respondents be directed to re- instate the petitioner with full backwages, seniority and other benefits. 5. Respondents No. 2 & 3, who are main contesting party to the case, have filed their return stating inter alia that adverse entries made in the ACRs of petitioner were communicated to him and while considering case of the petitioner, his whole service record was perused by the Screening Committee. It is further stated that there were several complaints made by the Advocates against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 while referring to its reply would submit that, though earlier service record of the petitioner was good, but in the year 2011, his character, integrity and overall grading has been reported to be shoddy/worsed and in the year 2014, his character and integrity have been reported as 'bad' and 'not honest', respectively and his overall grading is shoddy. In the year 2016, his integrity has been reported as “doubtful” and overall grading is “ordinary good”. It is further contended that in preceding five years, overall work performance of the petitioner was found to be below the rank of “good”, therefore, he submits that impugned orders have been based on valid reasons, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Respondent No. 1/State has also filed its return mentioning therein that main contesting party in the instant petition is respondents No. 2 & 3 and no specific relief has been sought for by the petitioner against respondent No.1. 5 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with report prepared by Screening Committee and its original record. 8. Perusal of ‘Report’ (Annexure P-1) prepared by Screening Committee shows that compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been made on the ground that since preceding several years, 'character', 'integrity' and overall performance of the petitioner was gradually deteriorated and in the years 2011, 2014 and 2016, his integrity has been reported to 'dishonest' / 'doubtful' . As such, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 29.8.2018 (Annexure P-2). 9. Guideline issued by Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department dated 25.4.2017 is attached with the record of Screening Committee and criteria fixed in the aforesaid Circular are as under:- “¼v½ bZekunkjh rFkk lafu"Bk lansgtud gksukA ¼bl gsrq lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dk lEiw.kZ vfHkys[k ns[kk tk,½ ¼c½ 'kkjhfjd {kerk esa dehA ¼l½ [;kfr ,oa dk;Z{kerk dk ewY;kadu lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod ds lsokdky ds lEiw.kZ vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk,A blds fy, ;g vko’;d ugha gksxk fd 'kkldh; lsod ds lsokdky ds lEiw.kZ vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk,A blds fy, vko’;d ugha gksxk fd izR;sd izfrdwy vH;qfDr vFkok ,slh vH;qfDr ftls izfrdwy vH;qfDr dh laKk nh tk ldrh gS 'kkldh; lsod dks lalwfpr dh x;h gksA ¼n½ lEiw.kZ lsokdky ds vfHkys[kksa dk lexz ewY;kadu ^vPNk ¼[k½* Js.kh ls de gksukA ewY;kadu ds vk/kkj ij ;g Hkh ns[kk tk;s fd 'kkldh; lsod ds fiNys 5 o"kksZa ds dk;Z dk Lrj ?kV rks ugha jgk gSA” 6 10. Based on aforesaid guidelines, Screen Committee, headed by the Chairman (District Judge), South Bastar, Dantewada formulated criteria, for evaluation of service records of the petitioner and other employees, for consideration of their compulsory retirement are as under :- “1- bZekunkjh rFkk lafu"Bk lansgtud gksus ijA 2- 'kkjhfjd {kerk esa deh ;k v{ke ik;s tkus ijA 3- fdlh nkf.Md U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls fdlh vijk/k esa nks"kh ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij] ftlls fd mlds uSfrd iru dk vkHkk"k gksrk gksA 4- xksiuh; izfrosnu [kjkc gksus ij] fo’ks"kdj] fiNys ik¡p o"kksZa ds nkSjkuA 5- 'kklu ds fu;eksa ds fo:) dk;Z ;k O;ogkj fd;s tkus ijA 6- fdlh jktuhfrd ny dk lfØ; lnL; gksus ij] ;k jktuhfrd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lfØ; Hkkxhnkj gksuk ik;s tkus ijA 7- jk"Vªnzksg ds dk;Z esa lafyIr gksuk ik;s tkus ijA 8- vkijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr gksuk ik;s tkus ijA 9- Hkz"V vkpj.k djuk ik;s tkus ijA 10- dk;Z{kerk esa lq/kkj ugha yk;s tkus ij o mldh dk;Z{kerk esa yxkrkj fxjkoV ik;s tkus ijA” 11. Now the issue to be considered by this Court is whether based on above criteria, order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is just & proper or not ? 12. Prior to consider the merits of the case, relevant case laws rendered by the Apex Court relating to the issue of instant case are apt to be noted here. 13. In the case of State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das 4 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “ It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled 4 (1996) 5 SCC 331 7 to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or who are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline, has to consider the entire record of the government servant including the latest report. 14. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel5, Supreme Court has delineated the following broad principles that ought to be followed in matters relating to compulsory retirement :- “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into a definite principle, which could be broadly summarized thus : (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having the regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also taken into consideration. 5 (2001) 3 SCC 314 8 (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 15. Likewise, the Supreme Court again in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (supra), in paragraph -34 has given a broad outline as to the entries which would be relevant for the purpose of formation of an opinion before placing an employee/officer for compulsory retirement. For ready reference paragraph -34 of the said judgment is reproduced below :- “34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACR's. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACR's which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and 9 a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs.” 16. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport and Others vs. Babu Lal Jangir 6 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 23 & 24 as under :- “23. The principle of law which is clarified and stands crystallized after the judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.; 2010 (10) SCC 693 is that after the promotion of an employee the adverse entries prior thereto would have no relevance and can be treated as wiped off when the case of the government employee is to be considered for further promotion. However, this ‘washed off theory’ will have no application when case of an employee is being assessed to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement. The rationale given is that since such an assessment is based on “entire service record”, there is no question of not taking into consideration an earlier old adverse entries or record of the old period. We may hasten to add that while such a record can be taken into consideration, at the same time, the service record of the immediate past period will have to be given due credence and weightage. For example, as against some very old adverse entries where the immediate past record shows exemplary performance, ignoring such a record of recent past and acting only on the basis of old adverse entries, to retire a person will be a clear example of arbitrary exercise of power. However, if old record pertains to integrity of a person then that may be sufficient to justify the order of premature retirement of the government servant. 24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could 6 2013 (10) SCC 551 10 not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.” 17. In the case of Posts and Telegraphs Board vs. C.S.N. Murthy7, the Apex Court held that the courts would not interfere with the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement if arrived at bonafide and on the basis of material available on record. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under :- “5………….Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of the delinquency and 7 (1992) 2 SCC 317 11 whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record. No mala fides have been urged in the present case. The only suggestion of the High Court is that the record discloses no material which would justify the action taken against the respondent. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, there was material which showed that the efficiency of the petitioner was slackening in the last two years of the period under review and it is, therefore, not possible for us to fault the conclusion of the department as being mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable.” 18. Based on aforesaid legal principles and the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments what culls out broadly is that while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there has to be an overall assessment of the entire service record of the petitioner/employee which should be taken note of by the Department. And for doing so, there has to be a subjective satisfaction of the competent authority and the authority should take a decision on the basis of cogent material available on record. 19. It is also settled proposition of law that so far as scope of interference in the matter of compulsory retirement is concerned, unless it is shown that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without application of mind or that the formation of opinion to retire compulsorily was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was totally perverse, the Court can interfere with the impugned order, but if not, then 12 Court cannot as a matter of routine interfere with the order of compulsory retirement. Such order is even not required to be a speaking order. 20. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, as per list annexed with the record of Screening Committee, entire ACRs of petitioner has been reduced as under :- deZpkjh dk uke o inuke& Jh jktsUnz oS|] lgk;d xzsM&02 Øekad o"kZ pfj= lafu"Bk Js.kh vfrfjDr dksbZ foijhr Vhi 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1996 Bhd gh gS vPNk gS Bhd gS vPNk gS & & 2 1996 vPNk gS & ÞlhÞ & 3 1997 vPNk gS fu"Bkoku gS vPNk gS 4 1998 vPNk gS vPNk gS ÞlhÞ & 5 1998 larks"ktud larks"ktud vPNk & 6 1999 mÙke mÙke mÙke ¼vPNk½ & 7 1999&2000 vPNk gS LkkekU; gS vPNk] funsZ’kkuqlkj dk;Z djus esa l{ke & 8 2000&01 mRre LkekU; gS cgqr vPNk & 9 2001&02 vPNk gS vPNk ÞchÞ & 10 2002&03 vPNk gS vPNk gS vPNk gS & 11 2003&04 vPNk gS vPNk gS vPNk gS & 12 2005 vPNk gS vPNk gS cgqr vPNk & 13 2006 vPNk gS dksbZ lansg ugha cgqr vPNk & 14 2006&07 vPNk gS lafnX/k ugha gS lk/kkj.k vPNk & 15 2007&08 Bhd gS vlafnX/k gS lk/kkj.k vPNk & 16 2009 vPNk gS vlafnX/k gS cgqr vPNk & 17 2010 lk/kkj.k vPNk lk/kkj.k lk/kkj.k vPNk & 18 2011 ?kfV;k ?kfV;k ?kfV;k & 19 2012 vPNk gS fu"Bkoku gS lk/kkj.k vPNk & 20 2013 lk/kkj.k vPNk bZekunkj gS lk/kkj.k vPNk & 21 2014 [kjkc gS bZekunkj ugha gS ?kfV;k & 22 2015 mRre mRre cgqr vPNk & 23 2016 vPNs vkpj.k ds gSa ,oa pfj=oku gS lafnX/k gS lk/kkj.k vPNk gS & 24 2017 vPNk gS dk;Z ds izfr fu"Bk gS lk/kkj.k vPNk & 21. Perusal of entries made in ACRs of petitioner show that his overall grading has been made “Good” / “Very Good” for 12 years and his overall grading has been recorded as “C” or below “C” for 11 years. Grading for the 13 year 1996 has not been recorded. For various years, his overall grading has been recorded as “Ordinary Good”, which cannot be termed as “Good” (‘B’). Though, for several years i.e. prior to 2010, his “Character” & “integrity” has not been reported as adverse, rather it is “good”, but from the year 2010, his “character” and “integrity” and overall performance has been reported to be deteriorated. For the year 2011, his “character” and “integrity” has been reported to be shoddy and overall performances has also been reported to be “shoddy”. For the years 2012 and 2013, his overall performance has been reported to be “Ordinary Good”. For the year 2014, his character has been reported to be “bad”, integrity – not-honest and grading has been reported to be shoddy. Even in the year 2016 also, his ‘integrity’ has been reported to be “doubtful” and for the year 2017, his overall grading has been reported to be “ordinary good’. 22. Having perused the aforesaid adverse entries made against the petitioner from the year 2010 onwards, it is found that his overall grading has been recorded as “Ordinary Good”, which cannot be termed as “Good” and even for the year 2011, 2014 & 2016, his integrity has been recorded as shoddy, not-honest and doubtful, respectively. Further, from the year 2010- 2017, except at once, for other years, his overall grading has been reported to be ‘shoddy’ / ‘ordinary good”. Thus, for about 3 years, not only his character / intergrity has been reported as 'bad'/'dishonest' but also his overall grading has been reported as 'ordinary good', which shows that the overall performance of the petitioner had deteriorated since 2010 and he failed to improve his performance. 23. On being perused such adverse entries for various preceding years of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, it cannot be said that impugned order 14 has been passed without any valid reasons or grounds. Further, when integrity of the petitioner has been reported to the ‘negative’ for thrice and even special report sought for from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beejapur dated 10.8.2018, which also show that the petitioner did not comply with the direction given to him and he also did not perform his duty with due interest, therefore, it cannot be said that order impugned suffers from any perversity or illegality. 24. So far as contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that adverse entries made against the petitioner had not been communicated to him, therefore, such adverse entries cannot be taken into consideration for compulsorily retirement of the petitioner, is not found to be sustainable, as in the case of Harijan and Tribal Welfare Deptt. v. Nityananda Pati 8 , the order of compulsory retirement of the employee was set aside by the High Court for the reason that certain un-communicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration, but that order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court. Further, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra), the Supreme Court has held that “Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order”. Hence, even if such adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner, which were taken into consideration in passing the impugned order, despite that, impugned order cannot be set aside, particularly when at-least for 3 years, his integrity has been reported to be bad / dishonest / doubtful. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is found that there are sufficient material available on record for compulsory retirement of the petitioner, therefore, judgments which have been cited and relied upon by the petitioner 8 1993 Supp (2) SCC 391 15 would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in fact situation of the present case. As such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference of this Court. 26. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.21 10:52:32 +0530