1 2025:CGHC:56512-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 841 of 2025 Krishna Shankar Pradhan S/o Shri B.R. Pradhan Aged About 47 Years (Now Aged About 55 Years), R/o Yadunadan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Accommodation And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2. The Under Secretary Accommodation And Environment Department, State Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Durg Division, District- Durg (C.G.) 4. The Joint Director Nagar And Gram Nivesh, Regional Office, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.21 10:27:00 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 20.11.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6084 of 2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “ a. allow this writ appeal & set aside the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6084 of 2017. b. quash the order of compulsory retirement dated 14.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.2; c. any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, including cost of the petition be ordered in favour of Appellants.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Director (Research) under the respondent authorities vide order dated 07.07.1993. On 25.04.2017, the State Government issued a circular and laid down guidelines for compulsory retirement of a government servant on attaining the age of 50 years or completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14.08.2017, issued an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner on the ground that 3 the petitioner was negligent towards his work and he was a habitual drunkard Respondent No. 1 also considered the fact that despite the warning, there was no improvement. The health condition of the appellant was also not good, and the annual conduct reports of the years 2010 to 2017 were not submitted by the petitioner himself by making self-assessment The authority concerned also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner took 851 days of leave, and those leaves were adjusted against the earned leave and leave without pay etc. Consequently, after attaining the age of 50 years, the order of compulsory retirement was passed according to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The appellant preferred the writ petition against the order which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 12. It is a well settled principle of law that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, and further, the petitioner had completed the age of 50 years when the order was passed. 4 13. Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though ACRs for seven years were not submitted by the appellant, the respondent authorities were under an obligation to issue a show cause notice to the appellant in this regard, and in the absence of ACRs, the order of compulsory retirement should not have been passed. He would further submit that the respondent authorities have not placed on record the medical evidence to establish the fact that the appellant was habitual of consuming liquor, therefore, this ground was not available with the respondents. He would contend that the appellant remained absent for 851 days, but the said period of absence has already been adjusted against the earned leave, leave without pay, and other available leaves, therefore, that ground was also not available to the respondents, while passing the order of compulsory retirement. He would further contend that the authority concerned has passed the order contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government dated 25.04.2017. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Koushal Prasad Sahu Vs. State of C.G. in WPS No. 5 1481 of 2018 and Amritlal Vs. C.G. State Remewab;e Energy Development and Ors in WPS No. 2303 of 2012. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khetrapal. He would submit that the appellant remained absent from services for 851 days, and the period of absence was adjusted against the available leaves. He would further submit that the appellant had already completed 50 years of age when the decision of compulsory retirement was taken, and thus the order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. He would also submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is just and proper and needs no interferance and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and upon due examination of the records, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant had already attained the age of 50 years on the date when the order of compulsory retirement was passed. Under Rule 56 of the 6 Fundamental Rules and Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the competent authority is vested with the power to review the entire service profile of an employee upon his attaining the age of 50 years or after completion of 20 years of qualifying service and to decide whether his continuation is in public interest. 9. In Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer [(1992) 2 SCC 299], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment, and the scope of judicial review is extremely limited, the Court being concerned only with whether the order is mala fide, arbitrary, or based on no material. The Court further held that even un-communicated adverse entries and overall service profile can be taken into consideration in forming such subjective satisfaction. The principles laid down therein were reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314], wherein it was emphasised that compulsory retirement is a mechanism to weed out inefficient, corrupt, or deadwood employees in the interest of administration. 10. In the present case, the service record of the appellant showed that he had remained absent for 851 days, that his ACRs for seven consecutive years were not submitted, and that there were reports 7 of negligence towards official duties. These materials formed the basis of the competent authority’s subjective satisfaction that the appellant’s continuation in service would not be conducive to public interest. The contention that the absence had been adjusted against earned leave or leave without pay does not erase the underlying conduct of prolonged absence, which the authority was entitled to take into account. 11.Further, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Posts & Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy [(1992) 1 SCC 317], principles of natural justice have limited application in matters of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the appellant’s plea that he was entitled to a show cause notice regarding non-submission of ACRs is untenable in law. 12.The learned Single Judge has rightly applied these well-settled principles and found that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from no infirmity. We find the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to be consistent with the settled position of law, and no perversity or arbitrariness is demonstrated by the appellant. 13. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present 8 case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti