1 CGHC010229562026 2026:CGHC:35472-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 697 of 2026 1 - Amarnath Katiyar S/o Ujagar Lal Katiyar Aged About 56 Years R/o H-3, New Flat, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Chief Electoral Officer, In Front Of Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Indrawati Block, Old Mantralaya Parisar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Estate Director (Department Of Home), Its Allotment Officer, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri VK Pandey, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 12.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.5028 of 2017, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of premature compulsory re- tirement, the present writ appeal has been filed. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.13 12:21:04 +0530 2 2. The appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-Ill in the office of Chief Electoral Officer, State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 26.10.1995. After bifurcation, in the year 2000 appellant was allocated to State of Chhattisgarh and he joined services in September, 2001. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-Il vide order dated 17.5.2007 w.e.f. 24.5.2002. The claim of appellant with re- gard to promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-l was due and he filed WPS No. 5567 of 2009. While petitioner was posted as Assistant Grade-III, an article of charges was issued wherein six allegations were leveled and departmental inquiry was contemplated against him. He preferred a departmental appeal on 27.8.2014 however no deci- sion was taken. Thereafter, he preferred WPS No. 34 of 2015 which was disposed vide order dated 3.8.2016 directing the authorities con- cerned to conclude Departmental Appeal within period of three months. He preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 71 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 2.3.2017. He also filed WPS No.1563 of 2017 challenging (i) order of suspension dated 12.2.2012; (ii) order dated 1.8.2014 issued by CEO, Raipur whereby he was reverted from the post of AG-I to AG-III and the order dated 31.8.2016 issued by Joint CEO, Raipur whereby his appeal was dismissed. 3. In the meantime, the State Government floated a policy dated 25.4.2017 providing for review of cases of government servants who had either attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years of quali- fying service for the purposes of compulsory retirement in public inter- est. In compliance of the aforesaid policy, a screening committee was constituted on 12.7.2017 who, on its meeting convened on 14.7.2017, 3 examined the cases of employees including the appellant herein. Upon evaluating the entire service record of the appellant, his ACRs, and overall conduct, the committee found him suitable for compulsory retirement. Subsequently, an order was passed in this regard by the Chief Electoral Officer, State of Chhattisgarh on 22.8.2017. The said order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the appellant herein in WPS No.5028 of 2017 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that ACR of year 2009 was manipulated by the employees of CEO, Raipur. In the ACR of year 2004 the employee was awarded with “Very Good” however it was degraded with “Average”. Similarly, for the year 2005 he was awarded “Excellent” but subsequently degraded with “Average”. Same discrepancy is also reflected for the year 2007 & 2008. As per relevant circular, the Head of the Department was supposed to be Chairman of the Committee whereas in the present case the Chairman was not the Head of Department and he was not empowered to make scrutiny and proposal for compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appointing Authority of the appellant is the Chief Electoral Officer. The Committee has not assessed the entire service record of the appellant. Two years of his ACRs were not written on account of his being suspension and ACR of one year was not available, thus, assessment of work of appellant in absence of unavailability of 3 years ACR, was not justified as uncommunicated ACRs even if it being adverse, will not adversely affect service career of an employee. Learned Single Judge has not 4 considered all these aspects. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order of compulsory retirement may be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that screening committee considered every aspect of the matter and came into conclusion that continuation of service of the appellant was not in public interest and decision was taken objectively to retire him compulsorily. Degrading of his ACRs were communicated to him. Thus, bearing all these facts in mind, the writ petition was rightly rejected by learned Single Judge which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of record it transpires that pursuant to policy dated 25.04.2017, three member committee vide its meeting held on 14.07.2017, considered the material placed before it as well as reply of the appellant, and found that firstly penalty of reversion from AG-II to AG-III was passed against him on 01.08.2014, penalty of stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect on account of unauthorized absence and he was also inflicted with order of recovery of Rs.8820/- on account of illegally availing House Rent Allowance despite government accommodation in his favour. Further, foul and unparliamentary language was used by him against the Hon’ble Governor and his superior authorities in his representation. Apart from above, he was served with show cause notices for 9 different occasions. For last 10 years of ACRs, he was awarded with “Very Good” only for one year, “Good” for two years, remain suspended for 5 next two years, received “Average” for four years and ACR of one year was not available. 8. So far as contention of the appellant that his preceding ACRs were not duly communicated to him and there were manipulation in the entries made therein, is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot be made basis to disturb the findings recorded by the competent authority and principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a case for interference. 9. In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder