1 CGHC010200582017 2026:CGHC:37753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6116 of 2017 1 - Ramji Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 58 Years R/o Ramanujnagar, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Surajpur, Forest Division, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO 2 24.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Surguja Circle, Ambikapur, and petitioner may kindly be granted all consequential benefits. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner including the minutes of meeting of the screening committee, who has recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Guard on 1.4.1987. He was promoted to the post of Forester on 2.8.2009 and thereafter to the post of Deputy Forest Ranger on 3.6.2016. The State Government issued a circular dated 25.4.2017, which provided for the assessment of cases of government servants who had either attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years of service for the purpose of compulsory retirement. As the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years and completed 20 years of service, his case was referred to the Scrutiny Committee constituted in accordance with the circular dated 25.4.2017. The Committee subsequently recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, and thereafter, an order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Chief Conservator of 3 Forests, Surguja Division, on 11.9.2017. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the present petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 3 passed the order of compulsory retirement contrary to the provisions of Rule 56 (Rule 2-d) of the Fundamental Rules, read with Rule 42, sub-rule (1)(b), of the Pension Rules, 1976. He would contend that the petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2021. It is also argued that the impugned order dated 11.9.2017 is punitive in nature, as various allegations were made against the petitioner. She would submit that the order was passed without holding any enquiry. It is also argued that there were no adverse entries in the petitioner’s confidential record. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities failed to record substantive satisfaction and also failed to consider the entire service record before passing the impugned order. She would pray that the petition be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would contend that, while considering compulsory retirement in public interest, the employer has to examine the entire service record of the employee, including both favourable and adverse entries. He would further contend that the Screening Committee, constituted pursuant to the circular dated 25.4.2017, considered the entire service profile of the petitioner and arrived at a bona fide satisfaction that his continuation in service was not in the public 4 interest. The decision was taken objectively after examining the entire material available on record. He would submit that the principles of natural justice have no application in matters of compulsory retirement and that such an order cannot be construed as stigmatic or punitive in nature. Learned State counsel would submit that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment; therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are not sustainable. He would contend that the petitioner was involved in the illegal felling of trees and was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.11.2011. Subsequently, the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect was imposed vide order dated 5.4.2013. It is also contended that the period of suspension from 16.11.2011 to 22.2.2012 was treated as a period of leave. He would contend that the petitioner was graded ‘ ’ घ in the ACR for the year 2012 and ‘ ’ ग for the years 2013 to 2015 and, therefore, the Committee took the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Pursuant to policy dated 25.4.2017, a three member committee was constituted which convened its meeting on 17.8.2017. The minutes of said meeting has been placed along with the reply marked as Annexure R/1. From bare perusal of aforesaid 5 document, it transpires that the committee was convened to consider the cases of government servants who had attained 50 years of age or 20 years of service. The committee while scrutinizing the cases considered – (i) honesty and doubtful integrity ; (ii) lack of physical fitness ; (iii) evaluation of working capacity and (iv) gradation of service records should not be below than good (ख).” 7) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Forest Guard on 1.4.1987, and the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 11.9.2017. Thus, the petitioner had completed 30 years of service and was around 58 years of age. The Screening Committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and found that penalties had been imposed upon him and that orders of suspension had been passed on account of misconduct committed by him. Further, the ACRs for various years were examined and were found to be below the prescribed benchmark. “Sub-Rule 2(a) of Fundamental Rule 56 confers right to the State Government to retire any government employee in public interest after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service, or he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. Fundamental Rule 56 is reproduced herein-below:- 56. Age of Superannuation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Age of superannuation, Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government Servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of 6 the last day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of sixty years. (2)(a) A Government servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service, or he attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing." (b) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. 8) Rule 42 of Pension Rules, 1976 reads as under:- “42. Retirement on completion of [20 years) qualifying service.-[(1) (a) A Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form 28, to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months: Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed [20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier], with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum such retirement the equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months.” 7 9) In Baikuntha Nath Das Versus Chief District Medical Officer1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not cast any stigma upon the employee and hence principles of natural justice have no place in context of compulsory retirement. Relevant paragraphs 33 and 34 read as under :- “33. At this stage, we think it appropriate to append a note of clarification. What is normally required to be communicated is adverse remarks not every remark, comment or observation made in the confidential rolls. There may be any number of remarks, observations and comments, which do not constitute adverse remarks, but are yet relevant for the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. The object and purposes for which this power is to be exercised are well stated in J.N. Sinha and other decisions referred supra. 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision 1. (1992) 2 SCC 299 8 in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 10) In Union of India Versus Col. J.N. Sinha2, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. It is also held that if that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. Relevant paragraph 9 reads as under :- “9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule.' one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion 2. (1970) 2 SCC 458 9 was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned rule 56(j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with, the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. 'While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest.” 11) Notably, this Court in Nagendra Bahadur Singh versus State of Chhattisgarh3 while dealing with the similar issue discussed the catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) at length and arrived at the conclusion that the principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 13 read as under :- “9.The petitioner worked with the department for a 3. 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12907 10 period of 12 years but he attained the age of 50 years when the decision of compulsory retirement was taken by the respondent authorities on 17.11.2017. Fundamental Rule No. 56(2)(a) specifically states that if a government servant has completed 20 years of service or has attained 50 years of age, in that case, the State can take the decision to compulsorily retire such an employee. The State has to consider honesty, integrity, physical capability, work and conduct and there should be subjective satisfaction of the competent authority in this regard. According to this circular, it would not be necessary to communicate the adverse remarks to such a government servant. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) para 34 held as under:- “ 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a 11 higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Gujarat and another Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 in para 27 held as under:- "27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee." 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580 in paras 34 and 36 held as under:- 12 “34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned 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 ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACRs which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. 36. The material on which the decision of the compulsory retirement was based, as extracted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, and material furnished by the appellant would reflect that totality of relevant materials were not considered or completely ignored by the High Court. This leads to only one conclusion that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was not based on the sufficient or relevant material. In this view of the matter, we cannot say that the service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory which would warrant premature retirement from service. Therefore, there was no justification to retire the appellant compulsorily from service." 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 424 in para 9 held as under:- “9. It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the 13 public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly effected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring 14 the government officer compulsorily from service." 14. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the overall grade of the petitioner was average or below average and the same is evident from the chart prepared in para No. 8. The decision could have been taken by the State authorities with regard to compulsory retirement as the petitioner had completed 50 years of age. The un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority. It is also a well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not have any stigma attached to it. The decision with regard to compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest and the order was passed on subjective satisfaction. It is also clear that principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. There is no allegation with regard to malafide intention or bias-ness. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the authority concerned formed its opinion regarding the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the basis of subjective satisfaction founded upon valid material. The Screening Committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and recorded its satisfaction accordingly, whereafter the Committee 15 took the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement does not carry any stigma. 16. In result, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi