Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition filed for quashing the impugned order dated 16-01-2019 and order dated 17-11-2017, passed by the respondent authority regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J., stated that it was well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement was not a punishment and did not have any stigma attached to it. The decision regarding compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest and the order was passed on subjective satisfaction.
The Court stated that it was also clear that principles of natural justice had no application in the context of compulsory retirement. Further, there was no allegation regarding mala fide intention or biasness, as the petitioner’s case was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken. Thus, the Court stated that no interference was required and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
Background
The petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee vide order dated 30-11-1993 under Respondent 2. On 29-01-2005, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver against the vacant and sanctioned post, and subsequently vide order dated 27-08-2010, services of the petitioner were confirmed on the post of driver.
On 11-06-2012, the nomenclature of the post of the petitioner was changed from Driver to Driver (Heavy Vehicle) and thereafter, the petitioner was extended the benefit of the 5th pay-scale. The petitioner obtained Annual Confidential Reports (‘ACRs’) from 01-04-2011 till 31-03-2017 and the same were annexed to this petition. It was also pleaded that though the petitioner had not completed seven years of regular service, vide order dated 17-11-2017, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on account of attaining 50 years of age.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 16-01-2019 and 17-11-2017, respectively. The petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities failed to assess the ACRs of the entire service while passing the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections , , and of the . Ultimately, it was settled between the parties and an acquittal order dated 11-06-2010 was passed. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in 2009, in which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him.
The Court further noted that the petitioner worked with department for 12 years, but he attained the age of 50 years, when the decision of compulsory retirement was taken by the respondent authorities. The Court stated that Rule 56(2)(a) of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, specifically stated that if a government servant had completed 20 years of service or had attained 50 years of age, the State could compulsorily retire such an employee. The State had to consider honesty, integrity, physical capability, work and conduct and there should be subjective satisfaction of the competent authority in this regard. Thus, as per this, it would not be necessary to communicate the adverse remarks.
The Court after perusal of the ACRs record of the petitioner, stated that it was quite vivid that the overall grade of the petitioner was average or below average. Since, the petitioner completed 50 years of age, this decision of compulsory retirement could have been taken by the State authorities. The un-communicated adverse remarks could not be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority.
The Court stated that it was well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement was not a punishment and did not have any stigma attached to it. The decision regarding compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest and the order was passed on subjective satisfaction. It was also clear that principles of natural justice had no application in the context of compulsory retirement. Further, there was no allegation regarding mala fide intention or biasness, as the petitioner’s case was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken.
Thus, the Court stated that no interference was required and accordingly, dismissed the present petition.
[Nagendra Bahadur Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2547 of 2020, decided on 02-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy.G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .