Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Kumar Sai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18826
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6498 of 2017
1 - Shiv Kumar Sai S/o Late Shri Ram Sai Aged About 57 Years R/o
Village Parpariya Dhobhipara, Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar,
Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Inspector General Of Police Administration Police Head
Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Deputy Director Inspector General Of Police Administration Police
Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Inspector General Of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Vivek Tripathi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25.04.2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 18.08.2017.
2. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner was selected to the post of Constable vide
order dated 06.11.1982. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable
and thereafter Sub-Inspector. He would further submit that the retirement
of the petitioner was due in the year 2022 but he was compulsorily
retired vide order dated 18.08.2017. He would contend that the ACRs of
the petitioner for the preceding five years were good and there were no
allegations with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. He would further
contend that the Committee failed to consider these aspects, therefore,
the order passed by respondent No.3 is bad in law and is liable to be
quashed.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi. He
would submit that the Scrutiny Committee considered the overall conduct
of the petitioner and it was found doubtful. He would further submit that
the ACRs of five years were considered by the Committee and out of five
years ACR, in three years, the petitioner was awarded grade-'B'. He
would contend that a show-cause notice and article of charge were also
issued to the petitioner on 01.02.2017.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma
Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580 while dealing with
the issue of compulsory retirement in paras 34 and 36 held as under:-
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 theservice 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."
6. 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 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
the government officer compulsorily from
service."
7. In the present case, the ACRs of the petitioner from the years 2013
to 2017 were considered by the Scrutiny Committee and in the ACRs of
three years, the petitioner was awarded grade-'B'. Further, his conduct
was found doubtful as he helped the accused persons in a criminal case
and a departmental inquiry was also initiated against him. The order of
compulsory retirement was passed after recording the subjective
satisfaction.
8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, no case is made out
for interference.
9. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
