For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure P/1)
with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in
the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the
costs of the petition may be given."
3. The facts of the present 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. According to the said
guidelines, the competent authority is required to constitute a Screening
Committee. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14.08.2017, issued an
order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner on the ground that 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 petitioner 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.
4. Mr. Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit
that though ACRs for seven years were not submitted by the petitioner, the
respondent authorities were under an obligation to issue a show cause
notice to the petitioner 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 petitioner was habitual of
consuming liquor; therefore, this ground was not available with the
respondents. He would contend that the petitioner 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
impugned. 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 Amritlal Vs Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy
Development Agency and others, WPS No.2303 of 2012, decided on
01.11.2021, and Koushal Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
others, WPS No.1481 of 2018, decided on 04.02.2022.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate
appearing for the State, would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Khetrapal. He would submit that the petitioner remained absent from
services for 851 days, and the period of absence was adjusted against the
available leaves. He would further submit that the petitioner had 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 present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was required to assess his annual confidential
report for each year but he failed to submit ACRs for the years 2010 to
2017, and thus, the ACRs from the years 2010 to 2017 were not available
with the respondent authorities. The contention made by Mr. Khetrapal that
the authorities were under an obligation to issue a show cause notice in
this regard, as the petitioner himself was negligent in the evaluation of his
ACRs, there was no need for the department to issue a show cause notice
to the petitioner.
8. There is another allegation against the petitioner that he used to consume
liquor regularly. It is argued by Mr. Khetrapal that there is no medical or
documentary evidence to prove this fact. As the petitioner never committed
any offence after consuming liquor, therefore, there was no occasion for the
authorities to conduct the medical test of the petitioner but such a finding is
a finding of fact and the authorities have arrived at such a conclusion on
the basis of the material available with them, therefore, I am not impressed
with the contention made by Mr. Khetrapal.
9. The petitioner remained absent for 851 days, and the period of leave was
adjusted against the earned leave, leave without pay, and other available
leaves, and no explanation has been offered by the petitioner in this regard.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter
of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer,
Baripada & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 299, 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 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 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."
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.
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).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
