Entire Service Record, Character Rolls & Confidential Reports Of Employee Need To Be Considered Before Passing Order Of Premature Retirement : Chhattisgarh High Court

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee under the respondent. On 29.01.2005, the employee was appointed on the post of Driver against the sanctioned post. On 11.06.2012, the nomenclature of the post of the employee was changed from Driver to Driver (Heavy Vehicle). Thereafter, the petitioner was extended the benefit of the 5th pay-scale as recommended by the committee.

A criminal case was registered against the employee for the commission of offences punishable u/s 186, 294, 353 and 506 of IPC. Ultimately, it was settled between the parties and an acquittal order dated 11.06.2010 was passed. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the employee in 2009, in which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon him.

The employee obtained ACRs from 01.04.2011 till 31.03.2017. He had not completed seven years of regular service, but was compulsorily retired from service on account of attaining 50 years of age vide order dated 17.11.2017.

Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 17.11.17. He prayed to direct the respondent to re-instate his service with all consequential benefits under the department.

It was contended by the employee that the respondent authorities failed to assess the ACRs of the entire service while passing the order of compulsory retirement. He further submitted that his conduct remained good during his service career and there were no complaints against him.

It was further contended by the employee that the he was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect and the order is under challenge before the appellate authority. He argued that the order of punishment cannot be made the basis for the punishment of compulsory retirement.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that the employee was compulsorily retired as he attained 50 years of age and his overall ACRs were below average. They also submitted that the overall conduct of the employee was taken into consideration by the reviewing committee while passing the order of compulsory retirement. The respondent also mentioned about the departmental inquiry and the criminal case, which was registered against the employee.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that Fundamental Rule No. 56(2)(a) 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. According to this circular, it would not be necessary to communicate the adverse remarks to such government servant. It was observed by the court that the overall grade of the employee was average or below average.

The case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors. (1992) was relied upon by the court, wherein the Supreme Court held that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The government have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter, attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. 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.

The case of State of Gujarat and another Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) was also relied upon, wherein Court held that mere involvement of the employee in a criminal case would constitute sufficient ground for compulsory retirement.

The case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2012) was relied upon by court where it was held that the employee cannot be prematurely retired from service by selectively taking into consideration the service record for certain years. Therefore the track record and service record should be taken for complete service period and premature retirement can only be ordered based on the sufficient or relevant material.

Further the case of S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, (1994) was also relied upon by the court wherein it was held that in case of compulsory retirement, the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension. The Government should form the opinion that the government employee needs to be compulsorily retired from service only after considering the entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports.

It was observed by the court that the un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority. Also that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not have any stigma attached to it.

It was held by the court that the decision with regard to compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case No. : WPS No. 2547 of 2020

Counsel for the Petitioner : Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy.G.A