Bank appeal against a Single Judge order reinstating a retired Assistant Grade-II after invalidating his compulsory retirement order as unsustainable given his overall service record.
The writ appeal is dismissed, affirming the order of reinstatement of the respondent in service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 71 of 2023
---- Appellant
Versus
Kailash Chand Ladwa S/o Shri Dulichand Ladwa, aged about 56 years Retired Assistank Grade - II, at the Office of Commercial Tax, Head Office Raipur, Resident of Ajay Bagh Colony, Musharkhedi, Police Station Sayogeeta, Ganj, Indore, District Indore (M.P.)
---- Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants/State : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N. K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
04.09.2023
2
3
Judge, which was allowed and it is ordered that the writ petitioner shall be, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation, immediately taken back in service within a outer limit of 60 days from today and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, so far as the monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the intervening period except for the notional benefits and fixation that are to be provided and the actual monetary benefits would be given to the petitioner from the date he is taken back in service. The intervening period for all other practical purposes would be treated as period spent on duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents therein / appellants herein have filed the present writ appeal.
4
criteria for premature retirement, the conduct of the employee during his tenure, and complaint made against those employee needs to be considered while passing premature retirement. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of R.L. Butail v. Union of India , reported in (1970) 2 SCC 876 and in the matter of Union of India v. Dulal Dutt , reported in (1993) 2 SCC 179 .
5
compulsory retirement. Merely because the employee has been inflicted with one major penalty cannot by itself be an inference for the Department to hold that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner is doubtful.
21. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 03.10.2017 Annexure P-1 so far as the placing of petitioner under compulsory retirement by the respondents is concerned, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside/ uashed. Consequently, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation, immediately taken back in service within an outer limit of 60 days from today and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits.
22. However, so far as the monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the intervening period except for the notional benefits and fixation that are to be provided and the actual monetary benefits would be given to the petitioner from the date he is taken back in service. The intervening period for all other practical purposes would be treated as period spent on duty.
23. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent as indicated in the preceding paragraphs.”
6
stray incident and one act of misconduct for which also the major punishment imposed is one that of reduction of pay by two increments with cumulative effect cannot be a deciding factor for placing an employee/officer under compulsory retirement. Merely because the employee has been inflicted with one major penalty cannot by itself be an inference for the Department to hold that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner is doubtful, therefore, we do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Sd/Sd/- (N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the order upholding the employee against compulsory retirement.
Whether a stray incident or one act of misconduct is a deciding factor for placing an employee under compulsory retirement.
Whether the State was entitled to claim that one major penalty is an inference of doubtful honesty and integrity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.L. Butail v. Union of IndiaExplained¶30
R.L. Butail v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 876 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Dulal DuttExplained¶30
Union of India v. Dulal Dutt (1993) 2 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
State of Chhattisgarh
Kailash Chand Ladwa
Ramesh Sinha
N. K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
