M.K. Bauddh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶12

The Controller, Legal Metrology, Chhatisgarh, New Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3. The Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology, Chhatisgarh, New Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

17.06.2026

¶19

The original petitioner M.K. Bauddh expired during the pendency of this petition and his legal representative/wife was substituted.

¶20

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/1) with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.

¶22

2

¶23

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.”

¶24

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Inspector Class-III(Non-clerical grade) under the respondents on 06.05.1985. During service period, petitioner was inflicted with minor penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 29.03.2016 and said order was set-aside by the Commissioner, Durg Division vide order dated 25.05.2017. In another departmental enquiry penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect was passed by the disciplinary authority.

¶25

4. The State Government issued a circular on 25.04.2017 for compulsory retirement of government servant either on attaining the age of 50 years or on completion of 20 years qualifying service, whichever is earlier. Pursuant to said notification a screening committee was constituted to scrutinize the service record of the Government servants. Rule 56 (2) (a) of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules (for short “Fundamental Rules”) and Rule 42 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “Rules, 1972”) confer power on the State Government to take decision with regard to compulsory retirement after following due process. Both rules are quoted herein-below :-

¶26

Rule 56 (2) (a) A Government servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing.

¶27

Rule 42. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service:

¶28

(1) (a) Any Government servant may retire at any time

¶29

3

¶30

after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form-28 to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months.

¶31

Provided that such Governmetnt servants shall not be allowed to retire from service without prior permission in writing of the appointing authority under the following circumstances:

¶32

(i) where Government servant is under suspension;

¶33

(ii) where it is under consideration of the appointing authority to institute disciplinary action against the Government servant.

¶34

Provided further that if the appointing authority has not taken the decision under Clause(ii) of the second proviso, within 6 months from the date of notice given by the Government servant with regard to such disciplinary action it shall be deemed that the appointing authority has allowed to such Government servant io retire from service on the date after expiry of the period of six months.

¶35

The matter of the petitioner was scrutinized by the screening committee and

¶36

decision of compulsory retirement was taken. In the year 2017, the petitioner had completed 20 years of service and his age was 61 years, and therefore, his matter was considered by the screening committee. The Annual Confidential Report (ACRs) of the petitioner for year 2013 was “Very Good”, 2014 was “Good”, 2015 was “Average”, 2016 & 2017 were “Below than Average”. The petitioner was placed under suspension four times and physically he was weak as he had sustained paralytic attack. The screening committee after considering the above-stated facts took a decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily according to Rule 56 (2) (a) of Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 (1) of Rules, 1972 vide order dated 09.10.2017.

¶37

4

¶38

The petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 1 against the decision taken on 09.10.2017 and a committee was constituted. The committee considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, and thereafter, said representation was rejected vide order dated 03.10.2018. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by filing this petition.

¶39

Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate would argue that the enitre service record of the petitioner was not considered by the screening committee while passing order of compulsorily retirement on 09.10.2017. It is also contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and decision was taken behind the back of the petitioner. He would submit that one of the penalties was quashed by the appellate authority and this fact was not considered. He would submit that the decision taken by the screening committee is arbitrary and contrary to the norms set-out in the circular dated 25.04.2017. He would pray to quash both the orders.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Pandey would submit that decision with regard to compulsory retirement was taken by the committee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 56 (2) (a) of Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 (1) of Rules, 1972. It is contended that according to the provisions of circular dated 25.04.2017 a screening committee was constituted and entire service record of the petitioner was considered. He would submit that the petitioner had completed 61 years of age at that point of time and his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) as well as overall performance were duly considered by the said committee. He would submit that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment,

¶41

5

¶42

therefore, there was no need to provide opportunity of hearing or to conduct an enquiry. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Baikuntha Nath Das Versus Chief District 1 2 Medical Officer and Union of India Versus Col. J.N. Sinha . He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of 3 Nagendra Bahadur Singh versus State of Chhattisgarh .

¶43

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶44

10. Perusal of the documents would show that on the date of the decision, the petitioner had completed 61 years of age and was at the verge of retirement . He had also completed 20 years of service, and thus, his case for compulsory retirement could have been considered by the respondent authorities.

¶45

11. The service record of the petitioner considered by the screening committee would show that the ACRs of previous five years were not up to the mark. In the year 2013 and 2014, the petitioner was graded “Very Good” and “Good”, whereas, in the year 2015, 2016 & 2017, he was awarded “Average”, and “Below than Average” grade. In the various departmental enquiries, the petitioner was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of increments and this fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner in the entire petition.

¶46

12. In Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not cast any stigma upon the employee and hence principles of natural justice have no place in

¶47

1 . (1992) 2 SCC 299

¶48

2 . (1970) 2 SCC 458

¶49

3 . 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 12907

¶50

6

¶51

context of compulsory retirement. Relevant paragraphs 33 and 34 read as under :-

¶52

33 . At this stage, we think it appropriate to append a note of clarification. What is normally required to be communicated is adverse remarks not every remark, comment or observation made in the confidential rolls. There may be any number of remarks, observations and comments, which do not constitute adverse remarks, but are yet relevant for the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it. The object and purposes for which this power is to be exercised are well stated in J.N. Sinha and other decisions referred supra.

¶53

34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

¶54

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

¶55

(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.

¶56

(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 a perverse order.

¶57

(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,

¶58

7

¶59

such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.

¶60

(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.

¶61

13. In Col. J. N. Sinha (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. It is also held that if that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. Relevant paragraph 9 reads as under :-

¶62

9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule.' one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The

¶63

8

¶64

aforementioned rule 56(j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. - 3 1 0 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with, the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. 'While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest.

¶65

14. Notably, this Court in Nagendra Bahadur Singh (supra) while dealing with the similar issue discussed the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), State of Gujarat Versus Suryakant Chunilal Shah⁴ and Nand Kumar Verma Versus State of Jharkhand and Others⁵ at length and arrived at the conclusion that the un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority and the principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 13 read as under :-

¶66

9. The petitioner worked with the department for a period of 12 years but he attained the age of 50

¶67

4 . (1999) 1 SCC 529

¶68

5 . (2012) 3 SCC 580

¶69

9

¶70

years when the decision of compulsory retirement was taken by the respondent authorities on 17.11.2017. Fundamental Rule No. 56(2)(a) specifically 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. The State has to consider honesty, integrity, physical capability, work and conduct and there should be subjective satisfaction of the competent authority in this regard. According to this circular, it would not be necessary to communicate the adverse remarks to such a government servant.

¶71

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue in the matter of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) para 34 held as under:-

¶72

34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

¶73

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

¶74

(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.

¶75

(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.

¶76

(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

¶77

10

¶78

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."

¶79

The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of State of Gujarat and another Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 in para 27 held as under:-

¶80

" 27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee."

¶81

The Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580 in paras 34 and 36 held as under:-

¶82

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

¶83

11

¶84

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.

¶85

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."

¶86

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:-

¶87

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

¶88

12

¶89

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." 11. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the overall grade of the petitioner was average or below average and the same is evident from the chart prepared in para No. 8. The decision could have been taken by the State authorities with regard to compulsory retirement as the petitioner had completed 50 years of age. The un-communicated adverse remarks cannot be made a basis to disturb the finding recorded by the competent authority. It is also a well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not have any stigma attached to it. The decision with regard to compulsory retirement was taken by the State authorities in public interest and the order was passed on subjective satisfaction. It is also clear that principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory

¶90

13

¶91

retirement. There is no allegation with regard to malafide intention or biasness. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken.

¶92

12. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required.

¶93

13. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶94

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the authority concerned formed its opinion for compulsory retirement on subjective satisfaction based on valid material. The screening committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and recorded its satisfaction accordingly and the decision was taken in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Furthermore, it is well-settled principle of law that order of compulsory retirement does not have any stigma attached to it.

¶95

16. In result, this petition is dismissed .

¶96

17. No order as to costs.

¶97

Sd/-

¶98

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶99

JUDGE

¶100

$iddhant

M.K. Bauddh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Bauddh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Avtar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Sharma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhiyaro Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Jai Bhole Traders Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Vishwajit Devnath Vs State of Chhattisgarh