1 - Dinesh Kumar Netam Son Of Late Shri Narayan Singh Netam, Aged About v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:11747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 163 of 2018 1 - Dinesh Kumar Netam Son Of Late Shri Narayan Singh Netam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kanakpur, Post Asulkhar, Tehsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Ad/ N. G. Office Of Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Kanker Circle, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, West Bhanupratappur, Forest Division, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
“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:- 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 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." records/character rolls, 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:- "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 7 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." 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:- 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 -8- 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." 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 the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration for consideration by 9 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." 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the overall grade of the petitioner for five years was below average and the same is evident from the chart and further, a penalty of censure was inflicted and the petitioner had completed 20 years of service, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities rightly passed the order of compulsory retirement. 11.It is also a well-settled principle of law that an order of compulsory -10- 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 the public interest and the order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. It is also clear that principles of natural justice have no application in the context of compulsory retirement. There is no allegation of malafide or biasness. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the review committee thoroughly and thereafter, the decision was taken. 12. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha
Arguments
: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the -2- petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13/09/2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 compulsorily retiring the petitioner. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner treating him on duty and allow him to continue his service till the actual date of retirement with all consequential benefits. 10.4. Any other consequential relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Draftsman vide order dated 27.07.1996 under the respondents. He was extended the benefit of time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years of service vide order dated 30.07.2006 and later on, he was allowed super-time pay scale of Draftsman vide order dated 08.10.2008. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was awarded ‘Gha, Ga, Ga & Ga’ grade in the Annual Confidential Reports of last four years i.e. from the year 2012 to 2016. An order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner on 13.09.2017, which is under challenge. 3. Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities including the Committee have not considered the entire service records of the petitioner while passing the order impugned dated 13.09.2017. He 3 would further submit that the ACRs of three years 2013, 2014 & 2015 were considered by the Committee. He would contend that in the year 2018, the age of the petitioner was 45 years and he had not completed 50 years of age to come within the criteria according to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules of 1976’). He would also submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of the cases held that in cases of the order of compulsory retirement, the department is under an obligation to consider the entire service records of a Government servant. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Ors, 1992(2) SCC 299. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava, He would submit that the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of censure vide order dated 19.03.2014 by the disciplinary authority. He would further submit that the Committee considered the ACRs of three years including entire service records and the penalty inflicted on the petitioner and thereafter recommended the name of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. He would contend that the petitioner had completed 20 years of service and according to the provisions of Rule 56 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976, -4- a decision was taken by the competent authority. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Nagendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.2547 of 2020 decided on 02.12.2024. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The Committee in its meeting dated 09.08.2017 considered the case of the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.05.1972, he entered in service on 30.07.1996 and completed 20 years of service on 30.07.2016. The Committee further considered the ACRs of the years 2012 to 2016. The gradation of the ACRs in the years 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 was Gha, Ga and Ga. Further, the Committee considered the punishment inflicted on the petitioner vide order dated 19.03.2014, whereby the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of censure. The Committee after considering all aspects recommended the name of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. 7. Rule 56 of the Rules of 1976 is reproduced herein below:- "56 Age of Superannuation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Age of superannuation, Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government Servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of sixty years. 5 (2)(a) A Government servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service, or he attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing.". (b) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months.” 8. Rule 42 of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:- “42. Retirement on completion of ¹[20 years) qualifying service.-[(1) (a) A Government servant may retire at any time 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: Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed [20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier], with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29: Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months.” 9. In the matter of Nagendra Bahadur Singh (supra), in relevant para 10 it was held thus:- -6-