1 - Shiv Kumar Sai S/o Late Shri Ram Sai Aged About 57 Years v. 2 - Director Inspector General Of Police Administration Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6498 of 2017 1 - Shiv Kumar Sai S/o Late Shri Ram Sai Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Parpariya Dhobhipara, Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus 2 - Director Inspector General Of Police Administration Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Inspector General Of Police Administration Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Inspector General Of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Vivek Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 18.08.2017. 2. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would -2- submit that the petitioner was selected to the post of Constable vide order dated 06.11.1982. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable and thereafter Sub-Inspector. He would further submit that the retirement of the petitioner was due in the year 2022 but he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 18.08.2017. He would contend that the ACRs of the petitioner for the preceding five years were good and there were no allegations with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. He would further contend that the Committee failed to consider these aspects, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi. He would submit that the Scrutiny Committee considered the overall conduct of the petitioner and it was found doubtful. He would further submit that the ACRs of five years were considered by the Committee and out of five years ACR, in three years, the petitioner was awarded grade-’B’. He would contend that a show-cause notice and article of charge were also issued to the petitioner on 01.02.2017. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580 while dealing with the issue of compulsory retirement 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 3 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 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." 6. 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 -4- 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." 7. In the present case, the ACRs of the petitioner from the years 2013 to 2017 were considered by the Scrutiny Committee and in the ACRs of 5 three years, the petitioner was awarded grade-’B’. Further, his conduct was found doubtful as he helped the accused persons in a criminal case and a departmental inquiry was also initiated against him. The order of compulsory retirement was passed after recording the subjective satisfaction. 8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 9. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Rekha Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge