RAMSINGH YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010251352018 2026:CGHC:45321
AFR
SANTOSH
KUMAR
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH KUMAR
SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.27
23:37:41 +0530
WPS No. 5189 of 2018
Order reserved on 17.09.2026
Order delivered on 27.10.2026.
Ramsingh Yadav S/o S/o Late Shri Budhram Yadav Aged About 50 Years
R/o Danganiya Near Sai Mandir Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Through The Registrar, Pandit
Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Mr. D.R. Patel, Advocate
For Petitioner(s) :
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV Order
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.04.2013 (Annexure
P/1) passed by Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur/
respondent No.3 by which it has imposed punishment of compulsory
retirement upon the petitioner as per Clause 57 (1) (e) of the statue
No. 31 of the University and also order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure
P/2) by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that;-
(a) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar on
06.07.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200/- on
probation period of two years and after completion of probation period,
he was made permanent on 08.07.2004. A show cause notice on
09.08.2011 alleging that he was absent from duty on 07.06.2011 to
04.08.2011 was issued to him, which was replied by the petitioner on
12.08.2011 informing that he was ill from 07.06.2011 to 04.08.2011
and also suffered heart pain, as such without permission from the
administration he has taken leave from 02.05.2011 to 20.05.2011 and
prayed for condoning his absence.
(b) The respondent was not satisfied to the reply therefore, a charge
sheet dated 09.05.2012 was issued to him alleging five allegations
with regard to his absenteeism on various dates, as it is misconduct
under Chhattisgarh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1966 and it amounts
to willful negligent of duty as per statue 31 of the University. The
respondent No.3 to conduct the enquiry into the allegation leveled

3
against the petitioner has appointed Assistant Registrar of the
University as Enquiry Officer and Sr. Superintendent, Mahendra
Kumar Bhide as Presiding Officer vide order dated 23.04.2012.
(c) The University after considering the material on record vide its
order dated 10.09.2012 has imposed punishment on the petitioner,
treated the period of 461 days from 07.06.2011 to 09.09.2012 as dies
non and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and was
directed to submit undertaking that he will not repeat the misconduct
in future.
(d) The petitioner submitted an affidavit on 10.09.2012 and reported
for duty on 10.09.2012 and all of a sudden on 21.01.2013, 3 months
advance notice was given to the petitioner for compulsorily retirement
from service considering the previous absenteeism as negligence
from duty and it is a misconduct as provided in the statue 31 clause
13 (a) (i) and also amounting to gross indiscipline. It has also been
taken into consideration in the notice for compulsory retirement that
absent of 480 days has been treated as dies non and also taken into
consideration imposition of punishment of one increment without
cumulative effect. Thereafter the impugned order dated 16.04.2013
(Annexure P/1) was passed. Being aggrieved with this order, the
petitioner has preferred a representation on 29.06.2018 which has
been rejected by the Respondent No.3 on 11.07.2018. Hence, this
petition challenging both the orders.
3. The University has filed its reply contending that the performance of
the petitioner throughout the career was unsatisfactory and he
remained absent from service for so many occasions as mentioned in

4
the return which is not disputed by the petitioner also. It has also been
contended that due to absenteeism of the petitioner from service the
work of the university was adversely affected. The respondent has
already taken a lenient view still performance of the petitioner was not
improving, therefore, there was no other option for the respondent
No.3 except to compulsory retire the petitioner. It has also been
contended that the order dated 16.04.2013 was passed after due
consideration of the petitioner’s overall service record, previous
conduct. It has been further submitted that the impugned order has
been passed in accordance with the Rule applicable to the petitioner
and it has been prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed
by the respondent is illegal and contrary to the fact of the case and
without following due process of law. He would further submit without
conducting any enquiry against the petitioner, he has been terminated
from the service as statue 31 regulation 13(a)(i) the compulsory
retirement is misconduct, as such it is incumbent upon the respondent
No. 3 to initiate departmental enquiry but without conducting any
enquiry the punishment of compulsory retirement has been issued
which is violation of Rule 57(I) of the statue of the University which is
binding in nature between the parties. He would further submit that it
is well settled position of law that the order of compulsory retirement
shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when
such course is more desirable and the order of compulsory retirement
shall not be imposed as punitive measure. He would further submit
that before passing of the order impugned the subjective satisfaction

5
of the authority has not been recorded by giving sufficient and cogent
reasons and even the order of compulsory retirement has been
passed in a cavalier manner and the same is non-speaking,
unreasoned order and would pray for quashing of the impugned order
dated 16.4.2013 and order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure P/2). To
substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of S.S. Das vs. Union of India
reported 2026 SCC Online SC 1809 and judgment of this High Court
in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Sandeep
Mishra decided on 12.03.2026 in Writ Appeal No. 212 of 2026.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University would submit
that as per clause 57 of statue 31 of the University the compulsory
retirement is a major penalty which has rightly been imposed upon the
petitioner and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned
counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that the
University was justified and in compulsory retiring the petitioner in
view of clause 10 (12) as this clause empowers the University to
terminate the permanent employee of the university after giving 3
months notice and in absence of three months notice the university
has to pay three months salary. This clause further provides that
notice is not necessary when the employee has been removed,
terminated or compulsory retired from service, as such he would
submit that action of the University is legal and justified. To
substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Baikuntha Nath Das v.
District Medical Officer reported in 1992(2) SCC 299, State of

6
Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in 2001 (3) SCC 314, Posts
and Telegraphs Board v. C.S. N. Murthy reported 1992 (2) SCC
317, Union of India v. Dulal Dutt, reported in 1993(2) SCC 179.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
7. From the submission made by the parties the points emerged for
determination is;-
(i)Whether the University was justified in imposing punishment of
compulsory retirement as per clause 57(1)(e) of Rule 13 of statue
31 without enquiry?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get back wages or not?.
8. It is well settled legal position of law that service condition of the
employee of the University is governed by statue framed under
Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh Viswavidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973
which has legal force and binding upon the University and its
employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Ram
Misra v. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College reported in
1972 (1) SCC 623 has examined the legal force of the statue framed
under the Lucknow Univerity Act, 1920 as well as Saugar University
Act and has held as under in paragraph-9.
9. Mr. Setalvad contended that since the college in question is
affiliated to a statutory body, namely, the University of
Lucknow,and is governed by the relevant statutes and ordinances
framed under the provisions of Lucknow University Act, 1920, any
violation of the statute or the ordinance in the matter of terminating
the services of a teacher would attract the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as statutes and
ordinances have the force of law. In support of this, counsel relied
upon the decision of this Court in Prabhakar Ramkrishan Jodh vs.
A.L. Pande and another (1965 (2) SCR 713). The appellant before
this Court in that case was a teacher in a college affiliated to the
University of Saugar and managed by the Governing Body
established under the provisions of the relevant ordinance made

7
under the University of Saugar Act. Certain charges were framed
against the appellant by the Principal of the College and he was
asked to submit his explanation. The appellant in his explanation
denied all the charges and requested for particulars on which one
of the charges was based. The particulars were not supplied and
the Governing Body terminated his services without holding any
enquiry. The appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution for a writ quashing the order of the Governing
Body and for his reinstatement. He contended that the Governing
Body had made the order in violation of the provisions of
Ordinance 20, otherwise called the 'College Code, framed under
section 32 of the University of Saugar Act read with section 6 (6) of
that Act. Clause 8 (vi (a) of the College Code provided that the
Governing Body of the college shall not terminate the services of a
confirmed teacher without holding an enquiry and without giving
him an opportunity of defending himself. The High Court held that
the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the
'College Code' but by the contract made between the Governing
Body and the appellant under clause 7 of the College Cod&-which
stated that all teachers of the college shall be appointed under a
written contract in the form prescribed-, that the provisions of the
'College Code' were merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of
colleges and that no legal rights were created by the 'College
Code' in favour of the teachers of the affiliated colleges as against
the Governing Body. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the
petition. In appeal to this Court it was held that the 'College Code'
had the force of law and that it not merely regulated the legal
relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University but
also conferred legal rights on the teachers of affiliated ,colleges.
The Court further said "It is true that Clause 7 of the Ordinance
provides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed
on a written contract in the form prescribed in Sch. A but that does
not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against
the Governing Body of the College. On the other hand, we are of
opinion that the provisions of Clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to
security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the
teachers' service conditions........" When once this Court came to
the conclusion that the 'College Code' had the force of law and
conferred rights on the teachers of affiliated colleges, the right to
challenge the order terminating the services of the appellant,
passed in violation of clause 8 (vi) (a) of the 'College Code' in a
proceeding under Article 226 followed 'as the night the day' and
the fact that the appellant had entered into a contract was
considered as immaterial.
9. The record of the case would demonstrate that statue 31 (Annexure
D/1) has been framed framed by the University in exercise of power
conferred to it as under Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh
Viswavidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, as such it has legal force and

8
binding upon the University and its employees. Therefore, the service
condition of the petitioner has to be governed by the Rules made in
the statue. Clause 57 of the statue provides the punishment which
can be imposed upon the employee of the University which reads as
under:-
Statue 31 of clause 57 (1) (e) :-
57(1)
नियुक्ति कर्ताअधिकारीपर्याप्तकारणोंसेएककर्मचारीपरनिम्नलिखि तदंड
:
आरोपितकरसकताहै
( ) ,
अ निंदा भर्त्सना
( )
ब संबंधितकर्मचारी के लापरवाही अथवा कानूनके उल्लंघनके कारणयदि

विश्वविद्यालयकोआर्थिकक्षति पहुंचतीहैतोसंबंधितकर्मचारीकेवेतनसेपूर्णतःया

अंशतःभरपाईकीजासकतीहै।
( )
स वेतनवृद्धि रोकीजासकतीहै।
( )
द पदश्रेणीयासमयमानवेतनमानकानिम्नस्तर
( )
इ अनिवार्यसेवानिवृत्ति
( )
य सेवासेपृथककरना
( )
ल सेवासेबर्खाश्तकरनाजिसकायहतात्पर्यहोगाकि विश्वविद्यालयकेकिसीभीसेवा

के लिएभविष्यमेंअयोग्यमानाजावेगा।इसके अलावा चतुर्थश्रेणी कर्मचारी पर
,
लापरवाहीसमयकीपाबंदीनहो आलस्यकरनाअथवाअन्यकिसीछोटेप्रकृति के
, 5
दुर्व्यवहारपरदंडस्वरूपअर्थदण्ड अधिकतम रूपयेआरोपितकियाजासकताहै।
(2)
विश्वविद्यालयकेकिसीकर्मचारीकेविरूद्धनियुक्ति कर्तासंस्थापितकरसकताहै।

अनुशासनात्मककार्यवाही
(3) . .
म प्र शासनद्वाराशासकीयसेवककोदंडदेनेकीनिर्धारितप्रक्रियाजोनियुक्ति कर्ता

अधिकारीद्वारासंबंधितकर्मचारीकेविरूद्धजांचकेसमयप्रभावशीलहोकेअतिरिक्त
( sub para)
उपर्युक्तउपखण्ड मेंविनिर्दिष्टदंड़ोंकेअलावाकोईदंडआदेशनहींदिया
जाएगा।

9
10. From perusal of the clause 3 of clause 57 of the statue, it is quite vivid
that the procedure which is provided for imposition of penalty upon the
Government servant by the Government has to be followed and no
additional penalty which has been described in the foregoing
paragraph can be imposed upon the employee of the University. The
Rule-14 of the Civil Service Classification (Control and Appeal) Rule
1966 provides procedure for imposition of penalty. The Rule 14
provide for imposition of major penalty. The Rule 14 is reproduced
below:-
14. Procedure for imposing penalties.
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v)
to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far
as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in
the manner provided by the Public Servants' (Inquiries) Act, 1850
(37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.
(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there
are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may
itself inquire into or appoint under this rule or under the provisions
of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be,
an authority to Inquire into the truth thereof.Explanation. - Where
the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in
sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring
authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary
authority.
(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government
servant under this rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall
draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) the substance of the
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct
articles of charge;
(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour
in support of each article of charge, which shall contain :-
(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or
confession made by the Government servant;
(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom,
the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.
(4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered
to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge, the
statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a
list of documents and witnesses by which article of charge is
proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government

10
servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written
statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be
heard in person.
5(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary
authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as
are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint,
under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose; and
where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the
Government servant in his written statement of the defence the
disciplinary authority shall record its finding on each charge after
taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner
laid down in Rule 15;
(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the
Government servant, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire
into the articles of charge or ma;, if it considers it necessary to do
so, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the
purpose;
(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of
charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into
such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or
a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to
present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.
(6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring
authority, forward to the inquiring authority-
(I) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the
imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by
the Government servant;
(iii) a copy of the statements of witnesses, if any, referred to in
sub-rule (3); (iv) evidence providing the delivery of the documents
referred to in sub-rule (3), to the Government servant; and a copy
of the order appointing the "Presiding Officer"
(7) The Government servant shall appear in person before the
inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working
days from the date of receipt by him of the articles of charge and
the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour,
as the inquiring authority may, by a notice in writing specify in that
behalf, or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as
inquiring authority may allow.
(8)The Government servant may take the assistance of any other
Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not
engage a legal practitioner, for the purpose unless the Presenting
Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal
practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, so permits.
(9)If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the
articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not
submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the
inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty
to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record

11
the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the
Government servant thereon.
(10)The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect
of these articles of charge to which the Government servant
pleads guilty.
(11)The inquiring authority, shall, if the Government servant fails to
appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead,
require the Presiding Officer to produce the evidence by which he
proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the
case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an
order that the Government servant may, for the purpose of
preparing his defence- (i) inspect within five days of the order or
within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring
authority may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to
in sub-rule (3);
(ii) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf.Note.-If
the Government servant applies orally or in writing for the supply
of copies of the statements of witnesses mentioned in the list
referred to in sub-rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him
with such copies as early as possible and in any case not later
than three days before the commencement of the examination of
the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
(iii)Give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further
time not exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allow,
for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the
possession of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to
in sub-rule (3).Note. - The Government servant shall indicate the
relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered and
produced by the Government.
(12) The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the
discovery or production of documents forward the same or copies
thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the
documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the
documents by such date as may be specified in such
requisition :Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons
to be recorded by it in writing, refuse requisition to such of the
documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case.
(13)On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (12), every
authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned
documents shall produce the same before the inquiring
authority :Provided that if the authority having the custody or
possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons
to be recorded by it in writing that the production of all or any of
such documents would be against the public interest or security of
the State, it shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly and the
inquiring authority shall, on being so informed, communicate the
information to the Government servant and withdraw the
requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such
documents.
(14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary
evidence by which the articles of charge arc proposed to be

12
proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary
authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the
Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the
Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-
examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been
cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of
the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
(15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on
behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in
its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer, to produce evidence riot
included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself
call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in
such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have if he
demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be
produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days
before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day
of adjournment and the day to which the enquiry is adjourned. The
inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an
opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on
the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government
servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the
production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of
justice.Note. - New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or
any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence.
Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent
lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced
originally.
(16) When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the
Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally
or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall
be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign
the record, in their case, a copy of the statement of defence shall
be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
(17)The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then
be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his
own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the
Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to
cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the
inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the
witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
(18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant
closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not
examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling
the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing
in the evidence against him.
(19) The inquiring authority may, after the completion of the
production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any,
appointed, and the Government servant or permit them to file
written briefs of their respective case, if they so desire.

13
(20) If the Government servant to whom a copy of the articles of
charge has been delivered, does not submit the written statement
of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does
not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise
fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the
inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex-parte.
(21)(a)Where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of
the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 (but not
competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v)
to (ix) of Rule 10); has itself inquired into or the articles of any
charge and that authority, having regard to its own finding or
having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring
authority appointed by it, is of opinion that the penalties specified
in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the
Government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the
inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the
last mentioned penalties. (b) The disciplinary authority to which the
records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or
may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of the
witnesses if necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witness
and examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witness and may
impose on the Government servant such penalty as it may deem
fit in accordance with these rules.
(22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after haying heard and
recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry
ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by
another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises, such
jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the
evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by
itself :Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the
opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose
evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of
justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any
such witnesses as hereinbefore provided.
(23)(i)After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared
and it shall contain-
(a)the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of
misconducts or misbehaviour;
(b)the defence of the Government servant in respect of each
articles of charge;
(c)an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of
charge; and
(d)the finding on each article of charge and the reasons
therefor.Explanation. - If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the
proceedings of the inquiry establish an article of charge different
from the original articles of the charge, it may record its finding on
such article of charge :Provided that the finding on such article of
charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has
either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based
or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against
such article of charge.

14
(ii)The inquiring authority where it is not itself the disciplinary
authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of
inquiry which shall include-(a)the report prepared by it under
clause (i);(b)the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by
the Government servant;(c)the oral and documentary evidence
produced in the course of the inquiry;(d)written briefs, if any, filed
by the Presenting Officer or the Government servant or both
during the course of inquiry; and
(e)the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the
inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry.
11. Rule 10 (i) of the said Rule classifies the penalty which can be
imposed upon the government servant. The Rule 10 (vii) prescribed
compulsory retirement and Rule 14 of the said rules provides that no
order imposition any of the penalty in clause (v) to (ix) of the Rule 10
shall be made except after enquiry held as far as may be in the
manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by
the public servant Enquaries Act,1850 (37 of 1850) where such
enquiry is held under that enquiry. Thus it is incumbent upon the
respondent No. 3 to conduct departmental enquiry before imposition
of major penalty of compulsory retirement.
12. The submission made by learned counsel for the University deserves
to be rejected in view of the fact that for the misconduct as alleged in
the notice dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P/10), the Respondent No. 3
has already considered the absent and imposed a punishment of
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and absent for
the said period has been treated as “dies non” after conducting
enquary vide order dated 10.09.2012 (Annexure P/9) thereafter
reiterating the same fact issuance of notice for compulsory retirement
is not sustainable. Even the respondent No. 3 in his punishment order
dated 16.04.2013 has taken into consideration clause 57 (1)(e) of the
Statue 31 which provides penalty. Thus the compulsory retirement has

15
been issued by way of punishment treating the petitioner as
deadwood for the university, therefore, it is incumbent upon university
to conduct departmental enquary and the university cannot adopt a
shortcut method to apply washed off theory.
13. Considering the well settled legal position of law that compulsory
retirement is not punishment but it is purely an administrative
mechanism design to maintain efficiency and integrity in public
administration by chopping off deadwood. It is also not penal or
punitive action as the retired officer does not lose any their earned
pensioner or retiral dues. Therefore, the action does not carry any civil
consequence but when the disciplinary authority has compulsory
retired the employee by way of penalty then it has to follow the due
process of enquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M.Patel reported in 2001 (3) SCC 314 has
held as under:-
11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now
crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly
summarised thus:-
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer
useful to the general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be
treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the
Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-
wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed
after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be
taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can
also be taken into consideration.

16
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a
short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is
more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries
made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the
officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive
measure.
14. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Das vs. Union
of India reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1809 has held as under:-
41. Our understanding of the law is this. The proposition that an
order of compulsory retirement in public interest is non-punitive
does not elevate itself into a mantra which, by its mere
invocation, can validate such order and repel all challenges laid
to it. Exercise of power, which is non-punitive, nevertheless
remains bound by the precincts of a public power. The object of
compulsory retirement is to enable the administration to
dispense with the services of public servants who, when viewed
in the prism of public interest, have been rendered dead wood
and, thus, outlived their utility. Either the public servant who is
ordered compulsory retirement has, by passage of time, become
inefficient to perform the duties and functions entrusted to him or
his integrity is doubtful – these are the prime criteria triggering
the need for such an order. However, a promotion earned on
merits, and not by dint of seniority alone, immediately prior to
such order of compulsory retirement being made would, by itself,
render the order susceptible to invalidity. This is for the reason
that the merit-based promotion, not long ago, would stand as
proof of a recent and objective assessment of the entire service
record and a finding that the servant is fit for shouldering higher
responsibilities, which is irreconcilable with the finding and thus
negates the very foundation of the order, namely, that the
servant has become dead wood, or is of doubtful integrity, and
has outlived his utility. Any order of compulsory retirement
partaking the character of a backdoor disciplinary proceeding,
clandestinely avoiding the safeguards embodied in Article 311 of
the Constitution, would be indefensible.
15. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
considering the order passed by the respondent No.3 it is quite vivid
that the same was passed by way of punishment and major penalty
has been imposed upon the petitioner which cannot be imposed
without conducting the regular departmental enquiry . Therefore, I am

17
of the view that the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 (Annexure P/1)
and subsequent rejection of representation dated 11.07.2018
(Annnexure P/2) deserve to be quashed and accordingly and they are
quashed.
16. Now further submission of the petitioner that since the petitioner has
wrongly been terminated from service without enquiry therefore, he
should be reinstated with full back wages is being considered by this
Court.
17. The record of the case would show that the compulsory retirement
order was passed on 20.04.2013 and the petitioner has preferred the
representation in the year 2018 which has been rejected on
11.07.2018 and thereafter this writ petition was filed on 29.07.2018
after lapse of 5 years of imposition of punishment which itself is
sufficient ground for this Court to deny the back wages. Even
otherwise, the petitioner has neither pleaded in the petition that he is
out of employment after termination and despite his attempt to seek
employment, he was not able to find out any employment, therefore, I
am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any back wages
for the period he remained out of employment but he will be reinstated
in service without back wages with continuity of service and his salary
shall be fixed notionally.
18. It is well settled legal position of law that while quashing the
termination order the grant of back wages, no rigid formula for grant of
back wages can be applied and it is dependable upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The view of this Court is fortified by the
law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pradeep

18
Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & others, reported in (2022) 3
SCC 683 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 12 as under:-
12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether
the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of
backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of
the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a case
where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet,
he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is
actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits
of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the
illegal / malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to
then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate
in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact
reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the
question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed
would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the
Court.”
19. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated
16.04.2013 (Annexure P/1), order dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure P/2)
are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service without back wages but continuity of service and fixation of
wages notionally within a period of 2 months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh