Chatur Singh Dhruw vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 1205
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24392 OF 2023)
CHATUR SINGH DHRUW .…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.25201 OF 2023)
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. The present Civil Appeals arise from the judgments and orders dated 12
April 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur in Writ Appeal Nos. 565 and 577 of 2019, whereby the Division Bench
rd
affirmed the judgments and orders dated 23 August 2019 rendered by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5765 and 5680 of 2017. By the said judgments,
th
the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the orders dated 09 October
Signature Not Verified
2017 passed by Respondent No.3, whereby the Appellants were compulsorily
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.11.06
16:46:15 IST
Reason:
retired from service.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 1 of 27
BRIEF FACTS
3. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals, shorn of unnecessary details, are
that the Appellants were initially appointed as Peons (Class-IV) in the Legal
Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Department), Raipur, in the years
1989 and 1993 respectively. In due course, they were promoted to the post of
Assistant Grade-III in the years 2012 and 2013. Thereafter, their services came to
th
be regularized by separate orders both dated 19 June 2015.
th
4. On 25 April 2017 the General Administration Department, Government of
Chhattisgarh, issued a Circular addressed to all Departments of the State
Government directing them to undertake a review of service records and to consider
the case of such Government servants that fulfilled the parameters prescribed for
compulsory retirement. The relevant extract of the said Circular is reproduced
below:
“Through the aforesaid referred Circular issued by the General Administration
Department in undivided Madhya Pradesh, detailed guidelines have been issued
regarding review of service records of such government servants who have
completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service. Under the Fundamental Rule 56
provided in the sub-Clause 1 of the Clause 1 of the said circular, the provisions
relating to retirement age of every government servant other than government
teachers and Grade-4 Government servant and upon completing qualifying service
or 50 years of age as provided under Rule 42B of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service
Pension Rules, 1976 in sub-clause 2, the provisions relating to retiring the
government servant at any time have been laid down. In Clause 2 of the circular,
the criteria and procedure have been prescribed for considering mandatory
retirement of government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying
service or 50 years of age under the above provisions.
2. The State Government after scrutiny of Clause 2 of the above circular dated
22.8.2000 which has been adapted in the State of Chhattisgarh, while making
partial amendments in the criteria and procedure prescribed for compulsory
retirement lays down following guidelines:-
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 2 of 27
[1] Criteria prescribed for compulsory retirement upon scrutiny.
While making scrutiny under rule 56 of Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule
42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 in respect of
government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying service or
50 years of age, it may be seen as follows:
A. Honesty and integrity being suspicious (for this the entire record of the
concerned government servant should be perused)
B. Lacking in physical capacity.
C. The evaluation of reputation and work capacity should be done on the basis of
the complete records of the service period of the concerned government servant.
For this purpose, it shall not be necessary that every adverse remark or such
remark as may be termed as an adverse remark should have been communicated
to the Government servant. (Civil Appeal No.6307 of 1994, State of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr.. v. Bihari Lal, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 593).
D. The overall evaluation of the records for the entire service period be less than
‘Good’ (B) grade. On the basis of evaluation, it should also be seen whether the
work of the last 5 years of the government servant is not decreasing.”
th th
5. Pursuant to the Circular dated 25 April 2017, separate orders dated 09
October 2017 came to be issued whereby the Appellants were compulsorily retired
from service.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
6. Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants,
submitted that the criteria and parameters adopted while recommending the cases
of the Appellants for compulsory retirement were not uniformly applied to other
similarly situated employees. According to the learned counsel, the exercise
undertaken by the Respondents was arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as
several employees similarly placed as the Appellants were not subjected to the
same treatment. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the order
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 3 of 27
th
dated 09 October 2025 passed by this Court, whereby the Respondents were
directed to place on record an affidavit to be personally affirmed by the Principal
Secretary of the concerned Department, specifically stating that no person similarly
situated to the Appellants had been ‘ left out from the exercise of weeding out dead
wood from the cadre of the petitioners and being compulsorily retired ’ .
7. He contended that the orders impugned herein, though couched as orders of
compulsory retirement, were in substance punitive and stigmatic in nature.
Elaborating this submission, he invited the Court’s attention to the findings
recorded in the inquiry reports pertaining to the Appellants and urged that the said
findings unequivocally attributed misconduct and adverse personal characteristics
to them. It was, therefore, submitted that the orders of compulsory retirement were
founded upon allegations carrying a stigma and could not have been passed without
affording the Appellants the procedural safeguards attendant upon disciplinary
proceedings. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the
following extracts from the inquiry reports relating to the two Appellants (together
with their translated versions):-
“(3) श्री मनहरण लाल सा š , सहायक वग Ŋ -03 :- श्री मनहरण लाल सा š सहायक वग Ŋ -03
के सेवाकाल म Ő उपल ɩ गोपनीय च įरत्रावली के मू ʞांकन पर उ ɎŐ “ ख ” से नीचे (2.56 अंक )
प्रा ɑ होना पाया गया है। ( प įरिशʼ क्रमांक 05) उनके गोपनीय प्रितवेदन म Ő भी इनके काय Ŋ
को असंतोषजनक पाया गया ह œ। वे िलिपक काय Ŋ कर नहीं पाते ह œ । उनकी ƥाित एवं
काय ŊƗमता पर प्रितकूल टीपं दी गई है और इनका काय Ŋ ˑर लगातार घट रहा है। प įरिशʼ
क्रमांक 07 (01-14) म Ő संल ư है।
…
(5) श्री चतुर िसंह ध्रुव सहायक वग Ŋ -03 :- श्री चतुर िसंह ध्रुव सहायक वग Ŋ -03 के
सेवाकाल म Ő उपल ɩ गोपनीय प्रितवेदन के मू ʞांकन हेतु शासन Ȫारा िनधा Ŋįरत मापद Ƿ दे
िबन्दु क्रमांक (4) के ( द ) (1) म Ő िवचार Ɨेत्र हेतु िवगत 05 वष Ř के (2013 से 2017 तक Ŋ ) गोपनीय
प्रितवेदन के अवलोकन एवं समी Ɨा करने पर पाया गया है िक उ ɎŐ वष Ŋ 2013 म “ क " श्रेणी
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 4 of 27
प्रा ɑ है एवं वष Ŋ 2014 से 2017 तक लगातार “ ग " श्रेणी टीप अंिकत की गई है। इससे ˙ʼ
होता है िक उनके Ȫारा ईमानदारी , तथा संिन ʿापूवŊक शासकीय काय Ŋ संपािदत नहीं िकया जा
रहा है और उनके काय Ř म Ő अपे Ɨेत सुधार प įरलिƗत न होकर काय Ŋ ˑर लगातार घट रहा है
। प įरिशʼ क्रमांक 05 ( स . क्र . 14) म Ő अंिकत संल ư है ”
“ (3) Shri Manharan Lal Sahu, Assistant Grade-III: On evaluation of the
confidential character rolls available for the service period of Shri Manharan Lal
Sahu, Assistant Grade-III, he has been found to have secured below “Kha” (B)
grade (2.56 marks) (Annexure No. 05). His confidential reports also record his work
as unsatisfactory. He is unable to perform clerical work. Adverse remarks have been
recorded regarding his reputation and efficiency, and the standard of his work has
been continuously declining. The same is annexed as Annexure No. 07 (01-14).
…
(5) Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv, Assistant Grade-III: For the evaluation of the
confidential reports available for the service period of Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv,
Assistant Grade-III, in accordance with Point No. (4)(D)(1) of the criteria
prescribed by the Government, the confidential reports of the preceding five years
(2013 to 2017) falling within the zone of consideration were examined and reviewed.
It was found that he was graded “Ka” (A) in the year 2013, and from 2014 to 2017
he was consistently graded “Ga” (C). This makes it evident that he is not
discharging his official duties with honesty and integrity, and that, rather than
showing the expected improvement, the standard of his work has been continuously
declining. The same is recorded at Annexure No. 05 (Serial No. 14) and annexed
herewith.”
8. Mr. Shukla further submitted that recourse to compulsory retirement could
not have been taken as a substitute for or as a means to circumvent the disciplinary
process. According to him, where the employer was of the view that the conduct
of an employee warranted scrutiny, the appropriate course would have been to
institute departmental proceedings in accordance with law rather than to invoke the
power of compulsory retirement.
9. He also contended that the decision to compulsorily retire the Appellants was
taken without a comprehensive evaluation of their entire service records. It was
urged that while considering whether an employee should be compulsorily retired,
the competent authority is required to examine the employee’s service career in its
entirety commencing from the date of initial appointment. The authorities,
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 5 of 27
however, confined their consideration primarily to the service records of the
immediately preceding years and failed to undertake a holistic assessment of the
Appellants’ overall service profile.
10. Mr. Shukla stated that the adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings
recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports of the Appellants had never been
communicated to them. In such circumstances, it was contended that the said
entries and gradings could not legitimately form the basis of an order of compulsory
retirement. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions
of this Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725 and
Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 566 . The relevant extracts
from the aforesaid judgments are reproduced hereunder:-
A. Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors.
“ 17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be
communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair,
average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such
an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) had the entry been
communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and
conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future;
(2) he would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry
if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence, non-
communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1
SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597] that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.”
B. Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
“8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt [Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008)
8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] that every entry in ACR of a public servant
must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound
and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every
entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve
more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and
equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public
servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 6 of 27
him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the
ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in
recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more
conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every
entry in ACR—poor, fair, average, good or very good—must be communicated to
him/her within a reasonable period.”
11. He lastly submitted that in view of the Appellants having been promoted and
th
their services thereafter regularized on 19 June 2015, any adverse entries or
below-benchmark gradings recorded prior thereto lost their significance and could
not legitimately be relied upon for the purpose of forming an opinion regarding
their compulsory retirement. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das &
Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299 ,
wherein it was held as under:-
“34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
xxx xxx xxx
(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 upon seniority.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
12. Per contra , Mr. Rajat Nair, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
on behalf of the Respondent-State of Chhattisgarh submitted that the exercise of
scrutiny and review of the service records leading to the compulsory retirement of
the Appellants was undertaken strictly in accordance with Circular No.F.7-
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 7 of 27
th
1/2017/1-3 dated 25 April 2017 issued by the General Administration Department,
Government of Chhattisgarh, which had been issued in continuation of the earlier
nd
Circular No.C-24/2000/3/1 dated 22 August 2000 governing the policy relating
to compulsory retirement of Government servants.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that pursuant to the
th
aforesaid Circular dated 25 April 2017, a Screening Committee at the Head of
Department level was constituted for undertaking the review of cases of non-
gazetted employees in the Legal Metrology Department for the purpose of
th
compulsory retirement. The Committee met on 4 September 2017 in the office of
the Controller, Legal Metrology, Naya Raipur and comprised Dr. Ajay Kumar
Pathak, Controller, Legal Metrology, Chhattisgarh, as Chairman, Manoj Kumar
Soni, Special Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department, as Member and James Tirkey, Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology,
Chhattisgarh, as Member.
14. He pointed out that the aforesaid Committee was entrusted with the
responsibility of examining the complete service records, confidential reports,
integrity profile, physical fitness and overall suitability for continued service of all
clerical-cadre employees who had either attained the age of 50 (fifty) years or
st
July 2017.
completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service as on 01
15. Learned Additional Advocate General further emphasised that in accordance
th
with the mandate of the General Administration Department Circular dated 25
April 2017, the Screening Committee initially identified all clerical-cadre
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 8 of 27
employees of the Legal Metrology Department who had either attained the age of
st
50 (fifty) years or completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service as on 01 July
2017 and consequently, fell within the zone of consideration for review.
16. He submitted that upon examination of the records maintained in the
Controlling Office, a total of 14 (fourteen) clerical staff members were found to
satisfy the prescribed criteria and thereby fell within the zone of consideration. It
was contended that the Committee thereafter undertook a comprehensive scrutiny
of the service dossiers, confidential character rolls, personal files, integrity records,
as well as leave and medical records of all the fourteen employees, without
excluding any employee who fulfilled the criteria prescribed under the Circular.
17. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the parameters
adopted by the Screening Committee, as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting
th
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘ MOM ’) dated 4 September 2017 were as follows:-
(a) Honesty and Integrity: Assessment of the employee’s integrity profile on the
basis of the entire service record, including adverse entries, pending
complaints and remarks bearing upon the employee’s character and conduct.
(b) Physical Capacity: Evaluation of the employee’s physical fitness and
medical record to ascertain whether any physical limitation existed which
could affect the employee’s continued efficiency in service.
(c) Efficiency and General Reputation: Consideration of the employee’s overall
performance, including punctuality, work output, discipline and such other
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 9 of 27
factors as may have a bearing on the employee’s suitability for public service
and general reputation.
(d) Overall Assessment of the Entire Service Record: A cumulative evaluation
of the employee’s entire service career. As recorded in the MoM, where the
employee’s overall performance was assessed to be below Grade ‘B’, such
employee was regarded as not meeting the requisite standard for further
retention in service.
(e) Assessment of Decline in Performance through Confidential Reports: For
the purpose of determining whether there existed a declining trend in
performance, the Committee undertook a specific scrutiny of the
Confidential Character Rolls for the period 2013-2017, with particular
emphasis on repeated ‘ C ’ gradings or a discernible downward trajectory in
the employee’s performance.
(f) Numerical Assessment of Confidential Report Gradings: In order to ensure
uniformity and objectivity in evaluation, the gradings recorded in the
Confidential Reports were assigned numerical values in accordance with the
following scale:
A+ 5
A 4
B 3
C 2
D 1
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 10 of 27
Thereafter, the aggregate score obtained by an employee was divided by the
number of years for which Confidential Reports were available so as to
arrive at the employee’s average performance score.
(g) Treatment of Missing Confidential Report Years: Where Confidential
Reports pertaining to certain years were not available, the Committee
evaluated the entries contained in the available Confidential Reports and
determined the average grading solely on the basis of such extant records.
The non-availability of Confidential Reports for any preceding or
subsequent period was not construed to the detriment of the employee, nor
was any adverse inference drawn on that account.
18. Mr. Nair submitted that upon the uniform application of the aforesaid
parameters to all 14 (fourteen) employees under consideration, 5 (five) employees
were found not to have satisfied the prescribed minimum standards. According to
him, these employees fell below the benchmark grade of ‘ B ’ in the assessment of
their overall service records and also exhibited adverse or declining performance
trends in their Confidential Reports pertaining to the period from 2013 to 2017. It
was contended that in view of such assessment, the Committee recommended their
compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under Fundamental
Rule 56 and Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
19. In order to substantiate the contention that the numerical grading
methodology was applied uniformly and without discrimination, learned counsel
invited our attention to the chart reproduced below. The chart presents, in a
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 11 of 27
consolidated tabular form, the Confidential Report gradings of all 14 (fourteen)
employees for the years 2013 to 2017, converted into a uniform numerical scale,
namely, A+ = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2 and D = 1. This according to him, demonstrates
the objective on which the comparative assessment was undertaken by the
Committee.
S.No. Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average
1. Smt. Shivkumari
Sainik
2 2 3 3 3 2.6
2. Smt. Ruby Nigam 4 4 4 4 4 4
3. Shri Shivbhan
Singh
3 3 2 2 3 2.6
4. Shri Ishwar Prasad
2 2 2 2 2 2
Sahu
5. Shri Rajendra Lal
3 3 2 3 3 2.8
Jangde
6. Shri Ramlal Sarute 3 3 3 2 2 2.4
7. Shri Samaruram
Porte
3 3 3 2 2 2.6
8. Smt. Sangeeta
Nayak
4 3 3 3 3 3.2
9. Shri Manharan
Lal Sahu
2 2 2 2 2 2
10. Shri Babu Singh
3 3 2 4 3 3
Kanwar
11. Shri Chitram
Dhruve
2 2 2 2 2 2
12. Smt.Rita
4 4 3 4 3 3.6
Bhattacharya
13. Smt. Prembai
Darendra
4 3 4 3 3 3.4
14. Shri Chatur
Singh Dhruv
4 2 2 2 2 2.4
20. It was, therefore, submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid evaluation and
upon a holistic consideration of their service records, the following employees were
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 12 of 27
found unsuitable for continued retention in public service and they were
recommended for compulsory retirement in public interest :-
S. No. Name Designation
1. Shri Ramlal Sarute Assistant Class-01
2. Shri Ishwar Prasad Sahu Assistant Class-01
3. Shri Manharan Lal Sahu Assistant Class-03
4. Shri Chitram Dhruve Assistant Class-03
5. Shri Chatur Singh Dhruv Assistant Class-03
21. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that upon an examination
of the service record of the Appellant, Manharan Lal Sahu, the Committee found
that his overall service-profile assessment fell below the benchmark corresponding
to Grade ‘ B ’. It was noted that his Confidential Reports for the period 2013-2017
reflected consistently substandard performance, marked by repeated gradings of
‘ C ’ and adverse remarks indicating unsatisfactory discharge of duties. According
to learned counsel, the application of the uniform numerical-scoring methodology
placed the Appellant below the prescribed threshold for continuance in service.
The Committee also took into consideration the Integrity Certificate furnished by
the Controlling Office, wherein the integrity of Manharan Lal Sahu was recorded
as ‘ questionable ’. It was contended that the cumulative effect of these factors,
namely, sustained proof performance, concerns relating to efficiency and
reputation, an adverse assessment of integrity and an overall grading below the
prescribed benchmark, led the Committee to conclude that Manharan Lal Sahu did
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 13 of 27
not satisfy the standards required for retention in service beyond the age of 50
(fifty) years and was, therefore, liable to be considered for compulsory retirement
in accordance with the applicable rules.
22. He further submitted that in the case of Chatur Singh Dhruv, the Committee
observed that he had secured a grading of ‘ A ’ only in the year 2013 and had
thereafter been consistently graded ‘ C ’ from 2014 to 2017, thereby disclosing a
sustained deterioration in performance during the relevant period under
consideration. The Committee further noted that his Confidential Reports
contained remarks reflecting unsatisfactory work, lack of the expected
improvement and a decline in efficiency. According to Mr. Nair, the cumulative
assessment of the service records of Chatur Singh Dhruv, undertaken on the basis
of the Uniform numerical-scoring methodology adopted by the committee, yielded
an overall grading below the benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘ B ’. Consequently,
the Committee formed the opinion that he had failed to attain the minimum
standards prescribed for continued retention in public service and was, therefore,
unsuitable for further retention in service.
REASONING
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MATTERS OF COMPULSORY
RETIREMENT
23. In order to determine the controversy arising in the present appeals, it is
necessary, at the outset, to delineate the scope and contours of judicial review in
matters concerning compulsory retirement.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 14 of 27
24. It is now trite law that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive
nor stigmatic in character. Such an order does not cast any aspersion upon the
1
conduct of the employee nor does it imply any finding of misconduct .
Consequently, the rule of audi alteram partem, as well as the protection afforded
under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, have no application to an order of
compulsory retirement made in accordance with the relevant service rules.
25. The decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant is founded upon
the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee’s continued
retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest. The ultimate
assessment as to whether an officer has become ‘ dead wood ’ or whether his
continuance would be detrimental to administrative efficiency falls within the
domain of the executive. However, such satisfaction cannot be found upon mere
conjecture or whim. It must rest upon objective and relevant material available on
record. This Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2012)
3 SCC 580 has held that ‘ It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for
compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned
authority 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 ’.
1
Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 15 of 27
26. Further, where the Government itself prescribes norms or criteria governing
the exercise of the power, judicial review extends only to examining whether such
2
norms or criteria have been duly observed .
27. It follows, therefore, that an order of compulsory retirement must be
supported by relevant material such as Annual Confidential Reports, integrity
assessments, performance evaluations and other service-record entries bearing
upon the employee’s utility and suitability for continued retention. Judicial review
in such cases does not entail a re-appreciation or re-weighing of the material by the
Court as though it were sitting in appeal over the administrative decision. The Court
is concerned only with whether relevant material existed, whether such material
was taken into consideration by the competent authority, and whether the
conclusion drawn therefrom is one which a reasonable person could have arrived
at. So long as these requirements are satisfied, the Court will not substitute its view
for that of the authority entrusted with the decision-making process.
THE POWER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT IS WIDE AND NON-
RETIREMENT OF A SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEE DOES NOT, BY
ITSELF, FURNISH A VALID GROUND OF CHALLENGE
28. Equally well settled is the principle that judicial interference with an order
of compulsory retirement is warranted only where the decision is shown to be based
2
In Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (Dr) vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 503 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs.
International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 , it has been held that Government is bound to
follow rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 16 of 27
on no evidence, suffers from non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or
3
perverse or is vitiated by mala fides .
29. An employee cannot successfully assail an order of compulsory retirement
merely by contending that another officer possessing a comparable service records
was not subjected to similar action. The evaluation of an employee’s utility,
integrity, efficiency and overall service profile is essentially an individualized
exercise undertaken by the competent authority on the basis of the materials
pertaining to that particular employee. The fact that action was taken against one
employee while another similarly situated employee was left untouched does not,
by itself, render the action unconstitutional or discriminatory. The doctrine of
equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept
and does not countenance the claim of negative equality. This Court has
consistently held that an illegality or omission committed in favour of one person
cannot furnish a valid basis for extending the same benefits to another. If a wrong
has been committed in an earlier case, it cannot be relied upon to perpetuate a
4
similar wrong in subsequent cases .
30. Consequently, the power to compulsorily retire a Government servant under
the applicable service rules is of wide amplitude and is conditional principally by
the requirement that the authority must form its opinion bona fide and upon relevant
3
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2013) 10 SCC 551 and Posts and Telegraphs Board vs. L.S.N.
Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 .
4
Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(2013) 14 SCC 81 .
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 17 of 27
material. The mere fact that another officer, who may appear similarly placed, was
not compulsorily retired cannot, by itself, constitute a valid defence to an otherwise
lawful order of compulsory retirement.
IN ANY EVENT PARAMETERS UNIFORMLY APPLIED
31. Having examined the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the
th
Circular dated 25 April 2017 prescribes a comprehensive mechanism for
reviewing the cases of Government servants who have either attained the age of 50
(fifty) years or completed 20 (twenty) years of qualifying service. The object of the
Circular is to identify those employees whose continued retention in service would
not subserve public interest. The Circular mandates that such review shall be
undertaken on the basis of uniform and objective criteria, including honesty and
integrity, physical capacity, reputation, efficiency and the overall service record of
the employee, particularly the pattern and gradings reflected in the Annual
Confidential Reports.
32. This Court further finds that a Screening Committee was constituted in
accordance with the aforesaid Circular, with due representation from both the
Administrative Department and the Controlling Authority. The Committee adopted
a uniform, objective and transparent methodology for assessing the suitability of
all 14 (fourteen) employees for continued retention in service upon attaining the
age of 50 (fifty) years.
33. Upon completion of the assessment process, the Screening Committee
concluded that 5 (five) employees belonging to the clerical cadre did not satisfy the
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 18 of 27
th
minimum standards prescribed under the Circular dated 25 April 2017. Insofar as
the Appellants are concerned, their overall service-record assessment was found to
be below the benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘ B ’, while their Confidential Reports
for the period 2013-2017 disclosed a pattern of consistently low performance,
declining efficiency or other indicators adverse to their continued retention in
service, as duly recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.
34. A perusal of the year-wise tabulation of the gradings assigned to all 14
(fourteen) employees, as reflected in the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Respondent No.1-State of Chhattisgarh, read together with the
Minutes of the Screening Committee, demonstrates that none of the 9 (nine)
employees who were retained in service exhibited the combination of adverse
factors found in the cases of the Appellants, namely, (i) an overall service-record
assessment falling below the benchmark of Grade ‘ B ’ (ii) sustained gradings of ‘ C ’
during the period from 2013 to 2017 without any discernible improvement and (iii)
adverse remarks pertaining to efficiency and performance. Significantly, the
Committee, applying the same standards and methodology, recommended
compulsory retirement not only of the Appellants but also of 3 (three) other
employees similarly found to have fallen below the prescribed benchmark.
35. In the considered opinion of this Court, the recommendations made by the
Screening Committee were founded upon an objective evaluation of the utility,
efficiency and suitability of the employees concerned, with a view to maintaining
administrative standards and ensuring efficiency in public service. The exercise
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 19 of 27
was not intended to punish or penalise the Appellants. The materials on record
disclose that all eligible employees, including the Appellants, were subjected to the
same process of review and evaluation, without any deviation from or relaxation
of or departure from the parameters prescribed under the Circular.
36. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the parameters and standards
applied while considering the cases of the Appellants for compulsory retirement
were uniformly applied to all similarly situated employees and that no element of
discriminatory treatment or selective application of criteria has been established.
FULL SERVICE-RECORD PROFILE OF THE APPELLANTS WAS EXAMINED
37. The records further reveal that in the case of every employee, including the
Appellants, the Committee initially undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire service records in order to determine whether the employee satisfied the
minimum benchmark equivalent to Grade ‘ B ’, as contemplated under the Circular.
Thereafter, as an ancillary and corroborative exercise, the Committee examined the
Confidential Reports pertaining to the immediately preceding 5 (five) years,
namely, the period from 2013 to 2017, with a view to ascertaining whether there
existed any discernible pattern of declining performance, repeated low gradings or
deterioration in efficiency. These Confidential Reports were not treated as the sole
basis of the evaluation rather, they constituted one component of the broader
assessment undertaken on the basis of the employee’s complete service profile. In
any event, this Court finds that the emphasis placed upon the Confidential Reports
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 20 of 27
of the preceding 5 (five) years was fully consistent with Para ‘D’ of the Circular
th
dated 25 April 2017, which provides as under:-
“D. The overall evaluation of the records of the entire service period be less than
“Good” B grade. On the basis of evaluation, it should also be seen whether the work
of the last 5 years of the government servant is not decreasing .”
(emphasis supplied)
38. It was only after the aforesaid parameters had been applied uniformly and
comprehensively to all eligible employees that the Screening Committee identified
5 (five) employees, including the present Appellants, whose overall service-record
assessment fell below the prescribed benchmark and whose recent Confidential
Reports disclosed patterns indicative of unsatisfactory performance, declining
efficiency or lack of utility in public service. The remaining 9 (nine) employees,
having satisfied the prescribed standards, were found fit for continued retention in
service.
PROMOTION DOES NOT EFFACE SUBSEQUENT ADVERSE ENTRIES
39. This Court is unable to accept the contention that the promotion of the
Appellants rendered the subsequent adverse material irrelevant for the purposes of
compulsory retirement. The principle that adverse entries lose their significance
upon promotion of an employee to a higher post is confined to those entries which
pre-date the promotion and are deemed to have been overlooked by the employer
while conferring such promotion. That principle cannot be extended to obliterate
or neutralise entries recorded after promotion, which relate to the employee’s
performance in the promoted post itself.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 21 of 27
40. In the present case, the Appellant-Chatur Singh Dhruv, was promoted from
th
Class-IV cadre to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 14 March 2013, whereas the
Appellant-Manharan Lal Sahu, was promoted from the post of Peon to Assistant
rd
Grade-III on 03 October 2012. It is, therefore, evident that both Appellants had
already assumed the promoted post prior to the recording of the Annual
Confidential Reports for the years 2013 to 2017, which constituted an important
component of the materials considered by the Screening Committee while
undertaking the review exercise.
41. The record further reveals that Chatur Singh Dhruv was awarded a grading
of ‘ A ’ in the year 2013 but was thereafter consistently graded ‘ C ’ for four
consecutive years. Similarly, the Annual Confidential Reports of Manharan Lal
Sahu for the period 2013-2017 disclose repeated ‘ C ’ gradings accompanied by
remarks indicative of unsatisfactory performance. These entries, having been
recorded after the Appellants had entered the promoted post, were directly relevant
to an assessment of their efficiency, utility and suitability for continued retention in
service.
42. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent
Annual Confidential Reports of both Appellants reflected declined performance
and unsatisfactory discharge of duties in the promoted post and cannot be rendered
inconsequential merely by reason of their earlier promotions. On the contrary, the
material on record indicates that the Appellants failed to maintain the requisite
standards expected of incumbents occupying the promoted post.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 22 of 27
43. Equally untenable is the contention founded upon the regularisation of the
Appellants. Regularisation of service in a post already held by an employee does
not amount to promotion based on merit or comparative assessment. It merely
confers substantive status upon the employee in the existing post and cannot, by
itself, be construed as an endorsement of the employee’s efficiency or future
suitability. This Court is, therefore, of the view that neither the promotions granted
to the Appellants nor their subsequent regularisation had the effect of effacing or
diminishing the relevance of the below-benchmark gradings and adverse
assessments recorded thereafter.
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE NEITHER PUNITIVE NOR STIGMATIC
th
44. A plain reading of the impugned orders dated 09 October 2017 discloses
that they merely record that the Appellants having completed the requisite period
of service were being retired in the public interest with the approval of the State
Government in exercise of the power conferred under Fundamental Rule 56 and
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
45. The orders do not contain any allegation of misconduct, any finding of
culpability or any expression capable of casting a stigma upon the Appellants. The
language employed therein is confined to the statutory basis of the action and is
wholly consistent with the settled legal character of an order of compulsory
retirement. Since both orders are identically worded in all material particulars, the
order pertaining to one of the Appellants, namely, Chatur Singh Dhruv, is
reproduced hereunder:-
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 23 of 27
“OFFICE OF CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY,
CHHATISGARH
Indrawati Bhawan, Block II, 3rd Floor, Naya Raipur
Email ID: [email protected]
No.2141/Vi.Ma/Stha/2017
Naya Raipur, Dt. 9.10.2017
ORDER
To,
Sh. Chatur Singh Dhruv
Assistant Grade-03
Office of Inspector Legal Metrology
Mahasamund (CGS)
45.
Since, you have completed 20 Years of service as on 08.09.2009, therefore, in
exercise of powers conferred by Rule 2 (A) of Chhatisgarh Original Rule 56 and Rule 42
(1) (B) of Chhatisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, therefore, in the public
interest and with the approval of the State Government you are hereby retired with
immediate effect from 09.10.2017 without giving you notice.
Sd/-illegible
Dy. Controller
Legal Metrology, Chhattisgarh, Naya
Raipur
End. No..../Vi.Ma/Stah. 2017, Naya Raipur
Date: 09.10.2017”
46. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the observations
recorded by the Screening Committee in its internal proceedings or MoM impart a
stigmatic character to the impugned orders. It is well settled that while examining
the validity of an order of compulsory retirement, the Court must primarily have
regard to the order itself. Internal deliberations, assessments and reasons forming
part of the decision-making process are intended to assist the competent authority
in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and do not, by themselves, render the
consequential order punitive or stigmatic. In the present cases, the minutes merely
record the Committee’s evaluation of the service records, efficiency, integrity and
utility of the employees concerned and cannot be construed as findings of
misconduct or culpability.
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 24 of 27
THE COMMITTEE’S ASSESSMENT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY ADJUDICATION
OF MISCONDUCT
47. As noted hereinabove, the review undertaken by the Screening Committee
in September 2017 was a purely administrative exercise conducted in public
interest in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56, Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil
th
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the Circular dated 25 April 2017. The exercise
neither involved an adjudication of misconduct nor partook the character of a
disciplinary proceeding. No stigma was attached to the Appellants and the
recommendations were founded exclusively upon considerations of overall
suitability, efficiency, integrity and service record, which are germane to
determining whether a Government servant ought to be retained in public service.
Significantly, no departmental inquiry was either pending or contemplated against
either of the Appellants at the relevant time. The submission that the impugned
action was adopted as a device to circumvent disciplinary proceedings is, therefore,
wholly unsupported by the record and deserves to be rejected.
UNCOMMUNICATED ADVERSE ENTRIES OR BELOW-BENCHMARK
GRADINGS MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
48. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that adverse entries
and below-benchmark gradings recorded in their Annual Confidential Reports
could not have been relied upon since such entries had not been communicated to
them is equally devoid of merit. The issue is no longer res integra . In Baikuntha
Nath Das (supra), this Court authoritatively held that an order of compulsory
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 25 of 27
retirement is not liable to be interfered with merely because the competent
authority, while arriving at its opinion, took into consideration uncommunicated
adverse remarks. The Court expressly observed that ‘ 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 of interference… ’ . The contention of
the Appellants, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position governing
compulsory retirement.
49. This Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by the
Appellants upon the decisions of this Court in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh
(supra) is misplaced. Those decisions were rendered in the context of promotion,
career progression and the requirement of communicating entries that may
adversely affect an employee’s promotional prospects. The principles enunciated
therein operate in a distinct field and cannot be mechanically extended to cases
involving compulsory retirement, which are governed by a separate and well-
settled jurisprudence. Accordingly, the said judgments offer no assistance to the
Appellants.
CONCLUSION
50. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the process
culminating in the compulsory retirement of the Appellants was undertaken in
th
accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the Circular dated 25
April 2017 and that the prescribed parameters were uniformly applied. Further, the
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 26 of 27
decision of the competent authority was founded upon relevant and cogent
materials and that no case of arbitrariness, mala fides , perversity or violation of any
constitutional or statutory guarantee has been made out warranting interference by
this Court.
th
51. Consequently, the impugned judgments dated 12 April 2023 are affirmed
and the Appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………J.
[MANMOHAN]
.…………………………………J.
[SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR]
New Delhi;
November 06, 2026
SLP(C) Nos.24392 of 2023 & 25201 of 2023 Page 27 of 27