9% 6 33mm THE aoN‘BLE ma cetm 6F cmmwémi Bxmsmm gc,a.} 121.1% ; ' 24/1 ‘i/2002 : I.V. Shrivaatava aged 53 years, .son of Shri Khemlal Shrivaswva. PETITIONER w—Junior Supermtendent, mm. State wrehousmg Coworation. Regional affice, RAIPUR. 1,} Vex-$5. M.P.State Warehousing Cér’poration. through the mmging Director. oxiice Complex Black-A, Gautam Hagar, BHoPAL (M.P.). Regional wmger, VLF. state’ wrehouaing Ccrporation, mmsamund Road. 97 Amndmgar, mama (c.G.). W.;>.mM“\ goté j [WRIT PETITIW UNDER ARTIéLE 2252/2/70F THE CWSTITUTION 5 < OF mDIA. / 3 'r‘f *§., Resgondent No.—3 Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through The Managing Director Anand Nagar Mahasamund Road Raipur (C.G.) . LqéV/ 44v Omt‘io. 2 WmWW w. Warwm 3r’WQN Petitioner Respondents EM Writ Petition No. 241 of 2002 I . V. Shrivastava Versus M P: Siam Warehousing Coworation and one anothm'. Post for ordm" 011 20/july, 2006. \ Sdl- J' ' Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge K f? M HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR ** HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Wn't Petition No. 241 of 9.009 Petitioner :V I. V. Shrivastava Versus R€spond€nts M. P. State Warehousing Corporaticn and 0116 another. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice satish K. Amihatri. y . 3»? ' Shn' Ajay Shrivastava, Advocat€ for the Petitioner. .y .k Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Advocate with Shn‘ Vinay Pandey, “Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ORDER ( Qo’iiiuly, 2005) 1. The present petition iiled under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of compulsory retirement dated 28.2.2001 (Annexure P/ 1) and the order dated 10. 1.2002 (Annexare P/ 2) passed in appeal whereby the petitioner was retired compulsorily on attaining the age of 50 years and on completing 2O years of eervice. 2. The undisputed faets in blief are that the petitioner was working as Junior Superintendent with the Respondent No.1 Corporation and was posted at Regional Otiiee, Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner, along with three other persons, was Ietired compulsorily in the public interest with payment of 3 months salary and allowances. The petitioner had already completed 50 years of age and had worked 2O ‘years of service before the impugned order dated 28.2.2001 was passed. / The petitionsr plEferred all appaal which was alsa dismissed by Olx'lar dated 10. 1.2002 {Ammxure P{ 2). The petitioner has filed this patition impugning the. ordcr datetd 28.2.2001 (minexum P,’ 1) and the order dated 10.1.2002 (Annemm P] 2) on the gmund that tm petitioner was retired comiuulsarily not in the public mterest. The guidelines prescribed for consideration of caee o§ an employee for retirement compulsorily from the services, were 2"”? 3.. 24/2000/3/ 1, dated 22.8.2000, issued by the General Administration Department, pubiished in the. General Book Circular, and one of the four employee, who was also retired compulsorily by order dated 28.2.2001, namely Shri Sudhil‘ Maliviya) had been taken back in service which amounts to disoriminatoxy treatment meted out to the petitioner. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learned ootmsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as stated above. He further submite that the petitioxier was not communicated adverse Iemarks entered in his ACRs in the year 1989-90 and 1997-98, which were taken into consideration for the purpose of ietiring the petitioner compulsorily. There was for recommendation of the Screening Committee against him. compulsory retirement. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, ieanied Senior counsel with Shri Vinay‘ Pandey, leained eounoel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri B. D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner was retired compulsorily' on account of over all perfonnanoe of the petitioner in hie career and in public intereet. It was further submitted that the Screening Committee had examined the cases of several employees and on the basis of also not followed in accordagce with the Circular NE. C. U! 119 .vr “d .r observatiens of thc Screening Committee, tha petifioner was r€tired firom s€rvica cgmpulsorily in public interast. With regard to the Submissicana 0f thé p€titi0ner that 9m: of the employaas namsly 3111i Sudhjr MaEiViya, Who was retirad from service campulsorily by the sams mtEer was taken back m service; learned caunsel submitted that his case was cansideved afresh and it was fouxld that he. can be retained in service and on that count the petitioner cannot allege discriminatien. ?¥ 7. Having heard Iearned csunsel for the yarties and perusing the. records it is clear that the respondents have followeti the provisions as prescribed in the Circular No. C. 3-24/2000/3/ 1, dated 22.8.2000, issueii by the General Admiaisti‘ation Departmeat, published in the General Book Circular, which provides the guidelines for consideration of an employee to retjle the employee compulsorily. The said guidelines reads as under:- “1.WWWW$WWW— 50Eé$mataw2on$emwmmwema§ taaxgaigrma5swmta§awwta)tammgm$m42$ ammhmwmmw¢ta§mémm— (1) Weanmnemamleaegwfaemw wwmmmwoimn (2) Wmaml (3) mwmmnwmmmem$ WW$WmmmiEWa§t%%m WWWWWRNWaqhaahWa‘tm W§,WW@W€&W§§t (mw,e.u.wmmmm,1gg4ehmmm 8307 (esteem 1§95 gfm W 1161) (4) WW$W$WW"W@”M§W mlmmawhémmahtwmaame / // W$H§m$§ kWWsHET$mWWEEa1 H§fw%t” 8. The screening Committee cempxising of the Secxetary, Manager (Persannel), Manager (Accounts) and Regional Manager, Bhopal was calaatituied to consider the cases of all the employees who had attained the age of 50 years or have worked for 2O years in service, m its meeting dated 6/7. 11.2000, the Screening Committee in regard to Ru the petitioner observed as under:- WV “27. 9$ are. ’ca‘‘i We, eta. 31m —— ye %. 30.12.75 “55% time @rlmem€€,$%i?mfi@aé“+wwme§i§€%t 3%1irmmi1iwgvttmge‘ez— an“—— 1977, 78, 84, as, 90, 94. 96, 97 6&89—90@Tmumifmma§'wa mew W$§m¢ woeWzaaQg‘a’mWH‘cemé‘a" l” ewes W 11.1.91 aw Era? 97~98 $ W 9. 011 perusal of me observations of the Screening Committee, it is found that the Screem'ng Committee has 0011sicle1ed the ACRS of the iareeeding years. The adverse entry in the ACRS made in the year 1989—90 was communicated to the petitioner vide memo Nov 9155 dated 11.1.1991 and the adverse entiy in the year 1997-98 was communieated to the petitioner vide memo No. 1706 dated 25.5. 1999. 1t is further found that the Screening Committee, which was especially constituted for considering the case of all the employees who had attained either 50 years of age or had worked for 20 years, did not make any recommendation in respect of the employees, who were under consideration by the Screening Committee. The observation of the Screening Committee is that there service records were not found satisfactoiy. This obseivation was made in as many as /. 7/ n/e i / z 33 cases. On the sids gatings, I found that in the cases it is found f1t, 1m ratajlled, D.E. be i11itiated, ratjxc, died, agmed etc, appears tn hava been made 0n tlm basis (3f decision tak€n by the respondam N0. 1 / authoxities, 10, Ia $115 sass in hand, mg guidelinas required thg gradatiw; of an €mp1Gyee, not less than ‘Kha’ in the preceding years. In the case of the getitianer, it has been found that he was throughéut graded as ‘Ga’. The adverse yemark made in 1116. year 1989-90 was 11ot%§éllenged. The petitioner was wan1ed eartier on 111.1984, 5.12.1934, 16,1.1985, 1.9.1985, 38.19837, 15.2.1990, 31.3.1990, 29.3.1990 and 15.5. 1§90. The mspondents have enclosed several memos which were issued to the petitioner, warning him to improve his conduct as the petitioner was found most of the time absent tron: duties. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Unian of India Vs. J. 1E. Sinha and another (AIR 1971 SC 40) has obsewed as under:— ..’I‘here is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in Govennnent organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. lt is in public interest to chop 011' the same. Fundamental Rule 56 (i) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energies its machinery and make it more edicient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest.” 12. The Supieme Court in the case of C. D. Ailawadi Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1990 SC 1004} has observed as under:— Mr? “8, A11 aggn'eved civil sawmit can challenge 2x11 ovdsr of CGmpulSOIy rstimment on any of the following grounds as sottled by sevaral dacisions of fhis Court, (i) that the requisite opinion has not boon formed; 03‘ (ii) that tho decision is based on collateral » grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitraiy deciaion... 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Natl: Das and anothei' Vs. Chief District Medical omcer, Baripada and another (AIR 1992 SC 1020) while providing for guiding principles has olige;ved as under: — i r “32. The following pxinciples emerge from the above discuseion; (i) An older of compulsory ietiiement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Govemment on forming the epinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant eompulson‘ly, The order is nassed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While ~& the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malaiide, or (b) ' that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the enh're record of service before taking a decision in the matter —- of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later yeais. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records; character rolls, both favourable and adverse. lf ( a gcvammant servant is pmm0t€d ho a highar post notwithstanciing the adversa remarks, such remarks lose thair sting, more so, if the. promotion is baSed upon men't (smlection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retiremmlt is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the. Showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference ......... " 14. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and @3ther Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah { (EQQ) 1 SCC 529} has obselved as under: - \ “23. In Older, therefore, to find out whether any government seivant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an enicient administration, an objective View of overall performance of that government servant has to be taken before deciding, after he has attained the age. of 50 years, either to retain him further in service or to dispense with his services in public interest, by giving him three months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof. 24. The perfonnance of a government servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the etliciency, honesty or integrity of a government servant is to look at his character roll entn'es for the Whole tenure from the inception to ,the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorization of the employee is poor and there. is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Emciency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of “integrity”. If this is missing, the whole brindle would disperse. A government servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. 25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the government servant to mend his ways and. to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the‘ advarsa gntries so that the. governnmnt servant toiw m the: advarse: antry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to Show that the aéverse entiy was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his plevious conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance.” 15, It is well settled principle. of law that the order of compulsory retiremeht can be challenged only on the ground that the requisite opinion was not formed or the decision was based on theWgollateral groundsino evidence, or the decision was arbiti‘ary. It is ftu‘ther established principle of law that the order is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Govemment. This Court cannot sit as an appellate Court to interfere with the decision of the Governmentlemployer, except in cases of no evidence or established malaflde or the order is arbitrary. 0n perusal of the. papers, as stated above, it is clear that in the present case, the order of the compulsory retirement does not sud‘er from any perversity or illegality as stated above. Thus, the impugned order is sustainable in law, Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Thakur / /’ 3d!- sansh K' Agnlhottiahl Judge