-i ^i^^l^ 'APPLTeA'nQa.'MDEB. SESTIOM i9 OF SEE ADM3S.3SErBA£@B''® •1985. ," . -ft. sa. /1995. FQiLJise.^.M j'he__I:r:ibanglt_3 .office s ( Qate of filtQ; A . !-: • or _ _ > '., ( !Bate &f Keoeittt: -^^^(2-/Ay \ by nos1;. istratioa So. ,lS3o</ . SIQL-BSRaB TBE MADH-a PEAISSH AIEISZai'BASCTE ^RIBtMAIi ! JABAERaB. 1. IG:ffl2: - S.S.'Shaturvedi,: SBx. :Tillag.e: •4grlealtHre-Sxt'eris;3-OE.: QCf±oer, resid.eat, of village 'SeEsa, 'dis'triGt. :'.:1;: Biiasgur (M.P.). , ' ' •; 1 ,': :1::'! .' .^ .SL,£.£._S_ITJ_S • ,. : ; : •-:; ,[-:\: i.^ ISB Kl 3. -Joi&f Bireetor of 'Agriel'Ei'teu;Ee,,.:':Bl| Divis:a.on^;:BiiasE)ur .M.P. 1.,;1:::'11,'-1', 4. Beputy BilrectoE :6f agrJ.eulfurB^Si'! |^asN:S Bistrlct•EilaspBE.M.?./ is:ulsrlla Qf;.K-fehe. QSi3.eE- aKaisist ;-«rhle.]a•aBBtT.^a^o-o^i^ V.ssS.Kf 2. .HGS? APPLlBAiSS!- 1. Sta'fe:e:o£;,y.P. .tfaroagh Seere-fc.ary, •oS -Agrleult ure,.;'Val3.a'bh' Baa«aa,^'SSc>ga3..i 2. -Bireq'fcor: of'Ag:':'le'Ei:(.'fcu:E'S5.7in!3.haya;QiEtsia-';l:? Bfaopal. • ! "I ' ; : ^:' - • : ' :.:'' BitctMlj-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Petitioner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1266Q005 S.K.Chaturvedi <? Versus State of M.P. and others Present:- Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondents No.1, 3 and 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 7th ofApril, 2010) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petiCon, petitioner has assailed legatity and vatidity of order dated 26/05/95 (Annexure A-1) bywhich petitioner has been compulsorily retired upon attaining the age of 55 years and compteting 25 years of service on the ground that the petitioner has not been abte to fulfill the minimum efficiency criteria. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 15/12/1958 and on 11/03/1^3, he was promoted as Rural Agriculture Extension Offlcer. According to the petitioner, in the entire service career, no adverse confldentia! report was ever entered in his service book nor it was ever communicated to him. Vide impugned order dated 26/05/1995, petitioner has been compulsorily retired even though the petitioner has been performing with full devotion and efRciency. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of computsory retirement is illegal in as much as no opportunity of hearing has been afforded <' .y <. ;1'/"^ fc^ -,// 2-— nor any departmental enquiry held before issuing the impugned order of punishment. It is also argued that the ground stated in the impugned order is baseless as petitioner was never subjected to any medical examination and there is nothing on record'to show that there was any reduction in his physical capacity to discharge offlcial duties. It is urged that there is no material to conclude that the petitioner has become a deadwood so as to warrant his compulsory retirement under ttie provisions contained in Rule 42 of M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (For short "the Rules of 1976") read with Fundamental Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that in accordance with the directions of the State Govt., a committee was duly constituted which considered the case ofthe employees, who had completed 25 years of service and 55 years of age. Upon scrutiny of the entire record of the service with more advertence to records of the recent past, it was found that petitioner had earned poor gradings in his confidential reports which reflected upon his capacity. 5. In this view of the matter, acting upon the recommendation of the committee, petitioner was computsory retired from service. It is submitted that compulsory retirement upon completion of 25 years of service and upon attaining the age of 55 years as provided under Rute 42 of the Rules of 1976, is not a punishment on any alleged misconduct. This is permissible in case where it is found that the employee has become a deadwood. He further submits that though the minimum service of 25 years up till K years of age is ensured, further continuance in service is dependant on the Govt. servant's utility and capacity. In the present case, there is overwhelming material which was made basis for the commHtee to recommend compulsory retirement ofthe petitioner. ^ 6. On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the respondents to keep available the relevant records of screening committee as also relevant ACRs of the petitioners which were subject matter of the screening committee for consideration. Leamed counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court, retevant record ofthe screening committee. From perusal of the same, it is found that the name of the petitioner finds ptace at S.No.8 and out of ACRs of the last five yeare from year 1989-90 to 93-94, last three years' ACR indteate poor performance of work by the petitioner. 7. Compulsory retirement upon comptetion of minimum period of sen/ice prescribed under the service rules is not a punishment. White minimum period of service of 25 years up titl the age of 55 years is guaranteed, further continuance of the employee in government service is dependant upon his utility provided he has not become deadwood. 8. Rule 42 ofthe Rules of 1976 reads thus:- "42. Retirement on compleUon of 20/25 years quali^ng service- (1) (a) A Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form 28, to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of iray and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months: Provided ttiat where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shatl not be allcwed to retire from service without Uie prior permission in writing of the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he ^vslu, i* has completed 25 years qualilying service, with the approval of the State Govemment by giving him three months notice in Form 29: Provided that such Govemment servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. 9. The relevant provision of the fundamental rules framed in this regard and which are operative prescribe as below:- W. Age of Superannuation." (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Age of superannuation, Government Servant shall retire from service on the aftemoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government Servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shalt retire from service on the afternoon of the iast day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of sixty yeare. (2) (a) A Government Servant may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he attains the age of frfty five years without assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing. (b) The period ofsuch notice shall be ttiree months: Provided ttiat such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus alloiyances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he vyas drawing them immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period bywhich such notice falls short ofthree months. \ "-^',.„•."., '"''-S. 3 •s"-- 10. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical OTficer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1020, the Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of compulsory retirement simplicitor upon completiorr of minimum period of service held as under:- 32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (») An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (u) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the pubtic interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on ttie subjective satisfaction ofthe govemment. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no pface in the context of an order of computsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. Whiie the High Court or this Court would not examine the inatter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are safefied that the order is passed (a) mala flde or (b) that it is based 6n no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requiste opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (M The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a declsion 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 rolts, both favourable and adverse. If a govemment 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. M An order of computsory 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 iteetf cannot be a basisfor interference. 33. Before parting with the case, we must refer to an argument urged by Sri R.K. Garg. He stressed what is called, the new concept of Article 14 as adumbrated in Maneka CSandhi. AIR 1978 SC 597 and submitted on that basis that any and every arbitrary action is open to judicial scrutiny. The general principte evolved in the said decision is not in issue here. We are concemed mainiy with the question whether a facet of principle of natural justice — audi aiteram partem — is attracted in the case of computeo"/ ratirsmsnt. r : '< —y. ••»>'^ In other words, the question is whether acting upon undisclosed material is a ground for quashing the order of compulsory retirement. Since we have held that the nature of the function is not quasi- judicial in nature and because the action has to be taken on the subjective satisfaction of the govemment, there is no room for importing the said facet of natural jusUce in such a case, more particularly when an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it invoh/e any stigRsa. 11. The aforesaid decision has been succinctly followed to settle the principle that where, upon consideration of Uie service records, it is found that the government servant has become deadwood, he can be compulsorily retired from service which is neither stigma nor a punishment. 12. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing order of computeory retirement, he was entitled to opportunity of hearing and departmental enquiry to be conducted, has to be rejected as present is not a case of imposition of penaHy on any misconduct. Petitioner has not been compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment under Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976. This atso answers petitioner's submission relating to requirement of deparbnental enquiry before passing such order. Last contention of learned counsel for the petitionerthat there was no material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has become a deadwood is also not acceptable. In the return, it has been stated that the brief service records of the petitioner was perused. From ttie records ofthe screening committee, it is found that upon consideration of last five years ACRs of the petitioners, his performance of tast three years was not found up to ttie mark. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, constitutes relevant material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had become a deadwood and was liable to be computsorily retired. T~1- 13. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, l do notfind any illegality in the action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No orders as t Sd/- — " ~ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava . Judge ] UMANE