State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kailash Chand Ladwa

Heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/appellants and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants with delay of 248 days along with an application, I.A. No. 01 of 2023, for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. The respondent has filed objection to the said application for condonation of delay on 02.06.2023, opposing the same.

However, on due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 01 of 2023, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 7056 of 2017 (Kailash Chand Ladwa Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed under the respondents on 21.07.1982 on the post of Assistant Grade-III. By efflux of time and by virtue of seniority the petitioner stood promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. 28.06.2006. Working on the said post of Assistant Grade-II the petitioner was abruptly retired from service vide order of compulsory retirement Annexure P-1 dated 03.10.2017.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner/respondent here has filed WP(S) No. 7056 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge, which was allowed and it is ordered that the writ petitioner shall be, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation, immediately taken back in service within a outer limit of 60 days from today and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, so far as the monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the intervening period except for the notional benefits and fixation that are to be provided and the actual monetary benefits would be given to the petitioner from the date he is taken back in service. The intervening period for all other practical purposes would be treated as period spent on duty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents therein / appellants herein have filed the present writ appeal.

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants/State submits that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is unsustainable and is also contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submits that for compulsory retirement the records of certain period of service not been seen but order of compulsory retirement can be passed looking to the overall service records of the government employee. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent / writ petitioner’s ACR grading was ‘B’ in the year and also ignored the fact that the respondent / writ petitioner was subjected to punishment in the year 2013 and earlier in the year 2008. He also submits that the ACR cannot be the only criteria for premature retirement, the conduct of the employee during his tenure, and complaint made against those employee needs to be considered while passing premature retirement. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of R.L. Butail v. Union of India, reported in (1970) 2 SCC 876 and in the matter of Union of India v. Dulal Dutt, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 179.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner opposed the said argument and supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and materials available on record.

The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record and also relying on the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in has rightly allowed the writ petition observing as follows :

“20. Based on the aforesaid legal principles and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments what culls out broadly is that while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there has to be an overall assessment of the entire service record of the petitioner/employee which should be taken note of by the Department. One stray incident and one act of misconduct for which also the major punishment imposed is one that of reduction of pay by two increments with cumulative effect cannot be a deciding factor for 14 placing an employee/officer under compulsory retirement. Merely because the employee has been inflicted with one major penalty cannot by itself be an inference for the Department to hold that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner is doubtful.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 03.10.2017 Annexure P-1 so far as the placing of petitioner under compulsory retirement by the respondents is concerned, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside/ uashed. Consequently, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be, if he has not crossed the age of superannuation, immediately taken back in service within an outer limit of 60 days from today and the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits.

However, so far as the monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefits for the intervening period except for the notional benefits and fixation that are to be provided and the actual monetary benefits would be given to the petitioner from the date he is taken back in service. The intervening period for all other practical purposes would be treated as period spent on duty.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent as indicated in the preceding paragraphs.”

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order and on perusal of the legal principles and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments, it is clear that while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there has to be an overall assessment of the entire service record of the employee which should be taken note of by the Department. One stray incident and one act of misconduct for which also the major punishment imposed is one that of reduction of pay by two increments with cumulative effect cannot be a deciding factor for placing an employee/officer under compulsory retirement. Merely because the employee has been inflicted with one major penalty cannot by itself be an inference for the Department to hold that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner is doubtful, therefore, we do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.