Screening Committee's Decision Justified Despite Challenges of Natural Justice Violations and Arbitrary Process Claims
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the compulsory retirement of Rajendra Kumar Vaid, an employee of the District Court, Jagdalpur. The decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, upheld the compulsory retirement based on adverse entries in Vaid's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2011, 2014, and 2016, which were not communicated to him.
The appeal arose from an order by a Single Judge dated April 17, 2025, which dismissed Vaid's writ petition against his compulsory retirement. Vaid, who was appointed as a Process Writer in 1995 and promoted over the years, was compulsorily retired following a Screening Committee's review of his service records. The committee, chaired by the District Judge who also acted as the disciplinary authority, found his performance unsatisfactory based on the ACRs.
Vaid's counsel argued that the adverse ACR entries were not communicated to him, violating principles established in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Dev Dutta v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India. Additionally, the counsel alleged procedural irregularities and bias, as the District Judge chaired the committee and issued the retirement order.
Despite these contentions, the High Court found that the Single Judge's decision was supported by sufficient material evidence and did not warrant interference. The court emphasized that judicial review in compulsory retirement cases is limited to situations where decisions are arbitrary or lack evidence. It also noted the Supreme Court's stance in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Deptt. v. Nityananda Pati and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, which permits considering uncommunicated adverse entries for such retirements.
The division bench further observed that Vaid's service record showed a decline in performance and integrity from 2010 onwards, with specific negative remarks in the years 2011, 2014, and 2016. These findings justified the Screening Committee's decision to recommend compulsory retirement.
In conclusion, the court found no palpable infirmities or perversity in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the legality and justification of Vaid's compulsory retirement.
Bottom Line:
Compulsory retirement of an employee can be based on un-communicated adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) if there is sufficient material to justify such retirement.
Statutory provision(s): Service Law, Principles of Natural Justice, Judicial Interference in Compulsory Retirement
Rajendra Kumar Vaid v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2805345
