Uncommunicated Adverse Entries In ACRs Can Be Considered For Passing Order Of Compulsory Retirement: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The employee was appointed as a Process Writer in the District Court Establishment at Jagdalpur in 1995. He received promotions and was posted as an Assistant Grade-II in Bijapur in 2018. A Screening Committee was reconstituted and the District Judge was appointed as its Chairman. It reviewed the records of employees who had completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service. The employee was compulsorily retired in August 2018 based on adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports.

The employee challenged the order before a Single Judge of the High Court, contending that the adverse remarks were either not communicated to him or were vague. Further that the entire service record was not considered. The Single Judge dismissed his petition, observing that there was sufficient material to justify the compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the employee filed the writ appeal.

It was argued by the employee that the adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for 2011 and 2014, were recorded indiscriminately against almost all subordinates and were not specific to his individual performance. He further contended that the damaging remark of suspicious integrity in his 2016 report was never communicated to him. Therefore, it denied him opportunity to represent against it.

The employee further contended that the District Judge had appointed the Screening Committee but later included himself as its Chairman. Further the District judge also acted as the disciplinary authority who passed the final retirement order, which was unfair.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the Screening Committee's decision was based on assessment of the employee's entire service record, which revealed a consistent decline in his performance and integrity. It was proved by the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2011, 2014, and 2016.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the grading of the employee was Good or Very Good for some years but from 2010 onwards his performance, character, and integrity consistently deteriorated. It was also noted that a special report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, expressed non-compliance with directions and lack of diligence in duties. Hence, it was held by the court that the decision of the Screening Committee and the subsequent order of compulsory retirement were supported by sufficient material and could not be termed arbitrary or perverse.

The contention of the employee that adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner was also rejected by the court. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Deptt. v. Nityananda Pati and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, it was held by the Court that even uncommunicated adverse entries can be considered for passing an order of compulsory retirement.

Thus, the compulsory retirement of the employee was upheld. Consequently, the Single Judge's decision was affirmed by the Division Bench. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Rajendra Kumar Vaid vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 802 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. and Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate