Petitioner Rakesh Mohan Pandey was taken on as a daily-rated worker in November 1993. In 2005, he was appointed to the post of driver, a vacant and sanctioned post. In 2010, his services were confirmed as driver. In 2012, the post was renamed as driver (heavy vehicle), which bestowed on him the benefits of the 5th pay scale. When he attained the age of 50 in November 2017, he was compulsorily retired even though he had not completed seven years of regular service.
The petitioner’s argument was that the annual confidential reports or ACRs for the 2011 to 2017 were not taken into account while ordering compulsory retirement.
The HC, however, found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 186, 294, 353 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. In 2009, following a department inquiry, his increment was held back and a mutual settlement later, he was acquitted in 2010.
However, as per Rule 56(2)(a) of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, if a government servant had completed 20 years of service or had attained 50 years of age, the state had the authority to compulsorily retire such an employee. The compulsory retirement should take into account the “honesty, integrity, physical capability, work and conduct” of the employee and there should be subjective satisfaction of the competent authority in this decision.
In this case, the petitioner’s overall grade was below average, and therefore, the decision to retire him compulsorily can be justified. Also, as per the Court, the decision to retire the petitioner was taken in public interest and on subjective satisfaction; that it wasn’t to be considered a punishment.
