Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Uniform Screening, Says Uncommunicated Adverse Entries May Be Considered

For the appellants. The parameters were not applied uniformly to similarly placed employees; the orders were punitive and stigmatic in substance and a substitute for disciplinary proceedings; only recent years, not the entire record, were considered; the adverse entries were never communicated, relying on Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh; and entries before promotion and regularisation had ceased to count, relying on Baikuntha Nath Das (paras 6-11).

For the State. The review followed the Circular: the Committee examined the records of all 14 eligible employees, converted their gradings to one numerical scale, and found five, including the appellants, below the Grade ‘B’ benchmark with declining reports for 2013-2017 (paras 12-22).

Uniform parameters, no negative equality

Judicial review of compulsory retirement asks only whether relevant material existed, whether it was considered, and whether a reasonable person could reach the conclusion; the Court does not re-weigh it (para 27). Where the Government prescribes norms, review extends to whether they were observed (para 26). That a similarly placed officer was not retired does not by itself make the action discriminatory: Article 14 does not countenance negative equality (para 29). In any event, none of the nine employees retained showed the appellants' combination of a below-B overall assessment, sustained ‘C’ gradings for 2013-2017 and adverse remarks, and three others were also retired (paras 34, 36).

Full record; promotion and regularisation

The Committee first assessed the entire service record against the Grade ‘B’ benchmark and used the 2013-2017 reports as a corroborative check, consistent with Para ‘D’ of the Circular (para 37). Adverse entries lose significance on promotion only if they pre-date it; both appellants were promoted before the 2013-2017 reports (paras 39-41). Regularisation merely confers substantive status and is no endorsement of efficiency (para 43).

Neither punitive nor stigmatic

The orders only record retirement in the public interest under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, with no allegation of misconduct (paras 44-45). The Committee's minutes do not make them stigmatic (para 46). No departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated, so the plea of circumventing disciplinary proceedings failed (para 47).

Uncommunicated entries

Under Baikuntha Nath Das, an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks were considered (para 48). Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh concern promotion and career progression and cannot be mechanically extended to compulsory retirement (para 49).