Uncommunicated Adverse ACR Entries Can Be Considered For Compulsory Retirement: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Plea, Upholding Compulsory Retirement Order
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed an employee’s challenge to his compulsory retirement, holding that the decision could stand even if certain adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports were not communicated to him. The dispute arose after a screening process reviewed the service records of eligible staff and the employee was ordered to retire compulsorily based largely on adverse ACR remarks reflecting deterioration in performance and integrity. He contended that the committee relied on incomplete service material, that adverse remarks were not properly conveyed, and that the decision-making suffered from unfairness. The Bench found adequate material supporting the retirement order and declined to interfere, affirming the earlier refusal to set it aside.
The appellant was initially appointed as a Process Writer in the District Court, Jagdalpur in 1995. Over the years, he received promotions and was serving as Assistant Grade-II in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur in 2018. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge to review the service records of employees who had completed 50 years of age or 20 years of service. The Committee considered the appellant’s record and recommended compulsory retirement based on adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2011, 2014, and 2016.
The appellant contended that the adverse remarks were either indiscriminate, vague, or uncommunicated. He argued that his subsequent ACRs reflected satisfactory performance and that the Screening Committee failed to consider his entire service record. He also questioned the propriety of the District Judge acting both as Chairman of the Committee and as the authority passing the retirement order. The respondents maintained that the decision was based on sufficient material and supported by law. The appellant relied on Supreme Court precedents including Dev Dutta v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India to argue that uncommunicated adverse entries could not be considered, while the respondents cited State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel and Harijan and Tribal Welfare Deptt. v. Nityananda Pati to support their position.
The Court recorded: “while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there must be an overall assessment of the entire service record of the concerned employee, and such decision must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority derived from cogent material available on record.” It further stated: “the scope of judicial interference in matters of compulsory retirement is extremely limited and unless it is shown that the order was passed arbitrarily, without application of mind, or in the absence of any material evidence, the High Court cannot interfere with the order of compulsory retirement, which need not even be a speaking order.”
The Court observed: “upon perusal of the service record and Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner, found that though his grading was ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ for some years, from 2010 onwards his performance, character, and integrity had consistently deteriorated.”
It recorded: “Specifically, for the years 2011, 2014, and 2016, his integrity had been recorded as ‘shoddy,’ ‘not honest,’ and ‘doubtful,’ respectively.” The Court noted: “The overall grading for most years between 2010 and 2017 was either ‘shoddy’ or ‘ordinary good.’” It stated: “a special report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur dated 10.08.2018, reflected non-compliance with directions and lack of diligence in duties.”
The Court recorded: “Based on these facts, it was held 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.”
It further stated: “The contention that adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner was also rejected in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harijan and Tribal Welfare Deptt. v. Nityananda Pati 1993 Supp(2) SCC 391 and State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314, holding that even uncommunicated adverse entries can be considered for compulsory retirement.”
The Court held: “Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. and Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Vaid v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:54312-DB
Case Number: WA No. 802 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
