The Supreme Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of two Chhattisgarh government employees, ruling that uncommunicated adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) can be considered while assessing whether an employee should continue in public service.
The Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that compulsory retirement based on an objective assessment of an employee's overall service record does not become punitive merely because adverse performance assessments were considered.
Background
The appellants, Chatur Singh Dhruv and Manharan Lal Sahu, were initially appointed as Peons (Class-IV) in the Legal Metrology Department of Chhattisgarh in 1989 and 1993, respectively. Both were subsequently promoted to Assistant Grade-III and their services were regularised in June 2015.
Following a state government circular dated April 25, 2017, a screening exercise was conducted to identify employees who were no longer considered suitable for continued service. Based on the committee's assessment, both employees were compulsorily retired on October 9, 2017.
They challenged the decisions before the Chhattisgarh High Court, but the Single Judge and subsequently the Division Bench declined to interfere. They then approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the employees argued that the retirement orders were effectively punitive because the screening committee had recorded adverse observations about their performance and integrity.
They also contended that the authorities had relied on uncommunicated adverse entries in their ACRs and had failed to consider their complete service records. They further questioned why other similarly placed employees had been allowed to continue.
The State, however, maintained that all 14 eligible employees had been assessed using the same criteria and that five employees, including the appellants, were found below the prescribed benchmark.
The Court explained that compulsory retirement is an administrative measure intended to protect public interest and maintain efficiency in government service. However, the decision must be supported by relevant material and cannot be based on arbitrary considerations.
The Bench observed:
"The decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant is founded upon the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that the employee’s continued retention in service is no longer conducive to public interest."
The Court also examined the argument concerning unequal treatment and held that an employee cannot challenge compulsory retirement merely because another employee with comparable service records was retained.
It noted:
"The fact that action was taken against one employee while another similarly situated employee was left untouched does not, by itself, render the action unconstitutional or discriminatory."
On the question of uncommunicated adverse entries, the Supreme Court distinguished the principles governing promotion from those applicable to compulsory retirement. It held that the requirement to communicate ACR entries in promotion-related matters could not automatically be extended to compulsory retirement cases.
The Bench relied on its earlier ruling in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, explaining that non-communication of adverse remarks alone does not invalidate compulsory retirement.
The Court observed:
"An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it, uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration."
The Court further noted that the appellants' adverse ACR gradings were recorded after their promotions and therefore remained relevant to assessing their performance in the promoted positions.
Finding that the screening committee had examined the employees' overall service records and uniformly applied the prescribed criteria, the Supreme Court found no arbitrariness, discrimination or legal violation warranting interference.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Chhattisgarh High Court's judgments dated April 12, 2023, and dismissed both civil appeals. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: Chatur Singh Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 24392 and 25201 of 2023)
Judges: Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Decision Date: November 6, 2026
