CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1.

CWP-16022-2021(O&M)

Ravinder Kumar Condal

... Petitioner

Vs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another

... Respondents

2.

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M)

Asha Condal

... Petitioner

Vs

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and another

... Respondents

Reserved on : 27.08.2025

Pronounced on : 21.11.2025

Judgment uploaded on : 23.11.2025

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced

or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Ranjeet Singh Kalra, Advocate

Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab

* * * *

ROHIT KAPOOR , J.

The petitioners in the above-mentioned petitions, are husband

and wife, who were working as Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional

District Judge, respectively, in the state of Punjab, and have invoked the

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-2-

writ jurisdiction of this court inter alia seeking quashing of the orders

passed by the state government, retiring them prematurely, on the

recommendations of the High Court. As common questions of law and

facts are involved, with the consent of the parties, both the petitions are

being decided together by way of this common judgment and order.

I. Challenge Raised:

1.1. The petitioner-Ravinder Kumar Condal, in CWP No. 16022 of

2021, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 07.09.2015 communicated

vide endorsement dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure P-2), whereby he was

ordered to be prematurely retired w.e.f 05.10.2015 and for setting aside the

order dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure P-4), rejecting his representation/review

petition, and directions are sought to reinstate the petitioner, with all

consequential benefits along with interest at the market rate. Further prayer

is made for quashing the order dated 07/12.02.2018 (Annexure P-9),

whereby suspension period of the petitioner from 23.07.2012 to 04.10.2015,

was treated as leave of the kind due and for setting aside the orders dated

13.06.2018, 04.04.2019, 27.08.2019 (Annexures P-10, P-11 & P-12),

respectively, wherein an amount of Rs. 23,86,664/- was ordered to be

recovered from the subsistence allowance already paid to him.

1.2. CWP No. 16020 of 2021 is directed against the order dated

30.11.2017 (Annexure P-2), whereby petitioner-Asha Condal was ordered

to be prematurely retired w.e.f. 29.11.2017 and for quashing of orders dated

12.07.2021 and 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-4), rejecting the representation /

review petition filed by her. Further prayer for reinstatement with all

consequential benefits and interest at the market rate, has been made.

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-3-

II. Factual Matrix:

2. The petitioner-Ravinder Kumar Condal was appointed as a

Civil Judge Junior Division on 06.02.1996 and was promoted as Additional

Civil Judge Senior Division on 05.04.2004. He was further promoted as

Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Civil Judge Senior Division on 29.07.2009.

The Administrative Committee of this Court in its meeting held on

13.07.2015, after taking into consideration the overall service record, work

and conduct of the petitioner, resolved that it is in public interest that the

officer be not allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 50. The Full

Court in its meeting dated 10.08.2015, after considering the

recommendations of the Administrative Committee and after re-appraising

the entire service record of the petitioner, decided to retire him on attaining

the age of 50 years, in public interest. On the recommendations of the High

Court, the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule

3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975,

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘1975 Rules’), decided to retire the petitioner

prematurely vide order dated 07.09.2015, w.e.f. 05.10.2015, i.e. the date the

petitioner would attain the age of 50 years. The petitioner filed

representations/review petition against the order dated 07.09.2015, which

were also rejected.

2.1. In the case of the petitioner in CWP No.16020 of 2021, i.e.

Asha Condal, the chronology of facts is that she was appointed as Civil

Judge (Junior Division) on 27.03.1996 and promoted as Additional Civil

Judge (Senior Division) on 31.01.2001. Thereafter, she came to be

promoted as Additional District Judge on 28.02.2008. The Administrative

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-4-

Committee, after taking into consideration her overall service record, work

and conduct, vide its decision taken in pursuance to the meeting held on

02.11.2017, recommended that the said petitioner be not allowed to

continue in service beyond the age of 50 years. Thereafter, the matter was

placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on 08.11.2017 and it was

resolved that the recommendations of the administrative committee be

accepted and keeping in view the entire service record of the officer, she be

not allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 50 years, in public

interest.

2.2. On receipt of the recommendations of this Court, vide letter

dated 10.11.2017, the Governor of Punjab decided to prematurely retire the

petitioner w.e.f. 29.11.2017, vide order dated 30.11.2017. The

representation-review petition filed by the petitioner on 15.08.2018 was

rejected vide order dated 28.08.2019.

2.3. Tabulation of the ACRs of the petitioners, as placed on record,

is extracted as under:

Ravinder Condal

Year Remarks by the

High Court

Adverse/advisory remarks, if any.

1996-97 B-Satisfactory

1997-98 B-Average

1998-99 B Plus (Good)

1999-2000 B Plus (Good)

2000-2001 B Plus (Good)

2001-2002 B Plus (Good)

2002-2003 B Plus (Good)

2003-2004 B Plus (Good)

2004-2005 A-Very Good

2005-2006 B Plus (Good)

2006-2007 B Plus (Good)

2007-2008 B Plus (Good)

2008-2009 A-Very Good

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-5-

2009-2010 B Plus (Good)

(Provisional)

(subject to the

outcome of the

complaint

dated nil

(received on

9.3.2010) made

by Sh. Rajinder

Kumar s/o

Sohan Lal, (ii)

complaint

dated 2.3.2010

made by Ms.

Akbari d/o

Mangat Ram.

Part III Remarks of the

Administrative

Judge

The officer has high

understanding of law

and the administrative

matters. There was a

whisper amongst the

members of the Bar

about the officer but no

complaint against him

stood substantiated.

2010-2011 B Plus (Good)

(Being for a

longer period)

The following remarks were recorded on the

work and conduct of the officer for the period

from 01.11.2010 to 31.03.2011:-

8. General

assessment -

regarding

strength and

shortcomings:

Does not maintain

punctuality in court

hours.

Part III Remarks of the

Administrative

Judge

There were whispers in

the bar as also in

official circles about

reputation of the Officer

since no specific

complaints, written or

otherwise, were brought

to my notice, no action

was taken. The officer

needs to be careful on

this front. (Advisory)

2011-2012 C-Below

Average

1(a) Conduct of

business in

court and office

Below Average. He is a

work shirker

2 Quantity of

work-

He is in the habit of

claiming false units.

7. Integrity Needs to be kept under

watch.

8. General

assessment –

regarding

strength and

shortcomings

As against his

sermonizing his

performance is very

poor.

2012-2013 No Remarks

(being

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-6-

suspension

period)

2013-2014 No Remarks

(being

suspension

period)

2014-2015 No Remarks

(being

suspension

period)

Asha Condal

Year Remarks by the

High Court

Adverse/advisory remarks, if any.

1996-1997 B-Satisfactory 2 Is she

industrious

and prompt in

the disposal of

cases and has

she coped

effectually

with heavy

work?

Must put in more work.

Low disposal. However,

her explanation was

satisfactory.

1997-1998 B Plus (Good)

1998-1999 B Plus (Good)

1999-2000 B Plus (Good) 5 Is she an

efficient

Judicial

Officer?

Satisfactory. To be

advised to improve

disposal of work.

10 Net Result B+(Good). She is

however advised to be

more painstaking and

hard working in the

disposal of judicial work

but otherwise a good

officer.

2000-2001 B Plus (Good)

2001-2002 B Plus (Good)

2002-2003 B Plus (Good)

2003-2004 B Plus (Good)

2004-2005 B Plus (Good)

2005-2006 B Plus (Good)

2006-2007 B Plus (Good)

2007-2008 B Plus (Good)

2008-2009 A- Very Good

2009-2010 B Plus (Good)

(Provisional)

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-7-

(subject to the

outcome of

complaint dated

2.3.2010 made by

Akbari d/o Mangat)

2010-2011 Remarks for the

period from

02.04.2010 to

29.10.2010 by

Hon’ble

Administrative

Judge of Amritsar

Sessions Division -

-- B Plus (Good)

Remarks for the

period from

01.11.2010 to

31.03.2011 by

Hon’ble

Administrative

Judge of Amritsar

Sessions Division -

-- B (Satisfactory)

(Yet to be approved

by Full Court after

recording by

Hon’ble

Administrative

Committee).

5 State of health Needs to take care

8 General

Assessment

regarding

strength and

shortcoming

Not very punctual in

Court. Should

concentrate more on

work.

Part

III

Remarks of

the

Administrative

Judge

Spoken reputation of the

Officer is not good but

there being no specific

written complaint,

cognizance is not taken.

Needs to improve on this

aspect.(Advisory)

2011-2012 Remarks recorded

by Hon’ble

Administrative

Judge of Amritsar

Sessions Division –

B Average.

(Yet to be approved

by Full Court after

recording by

Hon’ble

Administrative

Committee).

1(b) Quality of

Judgment

Average

2 Quantity of

Work

Satisfactory. Needs to

work hard.

7 Integrity Her integrity be kept

under watch.

8 General

Assessment-

regarding

strength and

shortcomings.

Always eager to go on

leave.

2012-2013 Remarks for the

period from

1.4.2012 to

22.08.2012 were

not recorded by

Hon’ble

Administrative

Judge of Amritsar

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-8-

Sessions Division.

The remarks for the

remaining period

i.e. from

23.08.2012 to

31.03.2013 were

not recorded as the

officer remained

under suspension

w.e.f. 23.08.2012.

2013-2014

to

2017-2018

Remarks were not

recorded as the

officer remained

under suspension

w.e.f. 23.08.2012

to 28.11.2017.

2.4. It transpires that before the order retiring the petitioners

prematurely were passed, certain complaints were received against the

petitioner in CWP No. 16022 of 2021, resulting in initiation of disciplinary

proceedings and he was suspended on 23.07.2012. In the matter pertaining

to the complaint dated 14.11.2011, containing allegations regarding fixing

cases on Sundays, minor penalty of one annual grade increment without

cumulative effect was imposed vide Full Court decision dated 23.07.2012.

In the other complaints, pertaining to corruption/illegal gratification, the

said petitioner was indicted in the enquiry reports, yet, before the final

decision could be taken, he already stood prematurely retired and therefore,

it was decided that the matters be kept in abeyance and shall be revived in

future as and when considered necessary or required.

2.5. Show-cause notice was issued to the said petitioner, to the

effect as to why the suspension period w.e.f. 23.07.2012 to 04.10.2015 be

not treated as leave of kind due, to which the petitioner submitted replies

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-9-

dated 26.09.2016 and 06.07.2017. The vigilance/ disciplinary committee in

its meeting held on 10.01.2018 resolved that after considering the reply and

keeping in view the fact that the officer was not exonerated of the charges in

the regular departmental enquiries conducted against him, it is

recommended that the period of suspension be treated as leave of the kind

due. The recommendations of the committee were accepted by the Full

Court. As a consequence thereof, impugned letters dated 13.06.2018,

04.04.2019 and 29.08.2019 were issued to recover the alleged excess

amount of Rs. 23,85,664/-.

2.6. Two more complaints were received, against both the

petitioners, from Ms. Akbari d/o Mangat Ram on 02.03.2010 and from one

Hari Prasad alleging acquisition of immoveable property by ill gotten

means and raising lavish construction beyond known source of income. In

pursuance thereto, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against both the

petitioners. The petitioner-Asha Condal was suspended on 23.08.2012 and

the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry on 13.07.2015, wherein charge

No.1 qua the purchase of plot on a higher rate than what was reflected in

the sale deed, could not be proved, however, the second charge as regards

spending higher amount on the construction of the house than the disclosed

amount, stood proved. Show cause notice was issued on 09.12.2015 and

reply thereto was submitted on 26.06.2017.

2.7. In pursuance to the disciplinary proceedings the Vigilance and

the Disciplinary Committee vide its meeting held on 17.07.2017 resolved

that the petitioners be called for personal hearing, which was afforded and it

was ultimately held that the reply submitted by them was not found to be

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-10-

satisfactory and no ground was made out to differ with the enquiry report

dated 13.07.2015 and the same was accepted. However, since the

petitioners had already been retired prematurely, therefore it was observed

that no orders were required to be passed at this stage. The matter was

thereafter placed before the Full Court meeting held on 31.08.2019, wherein

it was decided to accept the report of the Vigilance and Disciplinary

Committee and since both the officers had been retired prematurely, the

matter with regard to initiation of action was ordered to be kept in abeyance.

However, it was decided that the same could be revived, if required in

future.

III. Contentions

3. Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the

petitioners has argued that perusal of the confidential reports of the

petitioners would show that they had an unblemished career and merely one

report, which is average, cannot be made the basis of retiring the petitioners

prematurely. It is submitted that after perusing the confidential reports, no

reasonable person can reach the conclusion that the petitioners were not fit

to be retained in the service. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a

decision passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of

Joginder Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, 2004 (3)

SCT 314, to contend that a single below average report without any

remarks regarding integrity cannot be the basis of retiring the petitioners

prematurely and thus the impugned orders would therefore be required to be

held as an outcome of arbitrary exercise of powers.

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-11-

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

has invited our attention to the guidelines for premature retirement of

judicial officers, dated 20.09.1979 (Annexure P-5), which inter-alia provide

that the suitability for retention in service at the time of review is to be

determined in the light of the entire service record, with particular reference

to the record pertaining to the preceding five years and an employee with a

good record of service and whose latest grading is B+ (Good) or above

should be allowed to continue in service. Reference is made to the decision

taken in the meeting of the Full Court dated 14.03.2011, where a

clarification was issued that not earning a B+(Good) grading in the latest

ACR, will not disentitle an officer to be retained in service, provided the

ACRs of the last five years indicate consistent good performance.

3.2 Learned Senior counsel has also argued that the action of the

respondents relying upon disciplinary proceedings, which are pending and

are not finally concluded, is patently illegal and in the teeth of the law

settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as State of

Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001(2) SCT 339.

3.3 It is further contended that neither adverse orders were passed

against the petitioners nor any misconduct stood proved against them and,

therefore the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioners

prematurely on the basis of the alleged complaints, was wholly unwarranted.

3.4 Mr. Malik has referred to Rule 8 of the Punjab Superior

Judicial Service Rules 2007 (herein after referred to as ‘the 2007 Rules’),

wherein clause (ii) stipulates that annual confidential reports of the

preceding five years of the officer concerned shall be taken into

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-12-

consideration for the purpose of promotion. Emphasis is laid upon the

proviso, which puts an embargo that any officer having grading as ‘C’

(integrity doubtful) in any year shall not be eligible to be considered for

promotion and the argument advanced is that in the case of the petitioners,

there was no grading, therefore, they could not have been retired

prematurely.

3.5 A feeble attempt is made to raise an element of bias, by

referring to the allegations levelled in the representation/review filed by the

petitioners, by arguing that the same have not been accorded due

consideration and a speaking order has not been passed while rejecting the

review petition, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.7 Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

High Court has at the very outset, contended that perusal of Chapter VI of

the Constitution of India makes it evident, that the control over the

subordinate courts vests with the Hight Court and the Governor does not act

independently, but on the basis of the recommendations of the High Court.

It is argued that once the recommendations, i.e. the decision-making process

and the decision of the High Court has not been assailed, no relief in the

present petitions can be granted. Maintainability of the petitions on the

ground of laches, is also questioned.

4.8 It is contended that as per the 1975 Rules, the appropriate

authority has the absolute right to retire an employee on the date, on which

he/she completes requisite number years of qualifying service or attains the

age of 50 years. In the case of the petitioners, their complete service record

has been taken into consideration, and it is only thereafter a conscious

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-13-

decision has been taken to retire them prematurely upon attaining the age of

50 years, strictly in public interest.

4.9 It is further argued that perusal of the ACRs would make it

evident that various adverse remarks/comments were recorded against the

petitioners during their service career, especially in the later ACRs. It is

only in this backdrop, keeping in view the larger public interest, the

decision to pre-maturely retire the petitioner has been taken. Reference has

been made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pyare

Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693, Ram Murti Yadav

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2020(1) SCT 299, and Central

Industry Security Force Vs. HC (GD) Om Prakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100 to

canvass that even a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer

in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement. The case of a

judicial officer is required to be examined, treating him to be differently

from other wings of the society as he serving the State in different capacity.

An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply

stigma. The standard or yardstick for judging conduct of judicial officer

necessarily has to be strict in order to maintain complete faith in the minds

of the ordinary litigant. It was further held that while dealing with the case

of compulsorily retirement, the scope of judicial review is extremely narrow

and restricted. The only ground of challenge can be malafide or

overlooking of relevant material. The Constitutional Courts, while

exercising their powers of judicial review, cannot examine the matter as an

Appellate Authority and the principles of natural justice has no application.

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-14-

The entire service record has to be taken into consideration though the

recent reports would carry their own weight.

4.10 It is lastly urged that the case of the petitioners has been

examined by the Full Court after taking into consideration the complete

record and the decision to retire them prematurely is neither stigmatic nor

punitive and thus cannot be assailed.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion:

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the material available on record with their able assistance.

5.1. Although, various submissions have been advanced, which we

shall proceed to deal with, the primary questions that fall for our

consideration are as follows:

(i) Whether the orders of premature retirement of the petitioners

warrant interference on any of the accepted legal principles?

(ii) Whether the period of suspension could have been treated as

leave of kind due?

5.2. The law relating to compulsory/premature retirement has been

summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of

Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (supra) after taking note of the view taken

in several other judgements. The relevant observations made in the said

judgment, are reproduced as under:

“5. The Court, in a number of cases, had occasion to

consider the law relating to compulsory retirement and

has laid down various principles. In State of Orissa &

Ors.v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996)5 SCC 331 : 1996(4)

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-15-

SCT 288 (SC), this Court held in paragraph 3 of the

judgment as follows :

"It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position

is that the Government is empowered and would be

entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in

public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the

administration or to weed out the people of doubtful

integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not

available to take disciplinary action in accordance with

the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the

service. But the Government before taking such decision

to retire a Government employee compulsorily from

service, has to consider the entire record of the

Government servant including the latest reports.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal

Shah, (1999)1 SCC 529 : 1999(1) SCT208 (SC), the

State Government challenged the judgment of the

Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the

order passed by the Single Judge was set aside. The

Division Bench held that the order of compulsory

retirement was bad and thereupon the State of Gujarat

filed an appeal. In that case, two criminal complaints

had been filed against the respondent-Asstt. Food

Controller, one alleging that he had illegally issued

cement permits to some bogus institutions; and second

that he had fabricated some rubber stamps of the

Government for the purpose of issuing illegal permits.

But, there were no adverse entries in his confidential

records and his integrity was not doubted at any stage.

However, the authorities thought that the investigation

and subsequent prosecution of the respondent would

take long time and it would be better to dispense with his

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-16-

services by compulsorily retiring him. The review

committee, therefore, recommended his compulsory

retirement. This Court, in paragraph 28 of the judgment,

held as under :

"There being no material before the Review

Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse

remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity

was not doubted at any time, the character roll

entries subsequent to the respondent's promotion

to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II)

were not available, it could not come to the

conclusion that the respondent was a man of

doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else

come to the conclusion that the respondent was a

fit person to be retired compulsorily from service.

The order, in the circumstances of the case, was

punitive having been passed for the collateral

purpose of his immediate removal rather than in

public interest."

7. In Baikuntha Nath Das & nr. v. Chief District

Medical Officer, Baripada & nr.,(1992)2 SCC 299 :

1992(2) SCT 92 (SC), following the decision in Union of

India v. J.N.Sinha, (1970)2 SCC 458, this Court held

thus:

"(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a

punishment. It implies no stigma or any

suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government

on forming the opinion that it is in the public

interest to retire a Government servant

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-17-

compulsorily. The order is passed on the

subjective satisfaction of the Government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in

the context of an order of compulsory retirement.

This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is

excluded altogether. While the High Court or this

Court would not examine the matter as an

appellate Court, they may interfere if they are

satisfied that the order is passed

(a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence

or (c) that it is arbitrary – in the sense that no

reasonable person would form the requisite

opinion on the given material; in short, if it is

found to be a perverse order.

(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee,

as the case may be) shall have to consider the

entire record of service before taking a decision in

the matter – of course attaching more importance

to record of and performance during the later

years. The record to be so considered would

naturally include the entries in the confidential

records/character rolls, both favourable and

adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a

higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks,

such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the

promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not

upon seniority.

(v) 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

circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for

interference."

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-18-

8. In Allahabad Bank Officers' Association & nr. v.

Aahabad Bank & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 504 : 1996 (3)

SCT 263 (SC), this Court, in paragraph 5 of the

judgment on page 508, held as under :

"The power to compulsorily retire a Government

servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of

pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the

Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement

is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain

efficiency and initiative in the service and also to

dispense with the services of those whose integrity

is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the

administration.

xxxx

xxxx

While misconduct and inefficiency are factors that

enter into the account where the order is one of

dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this

difference that while in the case of retirement they

merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if

held - and there is no duty to hold an enquiry - is

only for the satisfaction of the authorities who

have to take action, in the case of dismissal or

removal they form the very basis on which the

order is made, as pointed out by this Court in

Shyam Lal v. State of U.P, AIR 1954 Supreme

Court 369."

9. In Union of India & Ors. v. Dulal Dutt, 1993(2)

SCC 179 : 1993(4) SCT 30 (SC), this Court reiterated

the view held right from the case of R.L. Butail v. Union

of India,1970(2) SCC 876 and Union of India v. J.N.

Sinha, 1970(2) SCC 458 "that an order of a compulsory

retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually a

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-19-

prerogative of the Government but it should be based on

material and has to be passed on the subjective

satisfaction of the Government. Very often, on enquiry

by the Court, the Government may disclose the material

but it is very much different from the saying that the

order should be a speaking order. No order of

compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking

order."

10. In another decision in J.D. Srivastava v. State of

M.P. & Ors., 1984(2) SCC 8, in paragraph 7 of the

judgment, it was observed by this Court as under:

"But being reports relating to a remote period,

they are not quite relevant for the purpose of

determining whether he should be retired

compulsorily or not in the year 1981, as it would

be an act bordering on perversity to dig out old

files to find out some material to make an order

against an officer."

11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has

now crystallized into definite principles, which could be

broadly summarised thus :

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are

no longer useful to the general administration, the

officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of

public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement

is not to be treated as a punishment coming under

Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to

chop off deadwood, but the order of compulsory

retirement can be passed after having due regard

to the entire service record of the officer.

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-20-

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential

record shall be taken note of and be given due

weightage in passing such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the

confidential record can also be taken into

consideration.

(vi) the order of compulsory retirement shall not

be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental

enquiry when such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite

adverse entries made in the confidential record,

that is a fact in favour of the officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed

as a punitive measure.

12. In the instant case, there were absolutely no

adverse entries in respondent's confidential record. In

the rejoinder filed in this Court also, nothing has been

averred that the respondent's service record revealed

any adverse entries. The respondent had successfully

crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well 55. He

was placed under suspension on 22.5.1986 pending

disciplinary proceedings. The State Government had

sufficient time to complete the enquiry against him but

the enquiry was not completed within a reasonable time.

Even the Review Committee did not recommend the

compulsory retirement of the respondent. The

respondent had only less than two years to retire from

service. If the impugned order is viewed in the light of

these facts, it could be said that the order of compulsory

retirement was passed for extraneous reasons. As the

authorities did not wait for the conclusion of the enquiry

and decided to dispense with the services of the

respondent merely on the basis of the allegations which

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-21-

had not been proved and in the absence of any adverse

entries in his service record to support the order of

compulsory retirement, we are of the view that the

Division Bench was right in holding that the impugned

order was liable to be set aside. We find no merit in the

appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, three

months' time is being given to the appellant-State to

comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing

which the respondent would be entitled to get interest at

the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary

benefits due to him.

Appeal dismissed.”

5.3. While the aforesaid legal principles would be applicable in

every case of premature retirement, however, it is trite law that in the case

of judicial officers, the yardsticks required to be adopted, are different and

more strict. The legal position settled in the judgements of Pyare Mohan

Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Anr., 2020(1) SCT 299, and Central Industry Security Force Vs. HC

(GD) Om Prakash, supra,

would have to borne in mind, while exercising

the limited powers of judicial review in such matter. It would also be

apposite to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRs. v. Lieutenant

Governor (NCT of Delhi) (SC) 2011(10) SCC, as contained in paragraph

192 of the judgment, which are extracted as under:

“192. Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the

integrity would be based o n formulations of

impressions which would be result of multiple factors

simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the

perceptions may differ in the very nature of things

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-22-

there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in

subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicial

review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an

employee is not good though there may not be any

tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily

retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the

appropriate authority to consider the question of

continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age

is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an

opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is

doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be

challenged before courts. When such a constitutional

function is exercised on the administrative side of the

High Court, any judicial review thereon should be

made only with great care and circumspection and it

must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this

Court in several reported decisions. When the

appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that

compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public

interest, the writ Court under Article 226 or this Court

under Article 32 would not interfere with the order.”

5.4. It is in this context that we have examined the facts and

circumstances involved in the present petitions and are of the opinion that

once there are certain remarks in the ACRs, which have been scrutinized by

the Administrative Committee and thereafter the Full Court, we cannot

delve into the adequacysufficiency of the material in this regard, keeping in

view the limited scope of interference in exercise of powers of judicial

review.

5.5. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners had an

unblemished service record and only one ACR, wherein they were ranked

as ‘B Average’, cannot be a basis for retiring them prematurely. A careful

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-23-

perusal of the ACRs as tabulated hereinabove, would show that there were

repeated observations/remarks including those pertaining to

honesty/integrity of the petitioners starting from the year 2009 onwards

itself. The High Court has, therefore, kept in mind the overall service

record and placed reliance upon the later ACRs before coming to the

conclusion to retire the petitioner compulsorily.

5.6. Reliance on the judgment in Joginder Singh vs. Haryana State

Electricity Board, Chandigarh (supra), would not come to the aid of the

petitioners, since admittedly, there were no remarks regarding integrity in

that case.

5.7. The arguments regarding the decision of premature retirement

being in variance with the guidelines of the Full Court dated 14.03.2011 and

Rule 8 of the 2007 Rules, are equally misconceived. The decision taken

during the Full Court meeting on 14.03.2011 was limited to the extent that

earning of ‘B+ (Good)’ grading in the latest ACRs will not ipso facto

disentitle the officer to be retained in service, provided the ACRs of the last

five years indicate consistent good performance. The said decision is

wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where

the petitioners have been retired prematurely, keeping in view their overall

service record and essentially the observations regarding their integrity. The

Rules of 2007 pertains to promotion and has no applicability whatsoever, in

the cases of premature retirement, which is governed by Rule 3 of the said

Rules, which gives the absolute right to the appropriate authority to retire an

employee on the date which he/she completes the requisite qualifying

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-24-

service or attain the age of 50 years, if it is of the opinion that it is in public

interest to do so.

5.8. We also do not find force in the argument that action of the

respondents in retiring the petitioners prematurely, is solely based upon

disciplinary proceedings, which have not attained finality. After examining

the ACRs, we are of the view that the observations regarding integrity were

not merely based upon the disciplinary proceedings, besides the fact that

other shortcomings like punctuality, shirking or work etc. were also

observed. More importantly, scrutiny of the records does not reveal that the

disciplinary proceedings were deliberately kept pending or that the action of

premature retirement was an oblique method to circumvent the detailed

procedure of disciplinary proceedings. We are therefore of the opinion, that

the orders/action of the respondents would not warrant any interference on

the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

5.9. So far as the argument regarding the element of bias, although

there are no such pleadings or grounds in the petitions, yet after examining

the allegations in the review petition, we do not find any substance in the

same. The basis for our reaching such a conclusion is that the adverse

remarks/observations against the petitioners have also found mention in two

other ACRs, which are not recorded by the concerned Administrative Judge.

There is no allegation regarding the other two Administrative Judges, who

also made some of the observations/remarks. We may also take notice of the

fact the concerned Administrative Judge stood retired in the year 2013,

while the orders of premature retirement were passed subsequently.

Cyclostyled allegations have been levelled by both the petitioners, and it is

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-25-

clear that the same are an afterthought. Such allegations are in any case

ruled out when the Administrative Committee and thereafter the Full Court,

in its collective wisdom took the decision to retire the petitioners

prematurely after considering their overall service record. In such

circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners have failed to prove

the allegation of bias.

5.10. De hors the above observations, we however, are not in

agreement with the respondents that the petitions should be dismissed in

limine, merely on the ground that the decision-making process or the orders

passed by the High Court, have not separately been challenged. Once the

final order passed by the competent authority is under challenge, the

petitioners cannot be non-suited on this hyper-technical ground.

5.11. As regards the second issue, pertaining to the question whether

the period of suspension could have been treated as leave of kind due, we

are of the opinion that since it is an admitted fact that the Full Court decided

that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners was to be kept in

abeyance, then the decision to treat the period of suspension as leave of

kind due and recovery and the orders of recovery, basis thereupon, cannot

sustain. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) : 2015(4) SCC 334 has inter alia observed as under:

“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of

hardship, which would govern employees on the issue

of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been

made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement.

Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to

herein above, we may, as a ready reference,

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-26-

summarise the following few situations, wherein

recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in

law :

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III

and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C' and Group ’D'

service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or

employees who are due to retire within one year,

of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess

payment has been made for a period in excess of

five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has

wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a

higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even

though he should have rightfully been required to

work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at

the conclusion, that recovery if made from the

employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or

arbitrary to such an extent, as would far

outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's

right to recover.”

5.12. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances involved, we find

that the decision to order recovery, after the premature retirement and

keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance, would be unwarranted

iniquitous and against the basic tenets enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. However, since the challenge to the order dated

07/12.02.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby the suspension period was treated

as leave of the kind due, and for quashing the orders dated 13.06.2018,

04.04.2019 and 27.08.2019 (Annexures P-10, P-11 & P-12), whereby an

amount of Rs.23,85,664/-, is being recovered, has been raised only by the

CWP-16020-2021 (O&M) & CWP-16022-2021 (O&M)

-27-

petitioner-Ravinder Kumar Condal in CWP No.16022 of 2021 and

therefore, the relief in this regard would have to be restricted to the said

petitioner alone.

5.13. As a result of the above discussion and findings, CWP No.

16020 of 2021, is dismissed, while CWP No. 16022 of 2021, is partially

allowed and the order dated 07/12.02.2018 (Annexure P-9), and the orders

dated 13.06.2018, 04.04.2019 and 27.08.2019 (Annexures P-10, P-11 & P-

12) are hereby set aside.

6. All the pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected

case.

( ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA )

JUDGE

( ROHIT KAPOOR )

JUDGE

21/11/2025

Dinesh/raj

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable : No