Bahadur Prasad Bakhala vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

The instant writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6895 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 29.12.1985 and promoted on the post of Inspector of Police in the year, 2013 and thereafter he was granted time scale pay. The respondents department had issued a circular dated 25.04.2017 with respect to periodic evaluation of the performance of the employees of the State Government for assessment of compulsory retirement. The circular dated 25.04.2017 provides for constitution of a scrutiny committee who shall assess the overall performance of the employee to take a decision of their compulsory retirement. After evaluating the performance of the petitioner, vide order dated 18.08.2017 the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service which was under challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 18.08.2017 and also for reinstatement in service on various grounds including the competency of the committee who assessed the performance of the petitioner. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 16.05.2019 and after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner which is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Single Judge has not considered the submission of the petitioner that the scrutiny committee who assessed the performance of the petitioner was not competent enough. The performance of the petitioner was assessed by the Head of the Department level scrutiny committee whereas, the assessment should have been done by the District Level scrutiny Committee and the Single Judge while passing the order impugned has left open the issue of competency of the scrutiny committee to be considered in an appropriate case. He would further submit that he is raising competency of the scrutiny committee and if the scrutiny committee itself was not competent then the entire exercise of their jurisdiction is futile. The petitioner was having six years of service remain at the time when the order of compulsory retirement was passed. He would also submit that the Single Judge has not considered the circular dated 03.06.2015 (Annexure-D./1) which provides for grade upgradation for employees working in the scheduled area and since the petitioner having worked from 2013 to 2016 in the scheduled area was eligible for upgradation of his grade. The scrutiny committee, which was not competent to assess the performance of the petitioner has not considered the relevant facts and thrown out the petitioner on the ground of exigency that too on the strength of non existing and relevant facts and therefore the yardstick applied by the scrutiny committee in assessing the service records of the petitioner is irrational and the same cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. He would further submit that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Home being on contract service could not have been made a member of the scrutiny committee. Therefore, the scrutiny committee who assessed the service records of the petitioner was not competent and thus the order dated 18.08.2017 by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired is also arbitrary and bad in law. Yet, the Single Judge has not considered the same and has passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

On the other, the counsel for the State would submit that the circular dated 25.04.2017 provides for constitution of various committee i.e. Head of Department Level Scrutiny Committee, Divisional Level Scrutiny Committee and District Level Scrutiny Committee. The Head of Department Level scrutiny committee consists of Head of the Department, the Incharge Additional Secretary/Deputy Secretary of the Establishment of the Administrative department and senior most officer of the office of Head of Department. As per circular dated 25.04.2017, the Head of Department level scrutiny committee headed by the Director General of Police also consist of Special Director General of Police (Naxal Operation and SIB) and Deputy Secretary of the Home Department who has examined the service records of the petitioner as well as other employees of the cadre. The jurisdiction of the Head of Department level scrutiny committee was to examine the service records with respect to those employees whose ACRs are being produced before the concerned Head of Department for consideration. Since the Director General of Police is the Head of Department and headed by the scrutiny committee, the said committee was very well competent to examine the service records of the petitioner and therefore there is no jurisdictional error in assessing the performance of service records of the petitioner. Further, after due assessment it was also found by the scrutiny committee that there is no progressive performance of the petitioner within last five years and he was having four rewards and six minor punishments within last five years and total 84 rewards and 81 minor punishment during the entire service career, he was recommended for compulsory retirement and accordingly the order of his compulsory retirement was passed on 18.08.2017.

The scrutiny committee constituted under circular dated 25.04.2017 was duly competent and the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the constitution of the said scrutiny committee, but has challenged the order passed by the scrutiny committee with respect to his compulsory retirement and therefore the Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the same is liable to be maintained.

We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The main contention raised in this writ appeal is the competency of the committee constituted under the circular dated 25.04.2017 who assessed the overall performance of the petitioner during his service tenure. Clause-II (l) of the circular dated 25.04.2017 provides for constitution of the scrutiny committee in different levels which is as under:

The respondents State has filed their return to the writ petition in which they have submitted the details of minutes of meeting of Head of Department level scrutiny committee held on 25.07.2017 and 26.07.2017. It appears from the said minutes of meeting that the Head of Department level scrutiny committee was headed by the Director General of Police and consists of two other members i.e. Special Director General of Police (Naxal Operation and SIB) and Deputy Secretary, Home Department. Clause-2(l)(i) of the circular dated 25.04.2017 provides that Head of the Department Level scrutiny committee shall also examine the performance of non gazetted officers whose ACRs are to be produced before the concerned Head of the Department and therefore the Director General of Police being the Chairmen of the scrutiny committee was competent to assess the ACRs of the non gazetted officers of the department i.e. the petitioner.

The other contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Secretary, Home Department was in a contract service and therefore he could not have been made a member of the committee is also not tenable because it is not a particular person who has taken a decision on the overall performance of the employee, but the decision has to be taken by the scrutiny committee consists of all the members and there is no bar that the Deputy Secretary who are on contract service cannot be made a member of the said committee. Therefore, this submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Head of the Department level scrutiny committee who has assessed the performance of the petitioner was not competent, is rejected.

From the perusal of the assessment chart prepared by the scrutiny committee, it appears that the petitioner is having four rewards and six minor penalties in the past five years of his service career and one major penalty during his service tenure. He is having 84 rewards and 81 minor penalties during his entire service career. It was also remarked in the assessment chart at column No.17 as “Yes” which relates to demotion /termination/ suspension. It also appears that ACRs of past five years of the petitioner is ranked as “Kha” “Ka” “Ga” “Ga” and “Ga” respectively and therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the submission of the parties and have dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that in view of the overall assessment of the ACRs of the petitioner, total punishments received by him in comparison to the rewards and grading given to him in the past many years, it cannot be said that the scrutiny committee did not have sufficient material before them while considering the case of the petitioner and therefore the recommendation of the committee cannot be said to be either arbitrary or without application of mind.

So far as the observations made by learned Single Judge in para 14 of its judgment that the issue of competency of the committee/officer who has issued the order of compulsory retirement to be left open and considered in an appropriate case is concerned, since the decision have been taken by the Headquarter level scrutiny committee after verifying the entire service records including ACRs of the petitioner, the competency/constitution of the committee cannot be agitated at this appellate stage. If the petitioner was aggrieved of the competency/constitution of the committee, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to challenge the same in altogether different proceedings, which has not been done by the petitioner. Further, merely because the impugned order has been issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) and not by the District level scrutiny committee by itself would not vitiate the proceedings.

For the forgoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no strong case is made out to interfere with the findings given by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.