Compulsory retirement under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code does not require prior notice or a charge memo, and is not considered punitive, thus principles of natural justice do not apply.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

Heard learned Advocate General assisted by Smt. Binita Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar and Mr. Prabhu Nath Pathak, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents.

2. All the five writ petitioners-respondents herein having been compulsorily retired by a common order contained in notification dated 18.6.2020 under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar preferred separate writ applications, all having been allowed, the orders have been challenged in appeal by the State of Bihar.

3. CWJC no.407 of 2021 preferred by Shyam Sundar Sharma was allowed vide judgment dated 29.8.2023. The other writ applications i.e. CWJC no.9776 of 2020 filed by Satish Kumar Singh, CWJC no.9779 of 2020 filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, CWJC no.3047 of 2021 filed by Kumar Rajesh and CWJC no.3727 of 2021 filed by Praveen Pandit were all allowed on the ground of similarity/parity with CWJC no.407 of 2021, by judgment dated 12.10.2023 against which separate four appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar. All the five appeals filed against the orders passed in the writ petitions have been taken up together and are decided by this common order.

4. The case of the writ petitioners-respondents was that all of them have had an unblemished career with no adverse entries in the ACRs. No show cause notice had been served on them prior to passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The only option for the State of Bihar was to proceed against the writ petitioners under the provisions of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘C.C.A. Rules’ in short) by framing memo of charges against the writ petitioners and proceeding as per the procedure laid down under the CCA Rules. It was the case of the writ petitioners that though the power exercised is purportedly under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, however, the order impugned being stigmatic in nature, the order is unsustainable and fit to be quashed.

5. It was the case of the State of Bihar that the services of the writ petitioners have not been satisfactory and their continuance in service was not in public interest. A meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary of the department which discussed all the names and based on the records submitted, the past performance of the persons concerned were thoroughly examined and thereafter the six persons including the writ petitioners-respondents herein were identified whose continuance in service was considered not in public interest. As such, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, the order was passed compulsorily retiring them from service. It was submitted that the order is in accordance with law and there is no merit in the case of the writ petitioners-respondents.

6. As stated above, CWJC no.407 of 2021 was allowed by a judgment dated 29.8.2023 and the impugned notification dated 18.6.2020 was quashed. The other four writ applications preferred by the other writ petitioners, on the ground of their cases being similar to the writ petitioner of CWJC no.407 of 2021 and the order impugned being same in all the five writ applications, the same was allowed on the ground of parity, by a judgment dated 12.10.2023. The State of Bihar has preferred separate appeals in all the writ applications.

7. Mr. P.K.Shahi, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants-State of Bihar submitted that the order impugned in all the writ applications as contained in notification dated 18.6.2020 has been passed by the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna invoking powers under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. Rule 74 provides that if the State Government considers that the efficiency or conduct of a Government servant is not such as to justify his retention in service, the State Government may require such Government servant who has compl