Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not require a hearing under Article 311; it is based on the government's subjective satisfaction regarding public interest.

Order :

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4/10/2017 issued by the Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, State of Chhattisgarh. By the said order, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired stating that he has completed 20 years of service as on 21/07/2013, hence as per Sub Rule (1) of Clause (b) of Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in the public interest, the petitioner is being compulsorily retired with effect from 4/10/2017 with the approval of the State Government. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred this petition with the following reliefs:-

“(i)This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the Copy of impugned order Dated 04.10.2017 (P/1) issued by Director, Directorate Of Geology & Mining, State of C.G. and to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and further to count the services of the petitioner on continuous basis;

(ii)This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner's salary for inter-regnum period along-with interest;

(iii)This Hon'ble Court may-kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure R/3), whereby the Review Committee has not consider the application of the petitioner.”

2. The facts as projected by the petitioner is that vide order dated 29/06/1993 he was appointed as Tracer and was posted in the office of Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, Sub Office at Jagdalpur, Bastar. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Draftsman and was working in the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Raipur. During the said posting on 27/01/2011 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that he is negligent in discharge of his duty and is absent also. The petitioner filed his reply on 18/03/2011, however, since the authorities were not satisfied, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him and in the departmental enquiry, he was punished by withholding one increment with cumulative effect while observing that if within two years, the work of the petitioner will be improved, then withholding of one increment with cumulative effect will be converted as non-cumulative effect. Vide letter dated 17/07/2013 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that for 6^th Economic Calculation, 2012 the petitioner was relieved but he has not joined. This notice was also replied by the petitioner, however again a departmental enquiry was initiated and in the said departmental enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with a censure and he was further warned for future. On 31/12/2016 an order was issued and the petitioner was granted “Kramonnat Vetanman” with effect from 31/07/2010. In this background, vide impugned order dated 4/10/2017 the petitioner was compulsorily retired stating that he has completed 20 years of service, therefore as per Sub Rule (1) of Clause (b) of Rule 42 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. According to the petitioner, his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the year 2013 was average, in the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 it was good. Since the ACR’s are worth and are in favour of the petitioner, therefore the order of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement is not in accordance with law as the enquiry was initiated six months prior to the preceding year before first July, however in the present matter according to the policy of the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 25/04/2017 the petitioner was compulsorily retired whereas the policy of the State