Bilaspur, November 07, 2025 : A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that adverse remarks recorded in an employee’s Annual Confidential Reports can be relied upon for compulsory retirement even if those remarks were not formally communicated to the employee.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the ruling while dismissing a writ appeal filed by Rajendra Kumar Vaid, a former employee of the district court establishment.
Rajendra Kumar Vaid was appointed as a Process Writer in the District Court at Jagdalpur in 1995. Over the years, he earned promotions and was posted as Assistant Grade II in Bijapur in 2018. Around the same time, a Screening Committee was reconstituted under the chairmanship of the District Judge to review employees who had either completed 50 years of age or 20 years of qualifying service.
After examining his service record, the Committee recommended his compulsory retirement. Acting on this recommendation, the competent authority passed an order retiring him compulsorily in August 2018, relying mainly on adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2011, 2014, and 2016.
Vaid challenged the decision before a Single Judge of the High Court, arguing that several adverse remarks were vague, mechanical, or never communicated to him. He also claimed that his overall service record was ignored and that the District Judge acted unfairly by chairing the Screening Committee and later passing the retirement order. The Single Judge rejected these contentions and dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal before the Division Bench.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant reiterated that the adverse remarks for 2011 and 2014 were recorded indiscriminately against many employees and did not reflect his individual performance. He further argued that the 2016 entry describing his integrity as “suspicious” was never communicated to him, depriving him of an opportunity to submit a representation. According to him, this violated principles of fairness and natural justice.
The State and other respondents countered these claims by submitting that the Screening Committee had considered the entire service record and that the adverse entries reflected a consistent decline in performance and integrity over several years. They also emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement.
After examining the records, the Division Bench agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge. The Court noted that while the appellant had received good or very good gradings in earlier years, his performance, conduct, and integrity showed a steady deterioration from around 2010 onwards. The Bench also took note of a special report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate highlighting lack of diligence and non-compliance with directions.
Rejecting the argument regarding non-communication of adverse entries, the Court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that even uncommunicated adverse remarks can be taken into account while considering compulsory retirement. Such retirement, the Court observed, is not a punishment but an administrative measure taken in public interest, based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority supported by relevant material.
The Bench also found no illegality in the role played by the District Judge and held that the decision-making process was neither arbitrary nor perverse.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Division Bench upheld the order of compulsory retirement and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case: Rajendra Kumar Vaid v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WA No. 802 of 2025