Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks Can Justify Compulsory Retirement, Supreme Court Holds
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on 6 November 2026 held that a government employee can be compulsorily retired on the basis of adverse entries and below-benchmark gradings that were never communicated to him. It dismissed the appeals of two clerks of the Legal Metrology Department of Chhattisgarh, who were retired in the public interest in 2017 after a screening of 14 clerical employees. A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar affirmed the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1205.
The Court also held that compulsory retirement is not punitive or stigmatic, that promotion does not wipe out adverse entries recorded after the promotion, and that an employee cannot claim equality with a colleague who was wrongly spared. The judgment is marked reportable.
Case at a Glance
Case: Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others, with the connected appeal of Manharan Lal Sahu
Citation: 2026 INSC 1205 (Reportable)
Case Number: Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 24392 and 25201 of 2023
Bench: Justice Manmohan (author) and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date of Judgment: 6 November 2026
What Was Challenged: Judgments dated 12 April 2023 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal Nos. 565 and 577 of 2019, upholding orders of compulsory retirement dated 9 October 2017
Outcome: Appeals dismissed, no order as to costs
The Question Behind the Headline
Can the State retire an employee early because of annual confidential report entries that he was never shown? In 2008 and 2013, the Supreme Court said every such entry must be communicated, at least where it affects promotion. The appellants argued that the same rule must protect them from compulsory retirement. The Court said it does not.
Background of the Dispute
The Appellants and Their Service
The appellants were appointed as Peons (Class IV) in the Legal Metrology Department (Weights and Measures Department), Raipur, in 1989 and 1993. They were promoted to Assistant Grade-III in 2012 and 2013, and their services were regularised by separate orders dated 19 June 2015.
The Circular and the Screening Committee
On 25 April 2017, the General Administration Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh issued a circular directing all departments to review the service records of employees who had completed 50 years of age or 20 years of qualifying service. The criteria were honesty and integrity, physical capacity, reputation and work capacity assessed on the complete service record, and an overall evaluation below Grade B, together with a check on whether the work of the last five years was declining.
A Screening Committee met on 4 September 2017. Of the clerical staff of the department, 14 employees fell within the zone of consideration. The Committee converted gradings into numbers (A+ as 5, A as 4, B as 3, C as 2 and D as 1), and recommended five for compulsory retirement. The orders dated 9 October 2017 retired the appellants in the public interest under Fundamental Rule 56 and Rule 42(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
The Gradings of the Two Appellants
Chatur Singh Dhruw was graded A in 2013 and C for each year from 2014 to 2017, with an average of 2.4.
Manharan Lal Sahu was graded C in every year from 2013 to 2017, with an average of 2.0, and his integrity was recorded as questionable in the Integrity Certificate.
The Courts Below
The learned Single Judge declined to interfere by judgments dated 23 August 2019 in Writ Petition Nos. 5765 and 5680 of 2017, and the Division Bench affirmed them on 12 April 2023. The appeals to the Supreme Court followed. During the hearing, by order dated 9 October 2025, the Court asked the State for an affidavit of the Principal Secretary stating that no similarly situated employee had been left out of the exercise.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellants' Case
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, made five main points:
The criteria were not applied uniformly, and similarly placed employees were spared.
The orders were punitive and stigmatic in substance, because the Committee's findings attributed misconduct, and they should not have been passed without disciplinary safeguards.
Compulsory retirement cannot substitute for disciplinary proceedings, and the entire service record was not considered.
The adverse entries had never been communicated, and under Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, every entry must be communicated.
After promotion and regularisation in 2015, earlier adverse entries lost their sting, relying on Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada.
State's Case
Mr. Rajat Nair, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, said the exercise followed the circular of 25 April 2017 and the earlier circular of 22 August 2000. A Screening Committee of the Controller, Legal Metrology and two other officers examined service dossiers, confidential reports, integrity records and leave and medical records of all 14 employees, applying the same numerical method. Five who fell below the Grade B benchmark with adverse or declining trends were recommended for retirement, and nine were retained.
The Supreme Court's Analysis
The Limited Scope of Judicial Review
The Court reaffirmed that an order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic, so the rule of audi alteram partem and Article 311(2) of the Constitution do not apply. The decision rests on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority that continued service is not in public interest, but that satisfaction must rest on valid and relevant material. Courts do not reweigh the material like an appellate court. They ask whether relevant material existed, whether it was considered, and whether a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion.
Negative Equality Is No Defence
The Court held that interference is warranted only where the decision rests on no evidence, shows non-application of mind, is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, or is vitiated by mala fides. An employee cannot succeed merely by saying another similarly placed employee was not retired. Article 14 embodies a positive concept and does not permit a claim of negative equality, and a wrong committed in one case cannot be repeated in another.
The Parameters Were Applied Uniformly
On the facts, the Court found that the Screening Committee used a uniform, objective and transparent method for all 14 employees. None of the nine retained employees showed the combination of adverse factors found in the appellants: an overall assessment below Grade B, sustained C gradings from 2013 to 2017 without improvement, and adverse remarks on efficiency. The Committee also recommended three other employees on the same standards. The Court concluded that no discriminatory or selective application was shown.
The Entire Service Record Was Reviewed
The Court held that the Committee first evaluated the entire service record against the Grade B benchmark and then, as a corroborative step, looked at the last five years of reports, which is what paragraph D of the circular requires.
Promotion and Regularisation Do Not Efface Later Adverse Entries
The Court held that the principle that adverse entries lose their sting upon promotion applies only to entries made before the promotion. Both appellants were promoted in 2012 and 2013, before the confidential reports for 2013 to 2017 were recorded, and these entries relate to their performance in the promoted post. Regularisation in a post already held is not a merit-based promotion and does not endorse efficiency.
The Orders Were Neither Punitive Nor Stigmatic
The orders only recorded that the appellants had completed the required period of service and were retired in public interest with the approval of the State Government. They contained no allegation of misconduct. The Committee's internal minutes do not make the orders stigmatic, because courts look primarily at the order itself. No departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated, so the argument that retirement was used to avoid a disciplinary process was unsupported.
Uncommunicated Adverse Entries Can Be Considered
The Court called the issue no longer res integra, and quoted Baikuntha Nath Das:
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.
It held that Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh were decided in the context of promotion and career progression, operate in a distinct field, and cannot be mechanically extended to compulsory retirement.
Operative Directions
The process leading to compulsory retirement followed the applicable provisions and the circular dated 25 April 2017, and the parameters were uniformly applied.
The decision rested on relevant and cogent material, and no arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity or violation of any constitutional or statutory guarantee was made out.
The impugned judgments dated 12 April 2023 are affirmed and the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
The ruling is a clear statement for State departments and employees. A transparent screening method, applied to everyone in the zone of consideration and recorded in minutes, will carry weight. Challenges based on non-communication of confidential report entries, on stigma drawn from internal minutes, or on spared colleagues are unlikely to succeed on their own.
For employees, the practical lesson is to challenge what the Court actually examines: whether relevant material existed, whether the criteria were followed, and whether the order is bona fide. For lawyers, the case also shows the limits of Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, which stay in the field of promotion.
Learn Service Matter Writ Drafting With Into Legal World
Service disputes are won on the grounds you plead and the record you place. If you want to draft writ petitions and appeals in service matters with precision, learn it step by step in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course by Into Legal World.
Upgrade Your Legal Career With the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course
Strong drafting wins cases. Master petitions, replies, applications and appeals with practical, court-ready training. Enrol in the Advanced Legal Drafting Certificate Course Today
Get Daily Judgment Updates
Join the Into Legal World WhatsApp channel for daily Supreme Court and High Court judgment updates: Join the WhatsApp Channel
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an Employee Be Compulsorily Retired on Uncommunicated Adverse Remarks?
Yes. The Supreme Court held, following Baikuntha Nath Das, that an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed merely because uncommunicated adverse remarks were considered.
Is Compulsory Retirement a Punishment?
No. The Court held that it is neither punitive nor stigmatic, so audi alteram partem and Article 311(2) of the Constitution do not apply.
Do Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh Apply to Compulsory Retirement?
No. The Court held that those decisions concern promotion and career progression, and cannot be mechanically extended to compulsory retirement.
Does Promotion Wipe Out Adverse Entries?
Only entries made before the promotion. Entries recorded after promotion, relating to performance in the promoted post, remain relevant, and regularisation does not change this.
Can an Employee Challenge Retirement Because a Similar Employee Was Spared?
Not by itself. The Court held that Article 14 does not permit a claim of negative equality, and the question is whether the authority acted on relevant material.
Keywords
Chatur Singh Dhruw v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 INSC 1205, compulsory retirement Supreme Court, uncommunicated adverse remarks, Fundamental Rule 56, Baikuntha Nath Das, Dev Dutt, Sukhdev Singh, Article 311 service law, Justice Manmohan, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court judgment 6 November 2026
Case Title: Chatur Singh Dhruw v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 24392 and 25201 of 2023
Citation: 2026 INSC 1205
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Comments