Supreme Court rules compulsory retirement orders need no employee hearing

The case concerns two government employees who were compulsorily retired from service in Chhattisgarh, challenging whether such orders were punitive in nature and required a hearing, or if they were valid administrative actions based on service records.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Chatur Singh Dhruw and another (implied from context of two appeals); Respondents: The State of Chhattisgarh and others; Bench: Justice Manmohan.

What the court decided

• The Court is reviewing the High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision which affirmed the compulsory retirement orders dated 09th October 2017.
• The Court is examining arguments regarding whether the retirement orders were punitive/stigmatic and if procedural safeguards (hearing) were required.
• The Court is considering whether the criteria for compulsory retirement were applied uniformly and if the service records were evaluated holistically.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and only contains the facts, arguments of the appellants, and the beginning of the respondents' arguments; it does not contain the final decision, operative directions, or relief granted by the Court.
• The appellants argued that the retirement orders were punitive and stigmatic, citing inquiry reports that attributed misconduct and adverse personal characteristics to them.
• The appellants contended that adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were not communicated to them, relying on precedents like Dev Dutt vs. Union of India.