Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 5 (MAN)

Chandra Prakash Dubey v. Union of India

2022-01-18

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned result of Service Board and the orders dated 18.11.2014 and 16.11.2018 and to direct the respondents to take back the petitioner into service with effect from 1.6.2015 with all the consequential benefits entitled to him. The petitioner also prays for a direction on the respondents to award interest on the arrears accrued for GPF, Pension etc. along with adequate costs of litigation. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as L.Naik Writer on regular basis in the Directorate of Assam Rifles on 25.5.1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to Naib Subedar Clerk on 18.9.2006. A service review of the petitioner was conducted upon completion of 30 years of service under the provision of Rule 48(1)(b) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR-56 and, vide result of Service Review Board dated 31.10.2014, the petitioner was not granted further retention in service on the ground that he has not meted out the ACR criteria. Thereafter, the office of the Directorate General of Assam Rifles, Shilling-II issued an order dated 18.11.2014 stating that the petitioner, on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 25.5.2015, shall retire from service on the forenoon of 1.6.2015. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and by an order dated 27.8.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the appeal on 2.9.2018 before the second respondent. However, the second respondent issued the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner contrary to the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. Respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner has served in various formations/units of Assam Rifles during his 30 years of service and his discipline and professional competence was not found up to the required standard and he was awarded various punishments for acts of omission on his part during his entire service. In fact, he was administered verbal warnings and counselling on a number of occasions by the unit authorities in writing. In fact, he was administered verbal warnings and counselling on a number of occasions by the unit authorities in writing. A per Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR-56(j), the case of all Government servants completing 30 years of service or 55 years of age, whichever is earlier, is subject to review to ascertain whether the Government servant is fit for retention in service or unfit for further retention in service in public interest. 5. It is stated that the petitioner's case was examined for service review on completing 30 years of qualifying service on 25.5.2015 and being Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), the Service Review Board of the petitioner was held at the Records Branch, Directorate General Assam Rifles on 31.10.2014 to ascertain whether he was fit for further retention in service beyond 30 years' service or otherwise. After examination, the petitioner was not recommended for further retention beyond 30 years' service by the Service Review Board and on 18.11.2014 the petitioner was issued notice to retire from service on retiring pension, thereby fixing the date of retirement on 1.6.2015. Challenging the order dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and the same was disposed of on 27.8.2018. Pursuant to the direction given in the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted an appeal and the same was considered and rejected vide order dated 16.11.2018 as the petitioner was graded 'below average' in the ACRs for the year 2008-2009 and 2012-2013. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 6. It is also stated that the petitioner be deemed to have retired from service on retiring pension with effect from 1.6.2015 and be directed to submit his pension documents duly signed for further needful action of the respondent authorities with regard to grant of pension and other consequential benefits to him. The department has not been able to disburse pension and other pensionary benefits including GPF to the petitioner as he has not submitted pension documents and banker's details to the department since 1.6.2015. Since the petitioner was found incapable of performing his duties properly which he was supposed to perform, he was graded below average by his superior officers. Hence, the Service Review Board found the petitioner unfit for further retention in service. Since the petitioner was found incapable of performing his duties properly which he was supposed to perform, he was graded below average by his superior officers. Hence, the Service Review Board found the petitioner unfit for further retention in service. There is no arbitrariness in issuing the impugned orders and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.A. Mohendro, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never warned by any officer regarding his sincerity and hard work and he was never awarded any kind of punishment under Assam Rifles Act before posting at 24 Assam Rifles. He would submit that the petitioner was never afforded any kind of opportunity before entering any adverse remarks in his ACRs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner's MACP-II came up for first time, the ACR was noted 'poor' and thereafter, HQ23 Sector Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles asked for document from the Tashil Sadar Gaurakpur and upon that the Deputy Inspector General Assam Rifles HQ 23 Sector AR made recommendation to the Record Branch Adm-IV and thereafter the name of the petitioner was mentioned to record branch and grade pay was granted with effect from 1.8.2009 and the subsequent MACPs were confirmed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner was awarded Governor Gold Medal Certificate in the year 2012 for his excellence service and since service as Assam Rifles personnel while posting at HQ 23- Section, Shillong and was ordered that his excellence shall be entered in his Service Book and the petitioner was also given letter of appreciation on 31.1.2012 by the Director General Assam Rifles. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is fit and well qualified as per the established rules to be retained in service till his retirement on superannuation and had not committed any illegality or any act detrimental to the unit. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and direction to the respondent authorities to retain the petitioner in service till his retirement on superannuation. 11. Per contra, Mr. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and direction to the respondent authorities to retain the petitioner in service till his retirement on superannuation. 11. Per contra, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Service Review Board found the petitioner unfit for further retention in service due to lacking in the Annual Confidential Reports criteria as he was 'not recommended' for promotion in the ACRs for the years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 and was also graded 'below average' by his reviewing officers. He would submit that the petitioner was found incapable of performing his duties properly which he was supposed to perform diligently and efficiently. Hence, for his incompetency, the petitioner was graded 'below average'. 12. Learned Central Government Counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 27.8.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015, the petitioner has submitted the appeal dated 2.9.2018 and the same was considered by the competent authority in compliance with the order dated 27.8.2018 and also in the light of the rules and policies. In the appeal, the competent authority found that the duly constituted Service Review Board, after considering the entire service records of the petitioner, had rightly not recommended his retention beyond 30 years service as there does not exist any provision to allow the unfit and incompetent employee to continue in service upto to the age of superannuation. Having examined the whole records, the competent authority found that the appeal of the petitioner was lacking of any merit and the same was rejected on 16.11.2018 and, thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 13. Learned Central Government Counsel then submitted that it is true that the petitioner was awarded with Governor's Gold Medal in the year 2012 for his dedication and hard work pout in by him during the year 2011 at HQ 23 Sector Assam Rifles. However, his performance during the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 were to found upto the standard at 19 Assam Rifles and 24 Assam Rifles respectively. In fact, during the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012- 2013, the petitioner was found to be incompetent in carrying out his duties and was graded 'average' and was not recommended for promotion to his ACRs. However, his performance during the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 were to found upto the standard at 19 Assam Rifles and 24 Assam Rifles respectively. In fact, during the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012- 2013, the petitioner was found to be incompetent in carrying out his duties and was graded 'average' and was not recommended for promotion to his ACRs. Therefore, due to downfall in his performance, the petitioner was not recommended for further retention in service beyond 30 years qualifying service by the Service Review Board. 14. According to learned Central Government Advocate, the respondent authorities have followed all due procedure issued by the Government of India in letter and spirit for carrying out service review which they are bound to do. The retirement notice dated 18.11.2014 was issued to the petitioner as he was not found ineligible for further retention beyond 30 years service due to lacking in ACRs criteria as he was found to be incompetent and unfit. Since the petitioner has not submitted pension documents and banker's details to the department, he is not entitled for any interest on his pension and GPF beyond his retirement date. 15. This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had not committed any illegality or any act detrimental to the unit and, therefore, he should be retained till his retirement on superannuation. In fact, the respondent authorities have wrongly termed the discipline and professional competency of the petitioner as not found up to the required standard without any basis and without following due procedure of law, as the ACR other than the last five years are being taken into account only to invalidate the petitioner for further retention in service. 17. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the Service Review Board duly considered the case of the petitioner and found unfit for further retention in service due to lacking in ACRs criteria and was not recommended for promotion in the ACRs for the years 2008-2009 and 2012- 2013 and was also graded 'below average' by the reviewing officers. 17. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the Service Review Board duly considered the case of the petitioner and found unfit for further retention in service due to lacking in ACRs criteria and was not recommended for promotion in the ACRs for the years 2008-2009 and 2012- 2013 and was also graded 'below average' by the reviewing officers. According to the respondents, the competent authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner in the light of the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and as per the applicable rules and rejected the same. 18. As could be seen from the facts stated in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as Naik Writer on regular basis on 25.5.1985 and after having served in that capacity for many years, he was promoted to the rank of Naik Subedar Clerk. In January, 2012, the petitioner was awarded Gold Medal. After having served at different places and in the month of August, 2012, the petitioner was transferred and posted at 24 Assam Rifles. While he was being posted at 24 Assam Rifles, he was detailed for duty at A-Branch, the nature of duty which included maintaining the stationery and computer materials. As regards the purchase of stationery materials pursuant to the instruction of the higher officials, there was an allegation against the petitioner and an enquiry was held, whereby, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice. While the petitioner was being posted at A-Branch of 24 Assam Rifles, he was detailed at Medical Branch and the petitioner was issued two warning letters. Due to the adverse entry in the ACRs being recorded by the then Commandant, the Service Review Board issued the result dated 31.10.2014, thereby the service of the petitioner was not extended and issued an order dated 18.11.2014 informing the petitioner that he should retire from service on the forenoon of 1.6.2015. Challenging the result of the Service Review Board and the order not extending the service of the petitioner dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 before this Court. 19. By the order dated 27.8.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition, with the following direction: '8. Challenging the result of the Service Review Board and the order not extending the service of the petitioner dated 18.11.2014, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 before this Court. 19. By the order dated 27.8.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition, with the following direction: '8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall prefer a statutory appeal before the appropriate authority in terms of Rule 28 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and in the event of such an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the appropriate authority shall consider it and dispose it of within a month there from by issuing a speaking order. It is open to the petitioner to approach this court against in case he is aggrieved by any order issuing by the appropriate authority while disposing of the said appeal.' 20. Pursuant to the direction issued in the said writ petition, the petitioner has submitted an appeal dated 2.9.2018 seeking to quash the letter dated 31.10.2014 and the order dated 18.11.2014 whereby the petitioner was not recommended for further retention in service and thereby compulsorily retired the petitioner from service on the forenoon of 1.6.2015. 21. The second respondent, who is the competent authority, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner dated 2.9.2018. In paragraphs 6 and 7, the competent authority held as under: '6. NOW THEREFORE, keeping in view the above facts in mind, the Competent Authority is of the considered opinion that the duly constituted Service Review Board after considering entire service records of JC 361352M Ex Naib Subedar (Clerk) Chandra Prakash Dubey of 24 Assam Rifles has rightly not recommended retention of the petitioner beyond 30 years of service as there does not exist any provision to allow unfit and incompetent employees to continue in service upto the age of superannuation. Allowing such unfit and incompetent employees in service beyond 30 years qualifying service would be prejudicial to Assam Rifles and will be against the national interest. Therefore, the petitioner was appropriately found ineligible for retention beyond 30 years service by the Service Review Board based on the rules and policy instructions on the subject. Allowing such unfit and incompetent employees in service beyond 30 years qualifying service would be prejudicial to Assam Rifles and will be against the national interest. Therefore, the petitioner was appropriately found ineligible for retention beyond 30 years service by the Service Review Board based on the rules and policy instructions on the subject. Hence, the appeal dated 02 September 2018 submitted by No.JC 361352M Ex JC-361352M Bain Subedar (Clerk) Chandra Prakash Dubey of 24 Assam Rifles has been found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby rejected. 7. This order disposed off the appeal dated 02 September 2018 submitted by No.JC 361352M Ex Naib Subedar (Clerk) Chandra Prakash Dubey of 24 Assam Rifles.' 22. A perusal of the records of the petitioner would show that on 3.3.1998, he was awarded reprimand under Section 63 of the Army Act for the act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. On 11.2.2013, the petitioner was awarded severe reprimand under Section 49 of the Assam Rifles Act for the act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Force and on 16.12.2013, he was awarded severe reprimand under Sections 44(d), 26(a) and 26(b) of Assam Rifles Act for making false declaration, absenting himself without leave and overstaying leave granted to him. Apart from the above punishments, the petitioner was also warned two times on 11.12.2013 and 22.5.2014 by the 24 Assam Rifles. The petitioner was also assessed to be 'below average'. 23. The petitioner was screened by the Service Review Board and found unfit for further retention in service for not fulfilling the mandatory ACR criteria as he was found to have been graded 'low average' with remarks 'not recommended for promotion' in the ACR for the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 and from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013. When that being the position of the petitioner, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded Governor Gold Medal in the year 2012 for his excellence and sincere service while posting at HQ 23 Sector Shillong and therefore the second respondent ought not to have stopped the service of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2015 and that the respondent authorities should take back the petitioner into service with effect from 1.6.2015, cannot be countenanced. 24. 24. By placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of Indian and others, (2013) 9 SCC 566 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that every entry in ACR whether poor, fair, average, good, very good or outstanding, should be communicated to the employee concerned within a reasonable period. In the case of the petitioner, the respondent authorities failed to communicate the entry of the ACR to the petitioner. Therefore, the non-communicated ACR cannot be taken into account to deny the retention. 25. In the appeal dated 2.9.2018, the petitioner has not taken a ground that he was not communicated the entry of the ACRs. In the grounds, the petitioner has stated that upon a purported ACR entry of the year 2012-2013, he was not recommended for further retention in service. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show that he was not communicated the ACRs in question to him and he was not aware of the entries made therein. In the absence of proof that he was not communicated the entry in ACRs, mere oral argument in that regard cannot be taken note of. Therefore, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 26. It is well settled that even uncommunicated entries in the confidential records can also be taken into consideration. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the uncommunicated entry in the ACR would affect the impugned orders. 27. It appears that the Service Review Board of the petitioner was held on 31.10.2014. The Governor Gold Medal canvassed by the petitioner is of the year 2012. Thus, while examining the matter, the Service Review Board took into consideration the award of Governor Gold Medal earned by the petitioner. However, the Service Review Board found that the petitioner was found to have been graded 'below average' in two ACRs for the year 2009 and 2013 out of his last five ACRs with remarks 'not recommended for promotion'. In fact, the petitioner had earned two ACRs at two different establishments and had been assessed by two different reporting officers. 28. However, the Service Review Board found that the petitioner was found to have been graded 'below average' in two ACRs for the year 2009 and 2013 out of his last five ACRs with remarks 'not recommended for promotion'. In fact, the petitioner had earned two ACRs at two different establishments and had been assessed by two different reporting officers. 28. As per the Record Officer Instruction No.1 of 2004 and the instructions issued by the DGAR (Record Branch) dated 21.8.2015, a Naib Subedar should have the following ACR criteria for retention beyond 30 years' service: (i) Out of last five ACRs, minimum three report should be 'high average'. (ii) Rest two reports should not be below 'average'. (iii) Should be recommended for promotion in all five reports. 29. As stated supra, the petitioner was found to have been graded 'below average' in two ACRs out of his last five ACRs with remarks 'not recommended for promotion'. The fact remains that the petitioner was awarded Governor's Gold Medal for his meritorious service rendered during 2012. Therefore, getting award of Governor's Gold Medal during 2012 does not make the petitioner qualified for retention beyond 30 years service and, in fact, retention depends upon maintaining the required mandatory qualitative requirement. In the case on hand, as rightly argued by learned Central Government Counsel, the mandatory qualitative requirement of the petitioner is not upto to the required standard. 30. Employees identified to be unfit and incompetent are made to retire under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on completion of 30 years' service or 55 years of age, as the case may be. All service records, including the ACRs of last five years of the employees, are scrutinized and taken into account by the department while carrying out their service review in order to ascertain their fitness and competent for further retention in service. All service records, including the ACRs of last five years of the employees, are scrutinized and taken into account by the department while carrying out their service review in order to ascertain their fitness and competent for further retention in service. [31] Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus: '(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed 30 years qualifying service; (a) He may retire from service, or (b) He may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest, and in the case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension: Provided that; (a) A Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and (b) The appointing authority may also give a notice to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.' 32. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2014, it seen that the same has been issued by the DGAR and the DGAR is of the firm opinion that the said order is issued in the public interest. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by 56(j) of Fundamental Rules and Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the DGAR gave notice to the petitioner that on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 25.5.2015, he shall retire from service on the forenoon of 1.6.2015. Admittedly, the said decision of the DGAR was issued pursuant to the result of the Service Review Board dated 31.10.2014, whereby, the Service Review Board classified the JCO into Appendix-A and Appendix-B. Approval of the competent authority was accorded for retention in service beyond 30 years of qualifying service or 55 years of age, whichever is earlier to the JCOs has been mentioned in Appendix-A and the JCOs mentioned in Appendix-B were not granted further retention being not eligible due to the reason mentioned against the JCO and they will retire from service on due date after issuing necessary order as per Rule 48(1)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. On a perusal of the Appendix-B, the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.1 and the reason for not eligible for further retention has been stated as under: 'The JCO is not meeting ACR Criteria, hence not recommended for further retention in service.' 33. Admittedly, these two orders i.e. the result dated 31.10.2014 and the order dated 18.11.2014 have been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015 and as stated supra, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the petitioner to file the statutory appeal before the appropriate authority in terms of Rule 28 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2008. Accordingly, the petitioner has also preferred the appeal and by the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, the appeal was rejected. Since the result of Service Review Board and the order dated 18.11.2014 have already been under challenge in W.P.(C) No.357 of 2015, once again the challenge made to the said orders in the instant writ petition, is unacceptable. 34. As far as challenge made to the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 is concerned, the competent authority found that the petitioner was ineligible for retention beyond 30 years' service due to lacking in ACR criteria and the petitioner was also not fulfilled the ACR criteria i.e. 'two reports should not be below 'average'; and should be recommended for promotion in all five reports'. 35. As stated supra, the two ACRs for the year 2009 and 2013, the petitioner was graded 'below average' and not recommended for promotion. The petitioner was also given clear three months advance notice in terms of Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, thereby fixing his retirement dated 1.6.2015 FN under the order dated 18.11.2014. Therefore, the order dated 18.11.2014 cannot be faulted by the petitioner as the same was issued pursuant to the result of the Service Review Board. The respondent authorities have also, while carrying out the exercise of service review, examined the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and only after finding that the service record of the petitioner is not up to the required standard of the Force, have not recommended for retention and accordingly, found ineligible for retention beyond 30 years' service. The respondent authorities have also, while carrying out the exercise of service review, examined the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and only after finding that the service record of the petitioner is not up to the required standard of the Force, have not recommended for retention and accordingly, found ineligible for retention beyond 30 years' service. That apart, the retention of an employee beyond 30 years or 55 years of age is the policy decision of the department and the Court cannot interfere in it, unless it is shown that the decision of the department is arbitrary, mala fide and against the provisions of applicable law. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to prove the arbitrariness and mala fide. In the absence of any proof, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order dated 16.11.2018 was issued in arbitrary manner. 36. It is trite law that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order or punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. 37. Law relating to compulsory retirement has also been crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujaraj v. Umedbhai M.Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court crystallized into definite principles in paragraph 11 and the same is extracted herein below: '11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has no crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public service are not longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.' 38. In the present case, as stated supra, the impugned result dated 31.10.2014 and the order dated 18.11.2014 were passed as per Rule 48(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that the petitioner is required to retire in the public interest as he earned adverse remarks and therefore, incompetent to continue his job. An employee having adverse remarks in the service record, cannot compel or force the employer to retain him beyond 30 years of service of 55 years of age. The petitioner having adverse remarks as stated supra, cannot compel the respondent authorities to retain him beyond 30 years of service or 55 years of age. 39. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on scrutiny of the materials produced by both sides, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the order impugned dated 16.11.2018 and the plea of the petitioner that his whole service record has not been considered by the competent authority is unfounded. In fact, the plea of the petitioner is misleading as his whole service record, including last five ACRs, were considered by the Service Review Board and the petitioner was found lacking for further retention beyond 30 years' service due to his adverse ACR for the years 2009 and 2013. There is also no plea of violation of principles of natural justice from the side of the petitioner. Thus, only after affording reasonable opportunity, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned orders. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are right in issuing the impugned orders. There is no merit in the writ petition. 40. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.