Important point
The expression ‘control’ in Article 235 of the Constitution includes ‘Disciplinary Control’.

Headnote:Special Leave to Appeal-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appellant Addl. District and Sessions Judge Compulsorily retired from service-Adverse remarks for years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 not recorded character roll in normal course but ‘at one go’-That too when standing committee of High Court had already formed opinion to compulsorily retire appellant from service-Representation made against remarks not dealt with promptitude-Disposed of by High Court after one year-Remarks recorded in character roll communicated to appellant on 29th November, 1996-Considered by Full Court on 30th November, 1998 which approved compulsorily retiring appellant from service-Appellant categorised as ‘B’ plus in 1990-No categorisation for next three years when action for compulsory retirement of appellant initiated by High Court on ground that he had granted anticipatory bail in case under Section 307 IPC-Categorisation for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 done ‘at one go’ unreasonable and unfair-Compulsory retirement ordered in 1996-Categorisation of appellant as a ‘C’ class officer for years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 could not have been legally taken into consideration-Impugned action of compulsorily retiring appellant from service cannot but be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion that appellant had outlived his utility as judicial officer and had become dead wood which had to be chopped of-Order of compulsory retirement passed by State Govt. quashed with all consequential benefits to appellant.
       Held : The appellant had been categorised as “B” plus in 1990 by Mr. Justice B.K. Roy. There was no categorisation for the next three years and when the action for compulsory retirement of the appellant was initiated by the High Court on the ground that he had granted anticipatory bail in a case under Section 307 IPC, categorisation for 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was done “at one go” which is unreasonable and not fair. Moreover, the compulsory retirement was ordered in 1996. What was the appellant’s categorisation for 1994-95 and 1995-96 is not indicated in the original service record placed before us. It is on account of these abnormalities coupled with other strange circumstances of this case that we are of the opinion that the categorisation of the appellant as a “C” class officer for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 could not have been legally taken into consideration. If these remarks are excluded, principle (iii) laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer Baripada, JT 1992(2) SC 1 : AIR 1992 SC 1020 : 1992(1) SCR 836 : (1992) 2 SCC 299 becomes applicable immediately and the impugned action of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service cannot but be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had outlived his utility as a Judicial Officer and had become a dead wood which had to be chopped of. (Para 34)
       For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.7.1998 passed by the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement dated 2-8-1997, passed by the State Government, is quashed with all consequential benefits to the appellant. (Para 35)

Judgment

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.

The recommendation of the High Court on the basis of which the appellant, who held the rank of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service, exhibits the tragic fact that the highest judicial body of the State which abhors anything done contrary to the rule of law or done in a whimsical manner or arbitrarily, can itself act in that manner on the administrative side. Still, the plea that High Court Judges suffer from “split personality” cannot be accepted for the pleasant fact that though on the administrative side they might have had acted as ordinary bureaucrat, once they don the robes they forget all their previous associations and connections. The transformation is so complete and real that even though they themselves were part of the decision making process, they quash their own administrative decisions in exercise of their power of judicial review and thus maintain the majesty and independence of the Indian judiciary in which the people have always reposed tremendous faith. In the instant case, however, the order of compulsory retirement dated 2.8.1997 passed by the State Government on the High Court’s recommendation has been upheld and it has fallen to our lot, in this appeal, to scrutinise the validity of this order.

2. Before coming to the merits of the case, we may scan the service record of the appellant who joined the Judicial Service as Temporary Munsif on 15.5.1975. He was confirmed on that post on 8.2.1980 and was promoted to the rank of Sub-Judge with effect from 16.5.1985. He was confirmed as Sub-Judge on 19.1.1988. The appellant was promoted to the Superior Judicial Service in 1991 and was put to officiate as Addl. District & Sessions Judge with effect from 15.7.1991. He was not, till the date of his compulsory retirement, confirmed on that post.

The character roll entries, as recorded by District Judges, under whom the appellant had worked, are as set out below:-

“1975-76 (Distt. Muzaffarpur) - Quality of work satisfactory and quantity capable of improvement. Relation with Bar satisfactory.

1976-77 (Distt. Muzaffarpur) - Quality of work satisfactory and quantity fair. Relation with Bar fair.

1977-78 (Distt. Gaya) - He is intelligent. His Judgments are of average quality. Outturn is satisfac- tory.

1978-79 - No remarks.

1979-80 (Distt. Munger) - On the whole his work and conduct is average. Relationship with the members of the Bar and the Judicial Officers has been satisfactory. He is laborious and painstaking.

1980-81 - No remarks.

1981-82 (Distt. Palamau) - Intelligent and hard working. Writes good Judgments. Enjoys good relation of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 193

Important point The expression ‘control’ in Article 235 of the Constitution includes ‘Discipli­nary Control’.

Cases Referred (14)

Important point
The expression ‘control’ in Article 235 of the Constitution includes ‘Disciplinary Control’.