IMPORTANT POINT
For keeping the stream of justice unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers after specified age/completion of specified years of service provided under the Rules is must by each and every High Court as the lower judiciary is the foundation of judicial system.

Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992-Rule 4-U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56-Compulsory retirement of Judicial Officers who were working in State of U.P.-Challenge to orders of-Increase in retirement age from 58 years to 60 years-No embargo on competent authority to exercise its power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules-It was open to High Court to follow the procedure for exercising power under Rule 56(c)-Procedure prescribed in Explanation (2-A) requires that such order should be in public interest.
       Held : There is no embargo on the competent authority to exercise its power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules. As stated above, we have arrived at the conclusion that because of the increase in retirement age, rest of the Rules providing for compulsory retirement would not be nugatory and are not repealed. Hence, it was open to the High Court to follow the procedure for exercising the power under Rule 56 (c) and the procedure prescribed in Explanation (2-A) requires that such order should be in public interest and the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to such officer. It inter alia provides that any entry in service record against which a representation is pending can be taken into consideration provided that the representation against such entry is also taken into consideration along with the entry and to consider any report of the Vigilance Establishment. This power was exercised by the High Court. No doubt, the Committees were constituted on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in First All India Judges Association case, but at the same time, before passing the order of compulsory retirement, the High Court exercised its powers under Fundamental Rules and that is specifically mentioned in the orders. (Para 15)
       (ii) SERVICE LAW-U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement) on Superannuation) Rules, 1992-Rule 4-U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56-Compulsory retirement of Judicial Officers working in State of U.P.-Relevant material considered by the Committee appointed by High Court-Committee followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 56-Officers of doubtful integrity-It being impossible to prove by positive evidence the basis for doubting integrity of judicial officer-Orders of compulsory retirement held not erroneous or unjustified.
       Held : At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority. (Para 2)
       From the facts narrated above, even if we were to sit in appeal against the subjective satisfaction of the High Court, it cannot be said that the orders of compulsory retirement of the appellants are, in any way, erroneous or unjustified. Further, it is impossible to prove by positive evidence the basis for doubting integrity of the judicial officer. In the present day system, reliance is required to be placed on the opinion of the higher officer who had the opportunity to watch the performance of the concerned officer from close quarters and formation of his opinion with regard to overall reputation enjoyed by the concerned officer would be the basis. It is to be reiterated that for keeping the stream of justice unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers after specified age/completion of specified years of service provided under the Rules is must by each and every High Court as the lower judiciary is the foundation of judicial system. We hope that the High Courts would take appropriate steps, regularly for weeding out the dead-wood or the persons polluting justice delivery system. (Paras 24 & 25)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Challenge in these appeals is to the orders of compulsory retirement of Judicial Officers, who were working in the State of U.P.

2. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid principles these appeals against the judgments and orders dated 19.4.1999, 27.3.1999 and 15.2.2000 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No.14831 of 1999, CMWP No.28664 of 1998 and CMWP No.1312 of 1999, challenging their compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years, are required to be decided.

I. At the time of hearing, firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that:-

In view of the Rule increasing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules would stand repealed.

4. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the Rules regulating the retirement on superannuation of the Judicial Officers framed by the State of U.P. vide Notification dated 20th October, 1992, published in the U.P. Gazette Part 1(ka) dated 3rd April, 1993, p.930, Sl. No.14. The said Rules read as under:-

1. Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette.

2. Overriding effect.-The provisions of these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts II to IV or any other rules made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or orders, for the time being in force.

3. .........

4. Retirement.-A Judicial Officer shall retire from service on superannuation in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years."

4A. Before appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we would refer to Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, which reads thus:-

"56. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rules, every Government servant other than a Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.

(b) A Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. He must not be retained in service after that date, except in very special circumstances and with sanction of the Government.

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of forty five years or after he has compl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 948

Cases Referred (10)