Back
2010 (7) Supreme 132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal, Deepak Verma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Pyare Mohan Lal — Petitioner
versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 of 2003
Decided on : 10-9-2010
AIR 1992 SC 1020; AIR 1992 SC 1368; (1996) 5 SCC 103; AIR 1997 SC 3740; AIR 1998 SC 3058; AIR 1999 SC 1661; (1999) 1 SCC 529; AIR 1995 SC 1161; AIR 2002 SC 1345 – Relied upon
(b) Service Law – Compulsory retirement – There is no scope of judicial review against an objectively formed opinion of the properly constituted screening committee in absence of any allegation of mala fides. (Para 13)
AIR 2003 SC 1362; AIR 2003 SC 4303 – Relied upon
(c) Service Law – Compulsory retirement – Even though the order of compulsory retirement is not consonance with law, Supreme Court may not interfere looking to the adverse remarks and report of the committee. (Para 15)
AIR 2003 SC 2889; (2005) 13 SCC 581 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Compulsory retirement – Judicial review is permissible in case the order of compulsory retirement is perverse or arbitrary and suffers from non-compliance with statutory rules. (Para 17)
(2009) 15 SCC 221 – Relied upon
(e) Service Law –Compulsory retirement - Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and no stigma is attached unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the Statutory Rules. (Para 18)
(2010) 1 SCC 158 – Relied upon
(f) Service Law – Adverse entry – Effect of adverse entry gets wiped out on subsequent crossing of efficiency bar or promotion – However, such entries remain part of record for the purposes of compulsory retirement – a (Paras 19 to 23)
AIR 1970 SC 2086; AIR 1989 SC 2218; AIR 1992 SC 1020; AIR 1996 SC 2436; AIR 2001 SC 1109; AIR 2002 SC 1345 – Relied upon
(g) Binding precedent – Views expressed by larger Bench prevail upon that of smaller Benches – Nonetheless the washed off theory is not universally applicable, particularly in case of compulsory retirement. (Para 24 and 26)
AIR 1976 SC 2547; AIR 1989 SC 1335 – Relied upon
(h) Judicial Review – In absence of any material or pleading or relief prayed contention that adverse entries were not made bona fide cannot be accepted. (Para 32)
AIR 1998 SC 3058; AIR 1981 SC 70 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
1. The petitioner, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court on its Administrative side.
2. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
There is no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.5.2003, passed by the State of Jharkhand - Respondent No. 2, giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner, a Judicial Officer of the State of Jharkhand, on the recommendation of the High Court of Jharkhand - the respondent No. 3 on administrative side.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was selected in the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in 1982 and was appointed to the post of Munsif by the State and was confirmed in the grade of Munsif vide order dated 11th March, 1987. He was further promoted to the junior selection grade post in the cadre of Munsif of the Bihar Judicial Service vide order dated 23rd September, 1994. The Patna High Court issued Notification dated 10th March, 2001 promoting the petitioner to the post of Subordinate Judge.
3. Consequent to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and formation of the State of Jharkhand, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the Jharkhand State by the order of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi dated 28th March, 2001. The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Judge, Ranchi, vide Notification dated 21st April, 2001, issued by the High Court of Jharkhand and, subsequently, the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the State of Jharkhand as Under Secretary-cum-Deputy Legal Remembrancer and Law Officer in the Law Department vide order dated 1st August, 2001.
4. The High Court of Jharkhand recommended the name of the petitioner along with others for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge on Ad hoc basis vide letter dated 21st October, 2001. The petitioner was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), on ad-hoc basis and was posted at Ranchi vide order dated 14th December, 2001. The High Court of Jharkhand on administrative side vide order dated 12th May, 2003 recommended compulsory retirement of six judicial officers including the petitioner, and in pursuance thereof, the Respondent No. 2 issued a consequential order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 20th May, 2003, in public interest, invoking the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Civil Services Code (hereinafter called the Code) along with five other judicial officers. Hence, this writ petition.
5. Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had unblemished service record and there was no adverse entry against him and he had even been promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), thus adverse entries, if any, stood washed off as the same had been prior to the date of his promotion. The order of compulsory retirement passed by Respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unwarranted. The adverse entries on the basis of which the petitioner had been given compulsory retirement had not been communicated to the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner against the said adverse entries has not been disposed of till date. The order of compulsory retirement as far as the petitioner is concerned cannot be held to be in public interest; there was no material whatsoever to support the conclusion reached by the High Court of Jharkhand. The recommendation made by the High Court is unreasonable and arbitrary. Order impugned casts stigma. Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code empowers competent authorities only to get rid of and to do away with the services of employees, who have lost their utility, became useless and whose further continuance in service is not in public interest. There was no occasion for the respondents to pass an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in absence of any material to justify such an order. Thus, the order impugned is liable to be held to be illegal and invalid. Petition deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Shr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
