Back
2012 (3) SCC 580
Supreme Court of India
H.L. DATTU & ANIL R. DAVE
Nand Kumar Verma
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1458 OF 2012 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5921 OF 2007)
Date of Judgment : 01-02-2012
(b) Service Law – Compulsory retirement – High Court taking the decision to retire the appellant on the basis of selective service record – Totality of relevant materials not considered or completely ignored by the High Court – Compulsory retirement of appellant not sustainable. (Para 32)
(1992) 2 SCC 299; (1999) 3 SCC 396; (1988) 3 SCC 211; (1999) 4 SCC 579; (1980) 1 SCC 12; (2003) 8 SCC 117 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant was initially appointed as Munsif in the year 1975 and his services were confirmed as Munsif in the year 1980. Subsequently, in the year 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division) and confirmed on the same rank w.e.f. 19.01.1988. In the year 1987, the appellant was made Sub-Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, in November 1989, he was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Certain adverse remarks were made against him in 1994. The High Court whilst commenting adversely against the appellant, had observed that the appellant had granted bail in the said matter on extraneous consideration and further directed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court for taking necessary action.
In his explanation the appellant used objectionable language against the Inspecting Judge.
The appellant accepted his unconditional apology and condoned his lapses.
Standing Committee of the High Court directed the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the appellant.
Enquiry Officer held both the charges as proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Appellant was reverted from the rank of Sub-Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division) to the lower post of Munsif (Civil Judge, Junior Division).
Appellant approached the Supreme Court in Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was admitted.
The appellant was compulsorily retired.
Appellant approached the Supreme Court in Writ Petition which was dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy under Article 226. Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Jharkhand High Court.
On retirement of the appellant pending proceedings in writ petition was transferred to Jharkhand High Court.
High Court has rejected both the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
Finding of the Court;
Judicial Officers are part and parcel of Judicial system. They should be respected and their career should be carefully protected.
Reversion as well as compulsory retirement is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition No.2856 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.1620 of 2003 dated 11.07.2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has sustained the order of reversion and the order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant.
3. At the outset, we intend to observe that the Judicial Officers are part and parcel of this institution. They should be respected and their career should be carefully protected. But in the present case, it appears to us, after going through the records that the appellant, who was serving as a Judicial Officer, has been treated with scant respect by the High Court. Be that as it may.
4. The appellant was initially appointed as Munsif (now known as Civil Judge, Junior Division) in the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service in the year 1975 and his services were confirmed as Munsif in the year 1980. Subsequently, in the year 1986, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division) and confirmed on the same rank w.e.f. 19.01.1988. In the year 1987, the appellant was made Sub-Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, in November 1989, he was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Patna High Court vide Notification dated 5.11.1989. While he was working as a Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gopalganj, an inspection was made by the portfolio Judge and on noticing certain omissions and commissions in granting bail in certain cases by the appellant, certain adverse remarks were made against him in the note made on 09.03.1994. Further, the appellant had also passed an Order dated 10.2.1994 granting bail to one person accused of offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. in Mohammadpur Police Station case no. 90/93. This was taken as an exception by the learned District Judge and also by the High Court while deciding the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.11327/1994. The High Court of Patna vide Order dated 12.09.1994 in Cr. Misc. No. 11327 of 1994, whilst commenting adversely against the appellant, had observed that the appellant had granted bail in the said matter on extraneous consideration and further directed the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court for taking necessary action.
5. In view of the abovementioned adverse comments passed against the appellant, he was directed to offer his explanation if any, by the High Court. In this regard, the appellant had offered his explanation, firstly, on 7.5.1994 for strictures passed by the Inspecting Judge and; secondly on 21.12.1994 for adverse remarks made by the High Court dated 12.09.1994 in Cr. Misc. No. 11327 of 1994.
6. The explanation so offered on 7.5.1994 was placed before the Standing Committee of the High Court on 17.11.1994. In regard to this explanation, the Standing Committee further sought explanation from the appellant for using objectionable language against the Inspecting Judge and directed him to appear before it in its next meeting.
7. Accordingly, the appellant appeared on 1.12.1994 and 2.12.1994 and had promptly stated that he was apologetic for the impertinent language used in the explanation. The Standing Committee, after accepting the unconditional apology offered by the appellant, had condoned his lapses and had transferred him from Gopalganj to Samastipur.
8. The case of the appellant was also considered for promotion from Sub-Judge to the Additional District Judge among 16 Sub-Judges by the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 3.2.1995 and the same came to be deferred because of the pendency of the inquiry proceedings against him.
9. In the second explanation offered by the appellant dated 21.12.1994 he had, specifically, adverted to the allegations made for granting bail indiscriminately even in cases of heinous crimes. The said explanation was placed before the Standing Committee of the High Court for its conside
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
