SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1384

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
High Court of Judicature at Patna – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Srivastava And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8665 of 2015
Decided On : 12-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Mr. Kshathula Raj, Mr. Akash Jindal and M/s. Parekh & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Vishakha, Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Gopal Jha, and Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocates.

The due process of law should be followed and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken before compulsory retirement based on allegations of misconduct.

Headnote:

Compulsory Retirement - Judicial Officer - The court upheld the judgment of the High Court, stating that if serious allegations of misconduct exist, the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken, and due process of law should be followed before compulsory retirement.

Fact of the Case:

The first respondent, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired by the appellant, the High Court of Patna, on the ground of being no more of any utility for the Bihar Higher Judicial Service. The respondent successfully challenged the retirement order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that if serious allegations of misconduct exist, the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken, and due process of law should be followed before compulsory retirement. The court upheld the judgment of the High Court, recognizing the liberty of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent if advised.

Issues: The issues revolved around the compulsory retirement of the judicial officer and the allegations of misconduct against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if an officer's conduct is questionable warranting compulsory retirement, the due process of law should be followed, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken.

Final Decision: The Civil Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld, recognizing the liberty of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent if advised.

ORDER :

The appellant is the High Court of Patna. The first respondent is a judicial officer of Bihar Higher Judicial Service who was compulsorily retired on the ground that he was no more of any utility for the Bihar Higher Judicial Service. The respondent successfully challenged the said order. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the High Court opined that the compulsory retirement order impugned before it was not sustainable. Hence the appeal.

2. During the pendency of the matter, on two earlier occasions, this Court passed two orders dated 1.12.2016 and 8.12.2016. The substance of the said orders is that the appellant submitted before this Court that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the first respondent, therefore, the continuation of the respondent's service will not be in the larger public interest and the judiciary. In the context of the submissions made by the appellant, this Court by the above mentioned orders called upon the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the statements made at the bar. Such affidavit along with huge volume of the material in support of the affidavit is filed.

3. It all boils down to this that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the first respondent. If that is the case, the appellant is always at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent which action according to us, the High Court is duty bound to take. If the officer whose conduct is questionable warranting his removal or compulsory retirement from the service, such an officer cannot simply be sent home with all the retiral benefits. But at the same time, if an officer is to be retired on the ground that his conduct is unwholesome, he is entitled to claim that the due process of law be followed.

4. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court under appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. The judgment under appeal recognises the liberty of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant if the appellant is so advised. Though it is not necessary, in the circumstances, we reiterate the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top