2019 Supreme(SC) 1348

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Ram Murti Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal no(s). 8875 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 22709 of 2018)
Decided on : 10-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on subjective satisfaction of employer is extremely narrow and restricted.
(2) Judges must strive for highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives – Standard or yardstick for judging conduct of judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on subjective satisfaction of employer is extremely narrow and restricted – Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by malafides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference – Court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same as an Appellate Authority – Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement. (Paras 5 and 6 )

(B) Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer of rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Appellant was provided proper opportunity of his defence at every stage – Service records of appellant have been examined by Screening Committee, Full Court as also by Division Bench of High Court – There can hardly be any direct evidence with regard to integrity as far as a judicial officer is concerned – It is more a matter of inference and perceptions based on conduct of officer – Inadequacy of present system of writing ACRs of judicial officers has deficiencies in several ways – Complaint against appellant with regard to acquittal granted by him was first considered by Administrative Judge who was satisfied that it is a matter for further enquiry – Comments of appellant were called for – Vigilance enquiry was recommended by Administrative Judge who was not satisfied with explanation furnished – Officer holding vigilance enquiry was also a judicial officer who opined that act of acquittal by appellant was not above board – Comments of appellant were again called for – Screening Committee consisting of three Judges, on an overall assessment of appellant’s service record, recommended his compulsory retirement – Full Court scrutinised service records of appellant again while considering recommendation of Screening Committee and arrived at conclusion that it was in public interest to compulsory retire appellant – Punishment of censure meted out to appellant was never assailed by him – Standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be same for a judicial officer – A Judge holds the office of a public trust – Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise – A Judge is pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function – Judges must strive for highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives – Standard or yardstick for judging conduct of judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict – A bona fide error may need correction and counselling – But a conduct which creates a perception beyond ordinary cannot be countenanced – Order of compulsory retirement of appellant calls for no interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

Appellant, a judicial officer of rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge, assails his order of compulsory retirement dated 03.05.2016 at 56 years of age under Rule 56 (C) of U. P. Fundamental Rules.

Findings of Court:

It is absolutely necessary that the ordinary litigant must have complete faith at this level and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even create a perception to contrary as the consequences can be very damaging. The standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict.

Result : Appeal dismissed.