Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA – PETITIONER(S)
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 190 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 391 OF 2018
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial officers – Standard of integrity and probity expected from judicial officers is much higher than that expected from other officers – An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitive in nature – An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil consequences – While considering case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement entire record of judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage – Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired – ‘Washed off’ theory does not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity – Courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on recommendation of a high-powered committee(s) of High Court – In present case, adverse entries with regard to integrity do not lose their sting at any stage – A judicial officer’s integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted – Senior judges of High Court who were members of Screening Committee and Standing Committee have taken a considered and well-reasoned decision – Unless there are allegations of mala fides or facts are so glaring that decision of compulsory retirement is unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of judicial review – In such matters court on judicial side must exercise restraint before setting aside decision of such collective bodies comprising of senior High Court Judges – Writ Petitions dismissed. [Rule 74(b)(ii) of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001] (Paras 4, 16, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
These writ petitions have been filed by two erstwhile judicial officers who were members of judicial service in the State of Jharkhand and are directed against the orders whereby they have been compulsorily retired. Main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are that their retirement is not in the public interest: their entire service record especially the contemporaneous record has not been taken into consideration and also that the petitioners have been granted various promotions which would have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if any.
Findings of the Court:
Senior judges of the High Court who were the members of Screening Committee and Standing Committee have taken a considered and well-reasoned decision. Unless there are allegations of mala fides or the facts are so glaring that decision of compulsory retirement is unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of judicial review.
Result : Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by two erstwhile judicial officers who were members of the judicial service in the State of Jharkhand and are directed against the orders whereby they have been compulsorily retired. In respect of the two writ petitions which are the subject matter of this judgment, this Court passed the following order on 06.09.2018:
“Writ Petition Nos. 190/2018 and 391/2018 shall remain pending. The High Court of Jharkhand may like to reconsider the matter in the light of the entirety of the materials that have been placed before us at the hearing by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court and also by the learned counsel for the High Court.
We make it clear that the High Court is free to decide the matter as may be considered appropriate and that we have expressed no opinion on merits at this stage. The High Court of Jharkhand would be free to support its conclusions in terms of the present order with adequate reasons.
The decision of the High Court in accordance with this order be laid before us at the end of two months from today.
List the matters after two months.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matters were placed before the Screening Committee of the High Court of Jharkhand and the Screening Committee on 11.10.2018 again found sufficient reasons and approved the earlier action taken to compulsorily retire these officers. The resolution of the Screening Committee was placed before the Standing Committee of the Jharkhand High Court, which approved the resolution of the screening committee on 25.10.2018.
2. Challenge is laid in both these writ petitions to the orders of compulsory retirement and especially to the reasons assigned or the material ignored by the Screening Committee. The orders of compulsory retirement have been passed in terms of the Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which reads as follows:
“(ii) The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant atleast three month’s previous notice in writing, or an equal amount to three month’s pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest to retire from the service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice”
The aforesaid rule is pari materia to Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.
3. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are that their retirement is not in the pubic interest: their entire service record especially the contemporaneous record has not been taken into consideration and also that the petitioners have been granted various promotions which would have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if any.
4. While deciding the present case we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with the cases of judicial officers. The standard of integrity and probity expected from judicial officers is much higher than that expected from other officers. Keeping these factors in mind we shall first discuss the law on the subject and then take up these two cases on merits.
Principles Governing Compulsory Retirement
5. This Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458 held that compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences. It also dealt with the issue of what constitutes public interest. The following observations are apposite:
“9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j) it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness
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
