Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED
Pradip Vasant Bavkar
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through The Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrance Law & Judiciary Department & Another
WRIT PETITION NO. 5856 OF 2010
Decided On : 16-11-2011
Corruption - Judicial Service - Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - The court dismissed the petition challenging the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer based on adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The court held that the ACRs were endorsed by the Full Court and cannot be discarded based on the petitioner's challenges. The court emphasized the importance of integrity in judicial service and upheld the order of compulsory retirement, stating that it does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and cannot be considered a penalty or punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged the compulsory retirement based on adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The petitioner argued that the adverse remarks were made with a prejudiced mind or on the basis of wrong information, and that the subsequent ACR for the year 2007 contradicted the adverse remarks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds on which the petitioner challenged the ACRs were not valid and did not vitiate the ACRs. The court emphasized the importance of integrity in judicial service and upheld the order of compulsory retirement, stating that it does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and cannot be considered a penalty or punishment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, the integrity of the petitioner, and the legality of the compulsory retirement order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of integrity in judicial service and held that the ACRs, endorsed by the Full Court, cannot be discarded based on the petitioner's challenges. The court upheld the order of compulsory retirement, stating that it does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and cannot be considered a penalty or punishment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the compulsory retirement of the judicial officer and upheld the order of compulsory retirement.
K.K. TATED, J.
1. Heard the Petitioner – party in person and the learned counsel for Respondent no.1 and the learned counsel for Respondent no.2.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. By this Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary and Legal Advisor, Law and Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from judicial service of the State of Maharashtra.
5. Relevant facts of the matter are as under:In the year 1976, the Petitioner completed his Bachelor of Arts degree and thereafter in the year 1981 LL.B degree. After completing the Law degree, the Petitioner enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Counsel of Maharashtra and Goa. After completion of 15 years practice as an advocate he joined judicial service on 19th November, 1997 as Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (District Judge cadre). Thereafter, he was appointed as Special Judge for TADA Designated Court, Greater Bombay on 26th September, 2005. From 20th November, 2007 to 4th March, 2009 the Petitioner on transfer was posted as Solicitor-cum-Joint Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. On 5th March, 2009 the Petitioner came to be transferred and posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Amaravati. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangli. During his tenure as a City Civil Court Judge, the Guardian Judge has written his Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as “CR”). The CR’s for the year ending March, 2005 and March, 2006 (Exhibit R and S) wherein certain adverse remarks were made against the Petitioner.
6. On the basis of the said adverse remarks and considering his service record, Review Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay took decision on 27th January, 2010 as per Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 read with Rule 10 (4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 to recommend to the Government for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner on his attaining the age of 55 years. Both the Adverse CR’s for the year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 are reproduced herewith:
“Exhibit - “R”
Confidential Report on the work of Shri P.V. Bavkar, Judge, City Civil Court, for the reporting period year ending March, 2005.
1 Description of posts held and : Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay.
particulars of posting during
theperiod under report.
2 Special powers, if any conferred. : --- 3 Knowledge of law and procedure. : Poor. 4 What is the quality of his : Poor. judgments as regards reasoning, clarity and precision.
5. Is he industrious and prompt in Disposal of cases? : )
a) Disposal of old cases : )
b) Disposal of other cases : )
c) Disposal of cases through ) Yes.
LokAdalat. : )
d) Work done for promoting )
Alternative Dispute )
Resolution. : )
6 Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business and his control over the subordinatecourts. :
Fair.
7 Remarks about his administrative work. :
Fair.
8 Remarks about his attitude towards his superiors, subordinates and colleagues. :
Fair.
9 Remarks regarding his behavior towards members ) Dubious behavior ofthe Bar & the public. : ) Integrity is seriously
)
in doubt.
10 Remarks about reputation ) Does not deserve and integrity, impartiality ) to be retained in andcharacter. : )
service.
11 Whether he is under probation/ under extended period of probation. :
N.A.
12 Whether he under went training of JOTI during
period of review and if so,
remarksof Director. : N.A.
13 If he fit for taking additional
responsibility. :
14 Whether he was placed under
suspension/facing any
Departmental enquiry
duringperiod review? : No.
15 Whether the Officer was
warned/visited with
penalty during period
underreview? : No.
16 General Remarks, if any : Corrupt judicial officer.
17 Net result : A+ Outstanding, A Very Good,
B+ Posit
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
