The power to recommend termination of a judicial officer's services rests with the Full Court of the High Court, and the Standing Committee does not have the authority to make such recommendations.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur. Also heard Mr. B.N. Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner along with Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.825 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner / respondent No.1 in the appeal, was allowed by setting aside the order of termination dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Principal Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, observing that the same would not bar the appellant No.1 herein i.e., the High Court of Chhattisgarh to proceed in accordance with law. Direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner along with all consequential service benefits except back-wages. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority within 30 days claiming backwages and it was observed that on such representation being made, the competent authority would consider the claim of back-wages within next 60 days in accordance with law keeping in view the relevant rules and regulations.

3. The writ petitioner was directly appointed as District Judge (Entry Level) by an order dated 30.10.2014 in terms of Rule 5 (1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2006'). While the petitioner was in probation period, a letter dated 31.08.2016 was issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Raipur, enclosing thereto a copy of anonymous complaint making certain allegations against three judicial officers including the petitioner and the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) on the allegations made against the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the order of termination dated 06.02.2017 based on the recommendation of the High Court in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 2006.

4. The inspection report of the Registrar (Vigilance) goes to show that on the basis of a direction given by the Portfolio Judge calling for disposal of criminal cases of all the three judicial officers, records of the disposal of cases from the month of August, 2015 to January, 2016 were called. The petitioner had disposed of 12 Sessions Cases, 19 Criminal Appeals, 159 Bail Applications and 21 Criminal Revisions and orders were examined by the Registrar (Vigilance). On perusal, Registrar (Vigilance) opined that there was no apparent irregularity in disposal of sessions cases, criminal cases and criminal revisions. In respect of disposal of Bail Applications, it was noted that there were some irregularities in disposing of the applications, it was observed as follows :

“1. Bail application No.1582/15 Rahul Dev Mahajan Vs State,

2. Bail application No.2375/15 Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs State,

3. Bail application No. 110/16 Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs State,

4. Bail application No.114/16 Sarvan Singh @ Jogi Vs State.

Regarding Bail application no.1582/15 Rahul Dev Mahajan Vs State it is submitted that the first and second bail applications of the accused Rahul Dev Mahajan were rejected by Shri Ganesh Ram Burman, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur on 22/06/15 and 04/08/15 respectively and thereafter the third bail application no.1582/15 was accepted on 21/08/15 and the accused was released on bail.

Similarly the first and second bail applications of the accused Sarvan Singh @ Joga were rejected by Shri Ganesh Ram Burman on 26/08/15 and 26/09/15 respectively and thereafter the third bail application no. 114/16 Sarvan Singh @ Jogi Vs State was accepted by the said Judicial Officer on 18/01/16 and the accused was released on bail.

It is men