Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 1485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, Nelson Sailo, JJ.
Liakat Ali - Petitioner
Versus
Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 2732 and 2740 of 2007
Decided On : 14-11-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Goswami, Mr. D.R. Gogoi and Ms. B. Choudhury
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Medhi and Mr. A. Das
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 309 and 234 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 394 - Promotion - Both petitioners were Judicial Officers belong to Judicial Service who were compulsorily retired from service in exercise of powers confer red by rule of Judicial Service Rules read with FR which is under challenge in two writ petitions - Petitioner was selected for appointment to Grade III of Judicial Service vide Notification issued by Secretary to Government of Judicial Department pursuant to which he joined as Second Class Magistrate - After rendering service as Magistrate in different places petitioner was promoted to Grade II of Judicial Service and was posted as Addl - Chief Judicial Magistrate - He was transferred to and posted as Civil Judge cum-Assistant Sessions Judge - While petitioner was working a contempt case was registered against him being Contempt Petition alleging willful non-compliance to an order passed in Civil Revision vide order petitioner was held guilty of contempt and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine - Held, We must so read it as to free it from potential for mischiefs we have just projected exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest - There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether order has been made in public interest - When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest State must disclose material so that court may be satisfied that order is not bad for want of any material whatever which to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in law is sufficient to sustain grounds of public interest justifying forced retirement of public servant - Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of Administrator but they are not absolved from minimal review well-settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations limitations on judicial power in this area are well-known and we are confined to an examination of material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that compulsory retirement of officer concerned is necessary in public interest - Petitions are accordingly allowed.
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.R. Gogoi and Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the Gauhati High Court.
2. Grievance of both the writ petitioners being identical, the two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Both the petitioners were Judicial Officers belong to the Assam Judicial Service who were compulsorily retired from service in exercise of powers confer red by rule 20 of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003 read with FR 56(b), which is under challenge in the two writ petitions.
4. For the sake of convenience and for appreciation of the lis in the proper perspective, facts highlighted in WP No. 2732/2007 (Liakat Ali v. Gauhati High Court) are briefly narrated hereunder.
WP(C) No. 2732/2007
5. Petitioner was selected for appointment to Grade III of Assam Judicial Service vide Notification dated 5.3.1986 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department pursuant to which he joined on 9.4.1986 as Second Class Magistrate at Nagaon. After rendering service as Magistrate and Munsiff in different places, petitioner was promoted to Grade II of Assam Judicial Service in April, 1999 and was posted as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhemaji. In the year 2004, he was transferred to and posted as Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar.
6. While the petitioner was working at Mangaldoi as Munsiff No. 1, a contempt case was registered against him, being Contempt Petition (C) No. 515/1994, alleging willful non-compliance to an order dated 7.10.1994 passed in Civil Revision No. 478/1994. Vide order dated 6.5.1999, petitioner was held guilty of contempt and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with fine. However, in Contempt Appeal (C) No. 4/1999 filed by the petitioner, the above order dated 6.5.1999 was set aside by a Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 19.1.2000.
7. Though a show cause notice dated 20.2.2001 was issued to the petitioner by the Registrar (I&E), Gauhati High Court with certain charges pertaining to the allegation of contempt, after submission of written statement by the petitioner on 4.6.2001 and after holding of departmental proceeding for some time, petitioner was informed by the Registrar (I&E), Gauhati High Court on 31.3.2004 that the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against him was dropped.
8. In the meanwhile, Registrar (I&E), Gauhati High Court vide letter dated 16.3.2002 had sought for option from the petitioner as to whether he was willing to opt for ad-hoc promotion from Grade II to Grade I in the Assam Judicial Service against the post of Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge of Fast Track Courts, Assam. According to the petitioner, though he had given his option, the offer to him was withdrawn on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding at that point of time.
9. By communication dated 8.1.2003 of the Deputy Registrar (Aptt), petitioner was intimated about adverse remark recorded in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2001. Petitioner was graded as ‘average’. Quality of his judgment was assessed as average and quantity of work was found to be not sufficient.
10. Petitioner submitted explanation on 7.2.2003. In his explanation, amongst other things, he stated that out of the total of 460 cases in his roster during the reported period he had disposed of 332 cases, rate of disposal being 72.17%.
11. Petitioner did not receive any reply or order from the Gauhati High Court regarding modification or up-gradation of his ACR grading.
12. For the year 2002, petitioner was again graded ‘average’. While the quality of judgment was assessed as average, quantity of work was found to be poor.
13. This was communicated to the petitioner on 20.5.2003 by the Deputy Registrar (Apptt.). This time also petitioner subm
