2014 Supreme(Raj) 1643
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ajay Rastogi, J.K.Ranka, JJ.
Prashant Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9003 of 2010.
Decided On : 7-08-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Prashant Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ravindra Maheshwari, Registrar (Classification) Raj. High Court Bench.
Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply any stigma. Therefore, the principles of natural justice do not apply and the officer is not entitled to a hearing before the decision is taken.
Headnote:
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICE PENSION RULES, 1996 - RULE 53(1) - JUDICIAL OFFICER - CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS - ADVERSE REMARKS - FULL COURT DECISION - VALIDITY OF RULE 53(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) on the recommendation of a committee constituted by the High Court. The committee found that the petitioner had become a liability to the judicial service and that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire him. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement, arguing that the material considered for his retirement was not sufficient, that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, and that Rule 53(1) of the Rules 1996 was invalid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the committee had examined the petitioner's overall service record, including personal and other files, and had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire him. The court also found that the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the decision was taken, as compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply any stigma. The court further found that Rule 53(1) of the Rules 1996 was valid and that the petitioner had not shown that it was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the material considered for the petitioner's compulsory retirement was sufficient? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the decision was taken? 3. Whether Rule 53(1) of the Rules 1996 is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the material considered for the petitioner's compulsory retirement was sufficient, as the committee had examined his overall service record, including personal and other files, and had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire him. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the decision was taken, as compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply any stigma. 3. The court held that Rule 53(1) of the Rules 1996 is valid, as the petitioner had not shown that it was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dated 31.3.2010 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court.
2. The facts that culled out are that the petitioner was initially selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1989 and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1997 and promoted on the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in the year 2003 and thereafter in the cadre of RHJS as Additional District & Session Judge vide order dated 11.1.2008.
3. While the petitioner was working as an officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.11.2009 to consider the cases of such of the judicial officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost its utility for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre conditions contemplated under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996, however, one of Hon'ble Judge who stood retired, hence, Hon'ble the Chief Justice reconstituted the committee of remaining four Hon'ble Judges and the committee in its meeting held on 2.3.2010 considered the cases of good number of judicial officers including petitioner and after examining overall record of service, personal and other files of the officer and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved by the Full Court vide order dated 20.3.2010 to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order dated 31.3.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996.
4. Apart from merits of the order regarding compulsory retirement, the petitioner made oral submission assailing the virus of R. 53(1) of Rules 1996 to the extent it qualifies such of the officers who completed 15 years of service for compulsory retirement but we do not find any prayer clause to this effect assailing validity of R. 53(1) of the Rules 1996 and there is no sufficient pleadings on record as well as to how R. 53(1) of the Rules 1996 is not in conformity with the mandate of law.
5. The main thrust of the petitioner is that overall remarks about his service history are overwhelming in his favour and the material considered for his compulsory retirement are not sufficient for passing of the order impugned.
6. He further submits that total service record if taken into consideration even men of ordinary prudence would not arrive to a conclusion for his compulsory retirement and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned action being taken against him, hence without calling for explanation & taking a decision of compulsory retirement have no foundation and deserves to be quashed being arbitrary exercise of power of the authority.
7. Petitioner has tried to persuade this Court that total record of service and the material which has been placed on record does not sustain the adverse remark and overall record of the officer was to be looked into while taking decision as to whether one has become a dead wood or looses its utility to continue in service but from the minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice who examined the record of service of the petitioner it appears that it has not looked into the overall record of service and subjective satisfaction which has been arrived based on partial service record and decision of compulsory retirement of the office
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
