Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o. Late Sh. Hari Krishna Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, through Its Registrar General – Respondent
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9576 of 2011
Decided on : 20-12-2022
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - JUDICIAL OFFICER - RULE 53(1) OF THE RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1996 - ARROGANT AND RUDE - ADVERSE REMARKS - UNCOMMUNICATED - MALA FIDE - PUBLIC INTEREST - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION - SCREENING COMMITTEE - FULL COURT - LIMITED SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, on the grounds of arrogance, rudeness, and doubtful integrity. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement, arguing that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of compulsory retirement was not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide. The court noted that the petitioner had received adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports, including remarks that he was arrogant, rude, and had doubtful integrity. The court also noted that the petitioner's case had been considered by a Screening Committee and the Full Court, both of which had approved the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority and that there was no mala fide intention behind the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide. 2. Whether the Screening Committee and the Full Court had properly considered the petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide. The court noted that the petitioner had received adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports, including remarks that he was arrogant, rude, and had doubtful integrity. The court also noted that the petitioner's case had been considered by a Screening Committee and the Full Court, both of which had approved the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was based on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority and that there was no mala fide intention behind the order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.
ORDER :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
i) the impugned order Annex-P/7 dated 25.05.2011 along with Government Order dated 24.05.2011, whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the services, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
ii) the impugned adverse communication dated 16.05.2011 (Annex-P/6) may kindly be declared as null and void and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
iii) The writ petition preferred by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.
iv) any other appropriate order which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
2. The petitioner, who was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, is aggrieved by impugned order dated 24.05.2011 by which he has been compulsorily retired from service in public interest under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’).
3. Relevant factual matrix giving rise to this writ petition, stated in succinct, is that vide order dated 16.04.1990, the petitioner was initially appointed as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955. Upon successful completion of probation, the petitioner was confirmed on 17.06.1992 in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service(RJS). In course of time, vide order dated 07.07.1997, the petitioner earned his promotion in the cadre of Civil Judge (S.D.)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on ad-hoc basis in the year 1997. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.07.2002, the petitioner was granted selection grade of RJS in the pay scale of 12000-16500. In the year 2003, vide order dated 17.04.2003, the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis as Additional District and Sessions Judge for being deputed in Fast Track Courts. In the year 2010, on the recommendations of the High Court, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Rajasthan High Judicial Service and was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.04.2010.
4. While the petitioner was working as Additional District Judge, having been promoted vide order dated 21.04.2010, a communication dated 16.05.2011 was received by him from the Registrar General of the High Court, conveying Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009 for the period from 12.06.2009 to 31.12.2009. The remarks communicated to the petitioner recorded, “Arrogant and rude”. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to prefer representation against the said adverse remarks. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.05.2011, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by invoking Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, which was conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 25.05.2011 from the Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur along with a draft of Rs. 3,21,297/-.
The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed legality and validity of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on multiple grounds as stated in the writ petition and argued before us.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory inasmuch as while forming an opinion based on subjective satisfaction, the competent authority has failed to examine the entire service record of the petitioner. It has been contended that the entire service record of the petitioner was not only satisfactory but also earned him timely promotions without single supersession. Compulsory retirement could be ordered only u
The order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide if it is ....
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer should be based on the entire service records, including adverse entries, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The court ....
The judgment establishes the legal principle that the decision to compulsorily retire a Judicial Officer must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the entire service record, with limited scope f....
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer in public interest is based on the entire service records, especially adverse entries relating to integrity, and requires circumspection in judi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse entries regarding integrity do not lose their significance and a single adverse entry is sufficient to warrant compulsory retirement i....
Compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is justified based on subjective satisfaction regarding integrity, even with adverse entries, and judicial review is limited to the decision-making process....
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
