The court upheld the retirement of the petitioner under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code based on the consideration of the petitioner's service record and the public interest.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel representing respondent No. 3, Registrar General of this High Court.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in memo No. 2698 dated 20.05.2004, brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ application, whereby, while functioning as the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, he has been made to retire from service under the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, w.e.f., 22.05.2004 or on the date of service of notice, whichever was earlier, making the payment of salary and allowances for three months of the notice period.

3. It appears that the petitioner had challenged this order directly in the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 584 of 2004, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2004, giving the liberty to the petitioner for filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

4. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Munsif in the Bihar Judicial Service and he was confirmed as Munsif w.e.f. 04.04.1977 by the order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner was given successive promotions in the Judicial Service and he was taken into Bihar Superior Judicial Service as Additional District and Sessions Judge. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar pursuant to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre and at the relevant time the petitioner was working as the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, when he was made to retire from service under the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during his entire service period the petitioner was only once subjected to the punishment of censure in the year 1997 by the Patna High Court by order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. There after the service of the petitioner was throughout satisfactory and he got due promotions also and accordingly, there was no occasion for subjecting the petitioner to retirement under the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order making the petitioner to retire from service cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

6. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Registrar General of this Court, have opposed the prayer. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, in which the service record of the petitioner has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner, the petitioner was made to retire from service under the provision of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the public interest. It is submitted that the impugned order does not cast any stigma upon the petitioner and there was no requirement of observation of any principle of natural justice prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order making the petitioner to retire under the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code taking into consideration his service record.

7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the impugned action had been taken against the petitioner after considering the service record of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner as detailed in the counter affidavit, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

8. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.