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 for judicial review. It emphasizes the importance of subjective satisfaction of the decision-making authorities and the need to consider contemporaneous performance.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 30.05.2012 vide impugned Memo No. 6/Rst./A.Se.Ni.-11/20212 ka-6788 Ranchi dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure-10). Being aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court with a further prayer to quash the entries in his Confidential Service Records pertaining to the years 2005-06 and 2006-07; he seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Petitioner had also prayed for quashing of Rule 8(1)(iii)(ix) of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand Rules,, 2001 as being ultra vires. However, this challenge has not been pressed at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the petitioner’s case are as under:

Petitioner was appointed as Temporary Munsif vide Notification No. 7/A1-505/82/Ka-13355 dated 28.10.1986 on the basis of 21st Competitive Judicial Service Examination and was posted as such on 17.11.1986 at Giridih. It is submitted that the petitioner was conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and Additional Munsif vide Notification No. 309 dated 28.07.1990 by this Court. Thereafter, his service was confirmed vide Notification dated 23.06.1990. Upon completion of 10 years of successful service, petitioner was promoted to Junior Selection Grade vide notification dated 29.05.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of S.D.J.M and was posted at Godda vide Notification dated 28.09.2001 issued by the High Court. Petitioner was subsequently promoted as Sub-Ordinate Judge, Godda vide Notification dated 13.02.2002. It is submitted that petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and posted at Sahebganj vide Notification dated 29.08.2002, Petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P with effect from 01.01.1996 and 26.11.1996 vide Notification dated 30.08.2006. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Pakur vide Notification dated 01.04.2005 and from Pakur to Giridih vide Notification dated 02.05.2006 and remained there till 15.05.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2008, this Hon’ble Court received letter of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with regard to evaluation of Judicial Officers on the basis of their service records, quality of judgment and also in the matter of retirement of those officers who were found unfit, ineffective, incompetent or have doubtful integrity on attaining the age of 50, 55-58 years, as per statement made at para-8 of the counter affidavit. In the chronology of events, it is further stated that the petitioner was transferred from Giridih to Seraikella where he remained as Chief Judicial Magistrate till 30.05.2012. Petitioner contends that photocopy of ACRs obtained through RTI vide Annexure-9 dated 18.08.2012 shows that adverse entries made in the confidential report for the year 2005-06 was neither communicated, nor any information regarding the same was given to the petitioner to enable him to explain. Petitioner was informed about his compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b) of Jharkhand Service Code with effect from 31.05.2012 (afternoon) or the date on which order is served, whichever is earlier.

5. According to the petitioner, photocopy of ACRs for the year 2005-06 shows adverse remarks which remain uncommunicated. Similarly, for the year 2006-07, there were certain remarks regarding his integrity without any concrete material which were communicated to the petitioner by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Giridih vide letter no. 30 dated 29.10.2009. Petitioner has made representation vide letter dated 27.11.2009 explaining his unblemished service career for the last 23 years and that no complaint regarding his integrity was ever made. Expression used in the ACR is also ‘whisper’ which shows that there was no source and substance of allegation. The previous years ACR also shows that there were no entries regarding any complaint about him. However, his representation was rejected vide letter no. 92