Compulsory retirement is upheld as a non-punitive measure if based on formal assessments of efficiency; judicial review is limited to ensuring decisions are not arbitrary or mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service and relieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to quash the Notification as contained in Memo no.13/Judicial Misc.-06/2014 Personnel 4496/Ranchi dated 21.5.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby notification has been issued with respect to recommendation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 74 (kha) (ii) of the JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE as the petitioner has completed the age of 50 years, without whispering anything about the petitioner, although Annual Confidence Report of the petitioner never speaks about the fact that petitioner was inefficient, dead wood, corrupt or dishonest, nor the order has been issued under public interest and without taking totality of the fact and the entire service record as well as character roll, the petitioner has been forced to superannuate at the age of 50 years when proper fruits of his service career was essential for carrying out the entire family liability of the petitioner and as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement is fit to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits, including full salary till the date of superannuation.”

3. It is averred that the petitioner was inducted in the judicial service in the erstwhile State of Bihar, where he served till the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and was thereafter allotted Jharkhand cadre and worked up till the service of the impugned order dated 21^st May, 2014.

4. According to the Writ petitioner, he has an unblemished service record, which would be evident from the fact that he has been promoted to the rank of Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 2009 and thereafter posted as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sahebganj, where he joined on 25.03.2010. Not only this, the petitioner had been posted as an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 2012 and was continuing on the same post till the date of the impugned notification. It is further alleged that the petitioner has served the judiciary for about 25 years in different capacity and performed his role honestly with full devotion and dedication.

5. In the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.), nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner so as to compulsorily retire him from service. It is specifically contended that the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, as assessed by the learned District Judge, Sitamarhi (Bihar) was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a representation against said ACR on 25.09.2001 but the High Court rejected the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner’s ACR for the year 2008-09, as assessed by the then District & Sessions Judge, Koderma was communicated to petitioner and has since been expunged by the High Court. As regards the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report for the year 2011-2012 as assessed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, the same was communicated to the petitioner only because of the fact that the Principal District Judge, Sahebganj had uttered some unparliamentary remark against the petitioner on 01.09.2011 and the petitioner had informed the matter to the High Court and subsequently the Princi