Point of Law : Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Bose learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Bose learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Superintendent of Police Railways, Lucknow on 9.7.2019 whereby the petitioner having been treated to be deadwood was retired compulsorily from service by invoking the power under Rule 56 of the fundamental rules contained in Financial Hand Book(Volume II, Part II to IV). The material relevant to be considered is prescribed under Rule 56(2) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules and the same for ready reference is extracted here under :-

"(2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration—

(a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on an ad-hoc basis; or

(b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry; or

(c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965."

3. The record reveals that the screening committee has considered the service record pertaining to the years from 2009 to 2018. The annual confidential rolls for the entire period mentioned above record as under :-

4. In the column under punishment, one minor punishment has been recorded which was inflicted upon the petitioner on 13.11.2010. This punishment is in the nature of censure punishment subsequent whereto the annual entries awarded to the petitioner was 'Good' for the year 2011 and consistently satisfactory thereafter.

5. Before coming to the assessment of factual position, it is necessary to note the position of law in respect of Compulsory Retirement and scope of Judicial Review. Inarguably, every premature termination of service is not dismissal or removal. Contrary to Dismissal or Removal, Compulsory retirement is not a punishment, as an established legal principle, but a mechanism for the Employer State to maintain the efficiency of its administration, departments and agencies by putting an end to the services of the employees who have become and are proved to be deadwood to it and to put such mechanism in process is the prerogative of the Employer State [Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., (1955) 1 SCR 26 : AIR 1954 SC 369 : (1954) 2 LLJ 139].

6. The wide principles relating to Compulsory Retirement were settled by a three-judges bench of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das case [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649]:

“34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Cour