IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

1. Heard Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the High Court, Sri M.K. Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner, a compulsorily retired judicial officer in the State of U.P., has challenged the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020, the Resolution of Full Court of the Allahabad High Court dated 25.11.2021 for his compulsory retirement as also his compulsory retirement order dated 29.11.2024. He has sought his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits of seniority, arrears of salary etc.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Munsif/ Civil Judge (Junior Division) and became a member of U.P. Nyayik Sewa on 22.03.1996. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 15.12.2003. Thereafter, he was further promoted to Higher Judicial Service and was posted as Additional District Judge on 16.08.2013. For the year 2012-13, the District Judge, Badaun recorded an adverse Confidential Report and did not certify his integrity for the said period. Vide his letter dated 24.09.2016 addressed to the Registrar General, he communicated various instances of misconduct on his part requiring a full-fledged inquiry especially with regard to his integrity and the properties amassed by him. Based thereon, a vigilance inquiry was ordered by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 11.05.2013 which was registered as Vigilance Inquiry No.28/2013. The Vigilance Officer submitted his report on 04.03.2016 wherein he found the allegations to be correct. The matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court which accepted the report in its meeting dated 14.09.2016 and 16.11.2016 and recommended a regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner, which was in fact initiated, bearing D.P. No.12/2016. The Administrative Judge did not record his comments for the A.C.R period 2013-14 on account of pendency of the vigilance inquiry at the relevant time. The compulsory retirement of the judicial officer was considered in the year 2020 by a Screening Committee of the High Court in its meeting dated 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020. In these meetings, service records of the petitioner were also scrutinized and the Screening Committee recommended his compulsory retirement taking into considering his entire service record. The recommendations of the Screening Committee were placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court which in its meeting date 18.11.2021 accepted the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020 and recommended withdrawal of judicial work of the petitioner as also his compulsory retirement to the Full Court. The matter was placed before the Full Court which in its meeting dated 25.11.2021, on a consideration of entire material before it, opined in its wisdom for compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

4. Based on the aforesaid exercise, the State Government passed the order of compulsory retirement on 29.11.2021 in exercise of its powers under Fundamental Rule 56(C). Be that as it may, for some explicable reason, the Inquiry Judge who had been assigned D.P. No.12/2016 was not intimated about the aforesaid compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Consequently, he went ahead with the inquiry and even the petitioner himself, it appears, did not inform him about the said fact and ultimately, the Inquiry Judge submitted a report on 23.12.2021 exonerating the petitioner. The inquiry report was placed before the Administrative Committee which was informed about compulsory retirement of the petitioner and accordingly, it dropped the charges against the petitioner in its meeting dated 10.01.2022 and this decision of the Administrative Committee was communicated to the District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 09.02.2022. Against the aforesaid background, the pe