IMPORTANT POINT
Compulsory retirement of judicial officers is based on overall performance and integrity, not merely on disciplinary findings, and is not considered a punishment.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, and Shri Shivam Sharma, the learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an Office Memorandum dated 29.11.2021 issued by the State Government, whereby the petitioner has been retired prematurely. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the recommendation for his compulsory retirement made by the High court, which was communicated through a letter dated 26.11.2021.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Munsif in Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services in the year 2003. In the year 2008, he was promoted to a post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). In the year 2010-2011, he was given adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report and his integrity was not certified as there were oral complaints against him regarding dishonesty and corruption. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.10.2013. A disciplinary inquiry was instituted against him and in the inquiry report dated 11.02.2014, he was exonerated of all the charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service by means of an order dated 16.04.2014 with full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.

4. The petitioner submitted a representation against the adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11, which were rejected. The petitioner filed Writ-A No.40376 of 2016 before this Court sitting at Allahabad challenging the adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report and the said writ petition is still pending.

5. On 22.03.2017, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Mahoba. On 17.06.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Registrar General of this Court stating that the District Judge was depriving him of the facilities to which he was entitled and that he was being neglected by the District Judge. He further stated in the aforesaid representation that he is suffering from Diabetes and some eye disease for the past 10 years due to which his vision was being affected and he had to undergo a surgical operation in P.G.I., Lucknow in October, 2016. By the aforesaid representation dated 17.06.2017, the petitioner had requested that he be transferred to some other district.

6. Thereafter, the District Judge again made some adverse remarks against the petitioner in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 2017-18 wherein the District Judge remarked that the petitioner’s integrity is doubtful. For the year 2018-19 also, the District Judge remarked that the petitioner’s integrity is doubtful and several other adverse remarks were made against the petitioner.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid Annual Confidential Report, a departmental inquiry was set-up against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension by means of an order dated 01.04.2019. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 22.07.2019. An inquiry report was submitted on 10.07.2020, whereby the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges.

8. A vigilance inquiry was also instituted against the petitioner and in the report submitted by the Special Officer (Vigilance) of this Court, it was found that the petitioner indulged in non-cooperative activities by not organizing legal literacy camps in the month of June, 2017 and that he indulged in an act of indiscipline by not receiving a D.O. letter issued by the District and Session Judge and by using reckless and derogatory language against the District and Session Judge, Mahoba in his explanation submitted to the latter. The Administrative Committee of the High Court issued a warning to the pet