The court affirmed that a judicial officer can be compulsorily retired based on adverse material in their service record, emphasizing that such action is not punitive and does not require adherence to natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Petitioner is a Judicial Officer. He was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 16.10.2006. He was granted further promotion to the Higher Judicial Service under rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 on 02.07.2015. His date of birth is 05.02.1966 and would have attained the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2026. His tenure, however, has been curtailed on account of order impugned passed by the State Government on 29.11.2021 compulsorily retiring him from service by resorting to powers under the Financial Hand Book (Vol. II, Part II to IV) read with amended fundamental rule 56(C). At the time of passing of such order the petitioner was posted as Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) at Kaushambi. The order of compulsory retirement dated 29.11.2021 is thus assailed in the present writ petition.

2. The record reveals that a Screening Committee was constituted to examine the service record of Judicial Officers in order to chop the deadwood, which met on 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020. Apart from other Judicial Officers the service records of the writ petitioner was also placed for consideration by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee upon overall evaluation of the service records recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner. This report of the Screening Committee was placed before the Full Court on 25.11.2021. The Full Court agreed with the recommendation made by the Screening Committee and recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner. This decision of the Full Court was communicated by the Registry to the State Government on 26.11.2021. It is on the strength of this recommendation of the Court that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service vide order impugned. It may also be noticed that the judicial and administrative work was also withdrawn from the petitioner w.e.f. 26.11.2021 on the basis of recommendation made by the Full Court in its meeting dated 25.11.2021.

3. The petitioner has appeared in person and has urged that there existed no adverse material on record on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement could be passed. The petitioner, during course of argument, has submitted that the Screening Committee has erred in recommending the petitioner’s compulsory retirement on account of following reasons:-

(i) Material which was not available to form adverse opinion against the petitioner has been taken into consideration;

(ii) Material in the form of continuous satisfactory working of the petitioner has been omitted from consideration and, therefore, the decision of the Screening Committee, as affirmed by the Full Court and acted upon by the State Government, is wholly erroneous and perverse and consequently, the order impugned compulsorily retiring the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Petitioner has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:-

“1. Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chi