Back
(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
R.M. Lodha and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P. and another
Civil Appeal No.5790 of 2012 : against the judgment and order of M.P. High Court, Jabalpur, passed in Writ Appeal No.72 of 2006;
Decided on 8.8.2012.
Held : From the above, it is clear that the appellant did not have unblemished service record all along. He has been graded “Average” on quite a few occasions. He was assessed “Poor” in 1993 and 1994. His quality of judgments and orders was not found satisfactory on more than one occasion. His reputation was observed to be tainted on few occasions and his integrity was not always found to be above board. In 1988-89, the remark reads, “never enjoyed clean reputation”. In 1993, the remark “his reputation was not good” and in 1994 the remark “officer does not enjoy good reputation”, were recorded. His representations for expunction of these remarks failed.The challenge to these remarks on judicial side was unsuccessful right upto this Court. In 1993, it was also recorded that quality of performance of the appellant was poor and his disposals were below average. In 1994, the remark in the service record states that the performance of the appellant qualitatively and quantitatively has been poor. With this service record, can it be said that there existed no material for an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service? We think not. The above material amply shows that the material germane for taking decision by the Full Court whether the appellant could be continued in judicial service or deserved to be retired compulsorily did exist. It is not the scope of judicial review to go into adequacy or sufficiency of such materials.
In view of the above, we are satisfied that the recommendation made by the High Court to the Government for compulsory retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Government do not suffer from any legal flaw. The order of compulsory retirement is neither arbitrary nor irrational justifying any interference in judicfial review. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is not legally unsustainable warranting any interference by this Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (1974)2 SCC 831, (2003)6 SCC 545, (2011)10 SCC 1 and JT 1997(5) SC 337 relied on. (2012)3 SCC 580 distinguished.
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.14 and 16 -- order of compulsory retirement -- not an order of adverse consequence -- principles of natural justice not applicable. (2011)10 SCC 1 relied on. [Para 27
(3) Fundamental Rules -- R.56(2) -- Judicial Officer of doubtful integrity, questionable reputation and wanting in utility -- not entitled to benefit of service after attaining the requisite length of service or age. [Para 34
(4) Constitution of India -- Art.14 -- District Judge approached Member of Parliament to get his bad ACR expunged -- disentitled himself from continuation in judicial service on that count alone.
[Para 40
¼1½ ewy fu;e & fu-56¼2½¼d½ & e-iz- mPprj U;kf;d lsok ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok ‘krsZ½ fu;e] 1994 & fu-14 & e-iz- flfoy lsok ¼isU’ku½ fu;e] 1976 & fu-42¼1½¼[k½ & e-iz- ftyk rFkk ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k ¼e`R;q≶&fuo`fr Qk;ns½ fu;e] 1964 & fu-1&d & ftyk U;k;k/kh’k dh yksd fgr esa vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr & mldk dk;Z xq.k rFkk ifjek.k esa fud`”V & dHkh LoPN Nfo ugha jgh & iwoksZDr lsokfuo`fr U;k;laxrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZDr ls] ;g Li”V gS fd vihykFkhZ dk lsok vfHkys[k fujarj fu”dyad ugha jgkA mldk vusd voljksa ij ^^vkSlr** Js.khdj.k fd;k x;kA 1993 rFkk 1994 esa mldk fu/kkZj.k ^^fud`”V** ds :i esa fd;k x;kA mlds fu.k;ksZ rFkk vkns’kksa dh dksfV ,d ls vf/kd voljksa ij larqf”Vijd ugha ikbZ xbZA dqN voljksa ij mldh Nfo /kwfey ns[kh xbZ rFkk mldh lR;fu”Bk lnSo fu”diV ugha ikbZ xbZA 1988&89 esa fVIi.kh crkrh gS] ^^dHkh LoPN Nfo ugha jgh**A 1993 esa fVIi.kh ^^mldh Nfo vPNh ugha Fkh** rFkk 1994 esa fVIi.kh ^^vf/kdkjh LoPN Nfo ugha j[krk gS** vfHkfyf[kr dh xbZA bu fVIif.k;ksa ds mUektZu ds fy, vH;kosnu vlQy jgsA U;kf;d i{k ds vk/kkj ij bu fVIif.k;ksa ij vk{ksi lh/ks bl U;k;ky; rd vlQy FkkA 1993 esa] ;g Hkh vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ ds izn’kZu dh dksfV fud`”V Fkh rFkk mlds fuiVkjs vkSlr ls fuEu FksA 1994 esa] lsok vfHkys[k esa fVIi.kh esa dfFkr gS fd vihykFkhZ dk izn’kZu xq.k rFkk ifjek.k esa fud`”V jgk gSA bl lsok vfHkys[k ls] D;k ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd vihykFkhZ dh lsok ls vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr ds vkns’k ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh fo|eku ugha Fkh\ gekjk fopkj gS ughaA iwoksZDr lkezxh ls i;kZIr :i ls ;g nf’kZr gS fd iw.kZ U;k;ky; )kjk ;g fofu’p; djus ds fy, lqlaxr lkexzh fo|eku Fkh fd D;k vihykFkhZ dks U;kf;d lsok esa cuk, j[kk tk ldrk Fkk ;k og vfuok;Z :i ls lsokfuo`r fd;s tkus ;ksX; FkkA bu lkefxz;ksa dh mi;qDrrk ;k i;kZIrrk dh tk¡p djuk U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dk {ks= ugha gSA ¼iSjk 33½ iwoksZDr dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, gekjk lek/kku gS fd vihykFkhZ dh vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr ds fy, mPp U;k;ky; )kjk ljdkj dks dh xbZ flQkfj’k rFkk ljdkj )kjk tkjh vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr dk vkns’k fdlh fof/kd =qfV ls xzLr ugha gSA vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr dk vkns’k u rks euekuk gS u gh vrkfdZd ftlls U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu esa dksbZ gLr{ksi U;k;ksfpr dgk tk ldsA [kaM U;k;ihB dk vkf{kIr fu.kZ; fof/kd :i ls vekU; ugha gS ftlls Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 136 ds v/khu vihy esa bl U;k;ky; )kjk fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk gksA ¼1974½2 ,l lh lh 831] ¼2003½6 ,l lh lh 545] ¼2011½10 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ts Vh 1977¼5½ ,l lh 337 voyafcrA ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 580 izHksfnrA ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14 rFkk 16 & vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fr dk vkns’k & izfrdwy ifj.kke dk vkns’k ugha & uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar ykxw ughaA ¼2011½10 ,l lh lh 1 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27½ ¼3½ ewy fu;e & fu- 56¼2½ & lansgkLin lR;fu”Bk] ‘kadkLin Nfo rFkk mi;ksfxrk esa deh okyk U;kf;d vf/kdkjh & lsok ;k vk;q dh visf{kr vof/k izkIr djus ds i’pkr~ lsok ds Qk;ns dk gdnkj ughaA ¼iSjk 34½ ¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14 & ftyk U;k;k/kh’k us viuh [kjkc okf”kZd xksiuh; fjiksVZ ds mUektZu ds fy, laln lnL; rd igq¡p dh & bl vdsys dkj.k ls Lo;a dks U;kf;d lsok esa cus jgus dk gdnkj ugha j[kkA ¼iSjk 40½
Lodha, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. On 13.9.1004, the appellant, who was working on the post of District and Sessions Judge, Panna was compulsorily retired from the service in the public interest by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (for short, ‘the Government’) on the request of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (for short, ‘High Court’). The order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under amended rule 56(2)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘1994 Rules’), rule 42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘1976 Rules’) and rule 1-A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 (for short, ‘1964 Rules’). In lieu of notice of three months, it was directed in the order that the appellant shall be entitled to three months’ salary and allowances which he was receiving prior to his retirement.
3. The appellant challenged the above order of compulsory retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 20.4.2006, allowed the writ petition; quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 13.9.2004 and directed that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
4. The High Court on the administrative side challenged the order of Single Judge in writ appeal. The Division Bench of that Court on consideration of the entire matter held that the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was ill-founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single Judge vide its judgment dated 23.11.2006. It is from this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
5. The appellant was selected in the higher judicial service of Madhya Pradesh by direct recruitment. He joined the judicial service as an Additional District Judge on 17.10.1979. On 26.6.1985, he was confirmed as a District Judge. The appellant was awarded lower selection grade on 7.9.1990 with effect from 24.3.1989. He was awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. As noted above, by the order dated 13.9.2004, the appellant was compulsorily retired in public interest.
6. We have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the High Court on the administrative side.
7. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Division Bench was not at all justified in setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order and the findings recorded therein are founded on incorrect and misleading facts. The service record of the appellant speaks otherwise. The appellant has been largely assessed in his ACRs ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. He highlighted that the appellant was confirmed as District Judge in 1985, he was awarded lower selection grade in 1990, he was given super time scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002 on merits and, on the basis of his judicial work he was also recommended for elevation as a High Court Judge by the High Court collegium in March, 2004.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that compulsory retirement of the appellant on the basis of an adverse entry recorded in 1989 and two subsequent adverse entries for 1993 and 1994 was wholly unjustified. As regards 1989 adverse entry, learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant was awarded lower selection grade in 1990 and, therefore, the said entry had lost its efficacy. In respect of entries recorded in 1993 and 1994, learned senior counsel submitted that the said entries also lost their significance since the appellant was awarded super time scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. In between in 2001, he was allowed to c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
