http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5397 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Shiv Dayal Gupta

RESPONDENT:

State of Rajasthan and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2005

BENCH:

H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

SEMA, J.

The appellant at the relevant time was holding the post of Additional

District Judge (Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service). By an order dated

9.11.2000, he was compulsorily retired from service. He has assailed the

order of compulsorily before the High Court. The High Court of Rajasthan

dismissed the Writ Petition after perusing the entire records placed before

it. The appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of Review Committee

report submitted by four Senior Hon’ble Judges of the High Court which was

approved by the Full Court of the High Court.

We have been taken through the entire judgment of the High Court. The High

Court, on perusal of the record produced before it, found that in the year

1983, the appellant was not assessed as good officer and his integrity was

doubtful. In 1984 he was reported to be corrupt officer. The High Court was

also of the view that when the appellant has been granted selection grade,

the adverse entries were not brought to the notice of the authority. The

High Court also noted that the Review Committee consisting of four Senior

Hon’ble Judges of the High Court noticed that the performance of the

appellant was poor and he was advised to improve his judgment writing, In

1974 there was a remark that he should be watched and quality of case work

was found unsatisfactory. The remarks were also communicated to the

appellant. In 1977 there was also an entry that he should improve the

quality of his judgments. In 1983 he was not assessed as good officer and

his integrity was found doubtful. His representation against adverse entry

was reflected. In 1993 there was an entry in his ACR that he failed to

inspire the confidence in subordinate staff and lawyers and his disposal

was also found low. The Review Committee also noted that he has been

superseded without being considered for promotion in 1983. The departmental

enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) rules, 1958 where finding against the appellant of

being negligent and grossly careless in discharging his judicial duties,

have been recorded, which ended in minor penalty of censure imposed on him

and he was further warned to remain careful and cautious while discharging

his judicial functions.

On the basis of overall perusal of the ACR and overall assessment of

service record of the appellant, the Review Committee consisting of four

Senior Judges found that continuance of officer would be liability to the

Department and adverse to the public interest and recommended that he

should be compulsorily retired. It is noticed that the recommendations of

the Review Committee was accepted by the Full Court in a meeting held on

8th November, 2000. It is really a case of chopping of the dead wood.

That apart, either before the High Court or before this Court, the

appellant never raised and allegation of mala fide nor the said order has

been passed without application of mind. In fact, considering the aforesaid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

facts and circumstances the appointing authority has come to the conclusion

that the appellant’s continuance in the service will be a liability to the

public interest and passed the order after subjective satisfaction of the

matter on the basis of the record placed before the authority.

Learned senior counsel cited the decisions rendered in 1. [1992] 2 SCC 299

(Bhaikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer Braipada

and Anr.,) 2. [2001] 3 SCC 341 (State of Gujarat v. Umedhbhai M. Patel,) 3.

[2002] 3 SCC 641 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Vinay Kumar Jain) and 4. [2001]

3 SCC 389 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Lalsa Ram.)

The ratio of the decision cited quoted by the learned seni