Maintaining Faith In Judiciary Is Crucial: Allahabad HC Upholds Judicial Officer's Compulsory Retirement Over Adverse Service Record
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) based on adverse entries in against him in his service record which had attained finality.Holding that adverse entries existed which could lead the Screening Committee to recommend compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held,...
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) based on adverse entries in against him in his service record which had attained finality.
Holding that adverse entries existed which could lead the Screening Committee to recommend compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh held, “as the petitioner is a Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary litigant must have complete faith in the judicial system and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even remotely create perception against the justice delivery system.”
Factual Background
Petitioner was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and was granted further promotion to the Higher Judicial Service under rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. As per his date of birth, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2026. However, vide order dated 29.11.2021, he was compulsorily retired 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 the order, he was posted as Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) at Kaushambi. Petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the High Court on grounds that the material which showed his merit and continuous satisfactory work had been omitted and not considered by the Screening Committee while recommending his compulsory retirement.
Counsel for High Court argued that there was sufficient material existed before the Screening Committee opined that petitioner was “deadwood”.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the adverse remarks made against the petitioner by the Administrative Judge were not challenged by the petitioner beyond filing objections which were rejected. Further, the advisory issued to the petitioner to be careful in future was also not challenged by him and censure entry made against him had also attained finality. The adverse remarks for the year 2018-19 by the District Judge, Chandauli in the confidential roll had also not been interfered by the High Court.
The Court held that it could not go into the correctness of the adverse remarks, advisory issued, vigilance inquiry and censure entry as they were not challenged before it. However, it was held that these materials could be relied on by the Screening Committee for forming an opinion on the petitioner's service.
The Court rejected petitioner's argument that entire service record was not considered by the Screening Committee, as the material was present before the Screening Committee and they were not obligated to refer to the each and every aspect of the service record while recommending petitioner's compulsory retirement.
“Screening Committee specifically noticed the adverse material existing on the service record of the petitioner and on the strength of it alone it came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not suitable to be retained in employment and is liable to be compulsorily retired. The Screening Committee, moreover, was not required to specifically refer to each of the Annual Confidential Reports in favour of the petitioner. What was required to be noticed was the material adverse in the service record of the petitioner so as to recommend his compulsory retirement.”
The Court noted that in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, the Apex Court held that even a single adverse entry which questioned the integrity of the judicial officer was sufficient to compulsorily retire him.
In Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held that
“A person entering the judicial service no doubt has career aspirations including promotions. An order of compulsory retirement undoubtedly affects the career aspirations. Having said so, we must also sound a caution that judicial service is not like any other service. A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter.”
The bench headed by Justice Mishra held that since there was adverse material against the petitioner, he could be compulsorily retired based on the subjective satisfaction of the Screening Committee.
“Law is well settled that sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of the adverse material also cannot be examined when such entries have attained finality.”
Holding that there were no allegations of mala fide against the Screening Committee and the petitioner could not show that no material existed for recommendation of his compulsorily retirement, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 12020 of 2022]