Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 598 (JHR)

Anthony Hansda v. High Court Of Jharkhand

2005-08-10

ALTAMAS KABIR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, C.J. 1. This is one of a series of cases referred to by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal having regard to the fact that the question regarding invocation of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code is involved. 2. In the year 1975, the petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate under the erstwhile State of Bihar and was duly confirmed in service by the respondents No. 3 to 5. During his tenure of service, he was transferred from one place to another and was granted promotion as Sub-Judge on 30th October 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that while posted at Jamui as Munsif he incurred the wrath and displeasure of his colleagues which resulted in various letters being written to the Patna High Court with a view to adversely affect the petitioners service career. In fact, such displeasure was also recorded by the Inspecting Judge of the Patna High Court in the writ petitioners Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989, which was duly communicated to him and was not expunged from his service record despite the petitioners representation. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that after completion of 58 years in the month of May, 2001, upon evaluation of his service career, his services were extended from 58 years to 60 years and after coming into force of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, the writ petitioner was posted at Seraikella on 8th May, 2001 as Sub-Judge-I-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge. While posted at Seraikella, he was served with the order dated 17th July, 2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand informing him that he had been corhpul-sorily retired from service. Aggrieved by the said decision to retire him compulsorily from service despite extension of his services from 58 years to 60 years, the writ petitioner has moved the instant application challenging the decision of his compulsory retirement from service and has prayed that the same be quashed. 4. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Aggrieved by the said decision to retire him compulsorily from service despite extension of his services from 58 years to 60 years, the writ petitioner has moved the instant application challenging the decision of his compulsory retirement from service and has prayed that the same be quashed. 4. Appearing in support of the writ petition, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned counsel, firstly, submitted that the decision taken to invoke the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the petitioners case is completely misconceived and without any basis whatsoever, particularly when the writ petitioner had been found to be a good and meritorious officer, and on the basis of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, , his services were extended from 58 years to 60 years. Mr. Jha submitted that although the petitioner had attained the age of 58 years in May 2001, he was allowed to continue in service on extension and nothing could have happened between May 2001 and July 2001 when he was served with the impugned order invoking the provisions of compulsory retirement as far as the petitioner was concerned. Mr. Jha submitted that there was at least nothing on the record, which could warrant such a decision. 5. Mr. Jha next submitted that even if there had been anything adverse against the writ petitioner prior to the decision taken to extend his services, once such decision was taken, all previous faults and/or inefficiency stood wiped out or extinguished and it was no longer open to the authorities to consider the writ petitioners past record in deciding to invoke the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in this case. Mr. Jha submitted that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the writ petitioner was also entitled to all consequential benefits as a result thereof. 6. Appearing for the High Court, Mr. Majumdar submitted that on a total assessment of the writ petitioners performance during his entire judicial career, it was found by the Jharkhand High Court that the writ petitioner was a judicial officer of ordinary merit and there were certain doubts about his integrity for which he did not enjoy a good reputation. Mr. Appearing for the High Court, Mr. Majumdar submitted that on a total assessment of the writ petitioners performance during his entire judicial career, it was found by the Jharkhand High Court that the writ petitioner was a judicial officer of ordinary merit and there were certain doubts about his integrity for which he did not enjoy a good reputation. Mr. Majumdar pointed out to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court in support of his submission and submitted that notwithstanding the decision taken to extend the petitioners service from 58 years to 60 years, on further assessment, the High Court: did not think it conducive to the public interest and public service to allow the writ petitioner to continue in service. Mr. Majumdar reiterated the submissions made by him in a similar case that the object of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code was not to punish an officer, but to identify and weed out officers, who, in the opinion of the High Court, had ceased to be effective and whose continued employment was not in the public interest. Mr. Majumdar submitted that the facts of the case did not warrant any interference with the decision taken by the High Court to recommend that the petitioner be compulsorily retired from service and the decision of the Government to invoke the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code. 7. As we have observed earlier in the Writ Petition (S) No. 4409 of 2001 filed by Sri Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, ordinarily, the decision to extend a persons service from 58 years to 60 years would indicate that such decision had been taken on an appreciation of the petitioners total service career. 8. In the instant case, however, after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the High Court of Jharkhand had an opportunity of considering the petitioners suitability to be retained in service beyond 58 years. Inasmuch as, the decision to recommend to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service was not a punishment in itself and would not deny the petitioner the benefits of his service, the said decision could not be equated with a punitive action was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner. Inasmuch as, the decision to recommend to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service was not a punishment in itself and would not deny the petitioner the benefits of his service, the said decision could not be equated with a punitive action was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner. In our view, the High Court was well within its authority in making an assessment which was different from that of the Patna High Court for the purpose of weeding out persons, who, according to the Jharkhand High Court, would not continue to render such service as would prove beneficial both for the judicial system and the public. In the totality of the petitioners performance, the Jharkhand High Court had arrived at a subjective satisfaction that even though the petitioners service had been extended from 58 years to 60 years, such decision required re-consideration on the basis of the total performance of the writ petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the State Government to invoke the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code on the recommendation of the Jharkhand High Court. For the reasons aforesaid this application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. R.K. Merathia, J. 10. I agree.