Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1198 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-06-30

AJIT SINGH, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble GREWAL, J.—The petitioner was selected as a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service in 1986. He was promoted on the post of Civil Judge (SD) on 7.7.1997. He was compulsorily retired in public interest under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Old)/Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, vide order dated 9.11.2000. This order is impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire service record of the petitioner was satisfactory, which does not justify his compulsory retirement. He had also been promoted and although there were adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports earlier, there was definite improvement in his work and conduct towards the later part of his career and hence the impugned order could not have been passed. 3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the entire service record of the petitioner was considered which justified the impugned order. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the service record of the petitioner indicates that in the year 1990 an adverse entry was made against him which reads as “not only the disposal was low but also he was discourteous in addressing his superiors”. Against this adverse entry his representation was rejected. In 1991 he was assessed as “below average officer”. Representation against this adverse entry was considered and rejected. He had also filed writ petition No.2031/1994 against the rejection of his representations, which was also dismissed. Two enquiries are also stated to be pending against the petitioner. Selection Grade was withheld from him in 1996 and granted to him only when he was proted on 7.7.1997. The case of the petitioner was considered by a Committee of five Judges, which after due deliberations recommended his compulsory retirement. 6. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material on record which warranted the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The factum of the petitioner having been promoted subsequent to the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports, is of no consequence as the entire service record of the officer can be taken into account while passing order of compulsory retirement. Even a single adverse entry may form the basis of compulsory retirement of an employee. The factum of the petitioner having been promoted subsequent to the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports, is of no consequence as the entire service record of the officer can be taken into account while passing order of compulsory retirement. Even a single adverse entry may form the basis of compulsory retirement of an employee. As there was ample material on record before the Committee for passing the impugned order, it cannot in any manner be held to be arbitrary or illegal warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 7. Judicial review in cases of compulsory retirement is extremely limited and confined to cases smacking of arbitrariness and violation of statutory rules. Reference may be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) & Others ( 2011 (10) SCC 1 ), wherein it has been held thus:- “218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of this Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things, it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some real injustice, which ought not to have taken place, has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court.” It is also well settled that order of compulsory retirement is neither stigmatic nor punitive and in case Government acts bona fide, its action cannot be faulted. We draw support from the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. vs. Babu Lal Jangir ( AIR 2014 SC 142 ) wherein it has been held as under :- “28. We draw support from the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. vs. Babu Lal Jangir ( AIR 2014 SC 142 ) wherein it has been held as under :- “28. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non application of mind, mala fide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily, the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.” It is noteworthy that judicial officers are required to maintain higher standard of conduct than other officers. It would, thus, subserve the public interest if judicial officers like the petitioner who do not have satisfactory record are weeded out through compulsory retirement. On the contrary, retaining such judicial officers would in fact, be detrimental to public interest and can also lead to lack of faith of the public in the justice delivery system. Reference can be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.C. Chandel vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh ( (2012) 8 SCC 58 ) wherein it has been held as under :- “29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by an consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by an consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.” 8. In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner which is in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.