9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the correct date of birth of the petitioner. 2. Legality of the Ministry of Home Affairs' decision regarding the petitioner's retirement. 3. Jurisdiction and duties of the Chief Justice in relation to the petitioner's retirement. 4. Petitioner's right to continue in office and the process for removal of a Judge under the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of the Correct Date of Birth of the Petitioner The core issue revolves around the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth. The petitioner claimed his birth date as December 27, 1904, which would make his retirement date December 27, 1964. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs, relying on the Bihar and Orissa Gazette and records from the UK Civil Service Commission, determined the petitioner's birth date as December 27, 1901, mandating his retirement on December 26, 1961. The Punjab High Court upheld the Ministry's decision, emphasizing that the correct age must be determined according to rules of evidence and not based on the petitioner's assertions or preconceived policies. 2. Legality of the Ministry of Home Affairs' Decision Regarding the Petitioner's Retirement The Ministry of Home Affairs' decision was challenged by the petitioner on grounds of being capricious and based on evidence collected without his knowledge. The Punjab High Court dismissed these contentions, stating that the inquiry was conducted according to law and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case. The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any substantial evidence to rebut the documents relied upon by the Ministry. The High Court found no fault in the Ministry's reliance on the Bihar and Orissa Gazette and the UK Civil Service Commission records. 3. Jurisdiction and Duties of the Chief Justice in Relation to the Petitioner's Retirement The petitioner argued that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court should not have acted on the Ministry of Home Affairs' decision and should have continued to allocate judicial work to him. The court clarified that the Chief Justice's duties regarding the constitution of benches apply to existing judges. It was not within the Chief Justice's purview to independently determine the petitioner's retirement date based on disputed facts. The Chief Justice merely took note of the Ministry's decision, which was an administrative action within the Ministry's jurisdiction. 4. Petitioner's Right to Continue in Office and the Process for Removal of a Judge under the Constitution The petitioner contended that he could not be removed from office except through the procedure outlined in Article 217(1) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which involves an address by each House of Parliament. The Punjab High Court acknowledged this but noted that no formal order of removal was issued; the petitioner was simply informed of his retirement date based on the Ministry's determination of his age. The court indicated that the petitioner could disregard the Ministry's suggestion and continue in office, but this would potentially lead to complications if the Ministry's determination was correct. The court concluded that the Chief Justice's actions were not tantamount to removal but were in compliance with the Ministry's administrative decision. Conclusion The petitioner's application was dismissed, with the court affirming the Ministry of Home Affairs' decision regarding the petitioner's age and subsequent retirement. The Chief Justice's actions were deemed appropriate and within the scope of his duties, and the petitioner was advised to seek remedies against the Ministry if he disputed their determination of his age.
|
