9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the High Court's recommendation for compulsory retirement. 2. Examination of the appellant's service record and character roll entries. 3. Judicial scrutiny of the High Court's administrative decisions. 4. Constitutional provisions and the role of the High Courts in State Judicial Services. 5. Legal principles regarding compulsory retirement and adverse remarks. Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the High Court's Recommendation for Compulsory Retirement The Supreme Court scrutinized the order of compulsory retirement dated 2.8.1997, passed by the State Government on the High Court's recommendation. The Court noted that the High Court's administrative actions should not be whimsical or arbitrary. Despite the High Court's administrative role, its decisions must be subject to judicial review to maintain the independence and majesty of the judiciary. The Court found that the High Court's decision to recommend compulsory retirement was not supported by sufficient material and was arbitrary in nature. 2. Examination of the Appellant's Service Record and Character Roll Entries The appellant's service record showed that he joined the Judicial Service on 15.5.1975 and was promoted to various ranks, ultimately officiating as Addl. District & Sessions Judge from 15.7.1991. The character roll entries by various District Judges and Inspecting Judges of the High Court were mixed, with some positive and some average ratings. Notably, there were no entries for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94, which were recorded "at one go" and categorized as "C" Grade, indicating below average performance. These entries were communicated to the appellant on 29.11.1996, just before the Full Court's decision to retire him on 30.11.1996, without giving him an opportunity to make a representation. 3. Judicial Scrutiny of the High Court's Administrative Decisions The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's administrative decisions, including recommendations for compulsory retirement, must be based on material evidence and not be arbitrary. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah and M.M. Gupta v. State of J&K, which highlighted that the High Court must protect judicial officers from harassment due to trivial complaints and act in a fair and reasonable manner. 4. Constitutional Provisions and the Role of the High Courts in State Judicial Services The Court discussed the constitutional provisions under Articles 233 to 237, which ensure the independence of the subordinate judiciary from the Executive. The High Court has extensive powers and jurisdiction, including control over appointments, postings, promotions, and disciplinary actions of judicial officers. The Governor must consult the High Court for any such actions, and the High Court's advice must be based on thorough deliberation and relevant material. 5. Legal Principles Regarding Compulsory Retirement and Adverse Remarks The Court analyzed the principles laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer Baripada, which stated that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government. The Court noted that adverse remarks should be communicated to the officer, and representations against such remarks should be disposed of promptly. In this case, the adverse remarks for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 were recorded simultaneously and communicated just before the decision to retire the appellant, which was deemed unfair and unreasonable. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's recommendation for compulsory retirement was arbitrary and not supported by material evidence. The entries recorded "at one go" were not considered in the "normal course" and were communicated without giving the appellant a fair chance to represent against them. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 22.7.1998, and quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 02.08.1997, granting all consequential benefits to the appellant.
|
