9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory retirement orders of judicial officers in the State of U.P. 2. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, vis-`a-vis Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. 3. Requirement of Full Court resolution for compulsory retirement under Allahabad High Court Rules. 4. Impact of the Supreme Court's directions in All India Judges Association case on the retirement age of judicial officers. 5. Justifiability of the compulsory retirement orders based on the service records and integrity of the officers. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Validity of the Compulsory Retirement Orders: The appeals challenge the compulsory retirement orders of judicial officers in U.P. The court reiterates that judicial service is not merely employment but involves exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Judges' integrity must be beyond doubt, and the service cannot afford the continuance of persons of doubtful integrity. The evaluation by the High Court Judges' Committee, if affirmed in a writ petition, is generally not interfered with by the Supreme Court unless in exceptional circumstances. II. Applicability of the 1992 Rules vis-`a-vis Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules: The appellants argued that the 1992 Rules, which increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, override Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. The court clarified that Rule 2 of the 1992 Rules provides an overriding effect only to the extent of increasing the retirement age to 60 years, substituting Rule 56(a). However, Rule 56(b) to (e) and the associated explanations remain unaltered. The court cited the decision in A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of T.N. to support that the non obstante clause should be interpreted to the extent intended by the legislature. III. Requirement of Full Court Resolution: The appellants contended that the Full Court's resolution was necessary for compulsory retirement orders. The court referred to the decision in State of U.P. v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi, which held that control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 could be exercised by a smaller committee of judges. The court upheld that the Administrative Committee's recommendation for compulsory retirement was valid and within the framework of Article 235. IV. Impact of Supreme Court's Directions in All India Judges Association Case: The appellants argued that the directions in the All India Judges Association case for scrutinizing service records before allowing judges to continue beyond 58 years were no longer applicable due to the 1992 Rules. The court distinguished the present case from the Sarnam Singh case, stating that the High Court exercised its power under Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules for compulsory retirement, which remains valid despite the increased retirement age. V. Justifiability of Compulsory Retirement Orders: The appellants argued that the compulsory retirement orders were unjustified. The court reiterated principles from Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, stating that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply stigma or misbehavior. It is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, considering the entire service record, with more importance on recent performance. Judicial scrutiny is limited to checking for mala fides, lack of evidence, or arbitrariness. The court found that the High Court's orders were based on relevant material, including service records and reports of doubtful integrity, and were not arbitrary or mala fide. Case-specific Observations: - Civil Appeal No. 2398 of 2001: The appellant had a history of average to poor performance, complaints about integrity, and various inquiries. The Screening Committee found him unsuitable for service beyond 58 years. - Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2001: The appellant faced multiple allegations and inquiries, including misuse of authority and breach of guidelines. The Screening Committee's decision was based on his service record. - Civil Appeal No. 7342 of 2001: The appellant had poor performance records, allegations of misconduct, and failure to comply with transfer orders. The Screening Committee found him unsuitable for continuing in service. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's orders of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction derived from the service records and overall reputation of the judicial officers. The court emphasized the need for regular scrutiny to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial service. The appeals were dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- each.
|
