2012 (2) TMI 727 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in passing the order dated 21.4.1998 in reverting the Appellant from the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate to the rank of Munsif (Civil Judge, Junior Division).
2. Whether the High Court was justified in passing the order of compulsorily retiring the Appellant from service in public interest.

Summary:

Issue 1: Reversion from Chief Judicial Magistrate to Munsif

The High Court's order of reversion was challenged on the grounds of arbitrariness and contrary to service law norms. The Appellant argued that the High Court, having accepted his explanation to the Show Cause Notice, could not have initiated departmental proceedings again, amounting to double jeopardy. The High Court contended that the explanation was accepted only for the impertinent language used, not for the allegations of granting bail indiscriminately. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, after accepting the explanations and communicating the same to the Appellant, could not have proceeded to initiate departmental proceedings and revert the Appellant. The Court held that a second enquiry on the same charges, which had been dropped earlier, was unjustified. Therefore, the order of reversion was not sustained.

Issue 2: Compulsory Retirement

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's recommendation for compulsory retirement was justified. The Court reiterated the principles regarding compulsory retirement, emphasizing that it is not a punishment and should be based on the entire service record, attaching more importance to recent performance. The Appellant contended that adverse remarks were never communicated, and the High Court selectively considered ACRs. The Court found discrepancies in the High Court's extracts of ACRs and the actual records, indicating selective consideration. The Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was not based on sufficient or relevant material. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement was not justified. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders, and directed that the Appellant is entitled to all monetary benefits from the date of his notional posting as C.J.M. till his notional retirement on superannuation.