ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & Anr.

2.2. There is also another allegation that he had physically hurt a washerman by placing a hot iron on the head of the washerman who had allegedly not ironed his clothes properly. The Principal District Judge had reported to the High Court that the victim had personally approached him immediately after the occurrence and he (the Principal District Judge) found that the victim had sustained burn injuries and he got the victim treated. It is true that the petitioner was exonerated by the successor judicial officer before whom the complainant denied having suffered any injury, but the successor Principal District Judge did not even care to examine his predecessor Principal District Judge, who had not only been approached personally by the washerman, but who had himself noted the burn injuries and had got the victim treated. Therefore, the Screening Committee was right that the victim may have been put under some pressure to withdraw his complaint. [Para 19][1032-C-E]

2.3 The aforementioned two instances are sufficient to decide the case against the petitioner. As regards the plea that the Screening Committee had only taken the entries from 1992- 1993 to 2004-2005 and had ignored the entries from 2005-2006 to 2016-2017, it has been explained by counsel for the High Court that all the ACRs were before the Screening Committee but in the order it is only the adverse entries which have been noted. Even if these adverse entries are ignored, the petitioner cannot be granted relief for the reasons aforesaid. [Para 20][1032-F-G]

#3. So far as the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) NO. 391 of 2018 is concerned, his record on many counts is not at all good. His reputation and integrity have been doubted more than once in the years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 2004-2005. Some adverse remarks have been conveyed to him. In the year 2015-2016, even A B C D E F G H 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. his knowledge of law and procedure is found to be average and his relation with the members of the Bar was found not very good. There are also allegations against him of having granted bail for illegal gratification and substance has been found in this allegation in the report of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (who is equivalent to the Principal District Judge). The petitioner had granted bail by noting in the order that Section 327 of the Penal Code, 1860 was bailable whereas the offence is non-bailable and an unrecorded warning regarding the integrity of the judicial officer was issued to him in 2012. [Para 21][1032-H; 1033-A-C]

#4. Adverse entries with regard to integrity do not lose their sting at any stage. A judicial officer’s integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. [Para 22][1033-C-D]

#5. In the present cases, the matter has been considered by the Screening Committee on two occasions and the recommendations of the Screening Committee have been accepted by the Standing Committee on both occasions. The action taken is not by one officer or Judge, it is a collective decision, first by the Screening Committee and then approved by the Standing Committee. Senior judges of the High Court who were the members of the Screening Committee and Standing Committee have taken a considered and well-reasoned decision. Unless there are allegations of mala fides or the facts are so glaring that the decision of compulsory retirement is unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of judicial review. In such matters the court on the judicial side must exercise restraint before setting aside the decision of such collective bodies comprising of senior High Court Judges. [Paras 22 & 23][1033-D-F] Case Law Reference [1971] 1 SCR 791 relied on [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 293 relied on [1992] 1 SCR 836 relied on [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674 relied on Para 5 Para 5 Para 6 Para 7 A B C D E F G H ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1019 [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 114 relied on [2010] 11 SCR 216 [2011] 12 SCR 496 [2012] 7 SCR 205 [2013] 11 SCR 159 [2014] 4 SCR 541 [1982] 3 SCR 75 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 8 Para 9 Para 10 Para 11 Para 12 Para 13 Para 14 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 2018. [Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India] With Writ Petition (C) No. 391 of 2018. Alakh Alok Srivastava, Ranjan Kumar Rai, S. S. Jauhar, Sankalp Tiwari, Nilesh Tiwari, Amit Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioner. Sunil Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Parth Shekhar, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

#1. These writ petitions have been filed by two erstwhile judicial officers who were members of the judicial service in the State of Jharkhand and are directed against the orders whereby they have been compulsorily retired. In respect of the two writ petitions which are the subject matter of this judgment, this Court passed the following order on 06.09.2018: “Writ Petition Nos. 190/2018 and 391/2018 shall remain pending. The High Court of Jharkhand may like to reconsider the matter in the light of the entirety of the materials that have been placed before us at the hearing by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court and also by the learned counsel for the High Court. We make it clear that the High Court is free to decide the matter as may be considered appropriate and that we have A B C D E F G H 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H expressed no opinion on merits at this stage. The High Court of Jharkhand would be free to support its conclusions in terms of the present order with adequate reasons. The decision of the High Court in accordance with this order be laid before us at the end of two months from today. List the matters after two months.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matters were placed before the Screening Committee of the High Court of Jharkhand and the Screening Committee on 11.10.2018 again found sufficient reasons and approved the earlier action taken to compulsorily retire these officers. The resolution of the Screening Committee was placed before the Standing Committee of the Jharkhand High Court, which approved the resolution of the screening committee on 25.10.2018.

#2. Challenge is laid in both these writ petitions to the orders of compulsory retirement and especially to the reasons assigned or the material ignored by the Screening Committee. The orders of compulsory retirement have been passed in terms of the Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which reads as follows: “(ii)The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant atleast three month’s previous notice in writing, or an equal amount to three month’s pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest to retire from the service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice” The aforesaid rule is parimateria to Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.

#3. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are that their retirement is not in the pubic interest: their entire service record especially the contemporaneous record has not been taken into consideration and also that the petitioners have been granted various promotions which would have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if any.

#4. While deciding the present case we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with the cases of judicial officers. The standard of integrity and probity expected from judicial officers is much higher than ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 1021 that expected from other officers. Keeping these factors in mind we shall first discuss the law on the subject and then take up these two cases on merits. Principles Governing Compulsory Retirement

#5. This Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha1 held that compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences. It also dealt with the issue of what constitutes public interest. The following observations are apposite: “9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j) it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the Government on the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent’s service is that the Government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56(j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the Government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular 1 (1970) 2 SCC 458 A B C D E F G H 1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in Government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest.

#11. In our opinion the High Court erred in thinking that the compulsory retirement involves civil consequences. Such a retirement does not take away any of the rights that have accrued to the Government servant because of his past service. It cannot be said that if the retiring age of all or a section of the Government servants is fixed at 50 years, the same would involve civil consequences. Under the existing system there is no uniform retirement age for all Government servants. The retirement age is fixed not merely on the basis of the interest of the Government servant but also depending on the requirements of the society.” (emphasis supplied) This judgment was followed in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah2, wherein this Court dealt with the concept of public interest in great detail.

#6. A three-Judge Bench inBaikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer3 dealing with the concept of compulsory retirement laid down the following principles: