“Deadwood Need To Be Removed To Maintain Efficiency In Service”: Allahabad HC Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Additional District Judge

The Allahabad High Court has recently upheld the compulsory retirement of an Additional District Judge who after the approval of the State Government on compulsory retirement was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. It was held that after the order of the State Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the inquiry officer had no jurisdiction to continue the proceedings.

Holding that the orders to compulsorily retire the petitioner were based on his consideration of his entire service records, the bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held,

“Deadwood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest.”

Observing that the compulsory retirement is not a shortcut to avoid departmental inquiry, the Court held that promotions to a judicial officer do not wash away the adverse entries made in the ACRs.

Factual Background

Petitioner was appointed as a Munsif and was later promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2003. Thereafter, he was promoted as Additional District Judge on 16.08.2013. The District Judge, Badaun recorded an adverse finding in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2012-13 and did not certify petitioner's integrity.

Subsequently, a Vigilance Inquiry was set up against the petitioner wherein the allegations made by the District Judge were found to be correct. Accordingly, regular departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The Screening Committee, in 2020, suggested compulsorily retiring the petitioner based on his service records. The Administrative Committee of the High Court in their meetings in 2021 recommended withdrawal of judicial work of the petitioner as also his compulsory retirement to the Full Court.

The Full Court opined that the petitioner ought to be compulsorily retired, the same was approved by the State Government on 29.11.2021. However, the order of compulsory retirement was not communicated to the Inquiry Officer and he proceeded with the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner and the Administrative Committee dropped all charges against him in 2022.

Accordingly, petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Full Court compulsorily retiring him.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not attach any stigma to the person. It was held that such an order is passed by a competent authority and is only passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Sate Government. It was held adherence to principles of natural justice is not required in such cases.

In HC of Judicature, Rajasthan vs. Bhanwar Lal Lamror & Ors, the Supreme Court held that order for compulsorily retirement can be interfered by the High Court on judicial side, if it found that the there was no basis of such decision by the Administrative Committee or that the material against the retirement was present before the Committee and the same was not considered or disregarded.

The Apex Court had also held that a solitary remark on lack or breach of integrity was sufficient to compulsory retire a Judicial Officer. Further, it was held that the High Court, on the judicial side, cannot substitute its own view on the satisfaction arrived at by the Full Court and that the High Court cannot re-write the Annual Confidentiality Report.

The bench headed by Justice Roy relied on the earlier decision of the Allahabad High Court in Arun Kumar Saxena vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Thru. R.G. and Another, where it was held that the adverse entries by the District Judge cannot be reversed for insufficiency of material. It was held that oral complaints are made to the District Judge, which may have been taken into account while granting an adverse entry. It was also held that exoneration by inquiry officer will not wipe out the adverse remarks by a superior office and the same will be considered at the time of evaluating the integrity of the Judicial Officer.

The Court observed that the entire service records of the petitioner were available before the original Screening Committee and had been considered by them while recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

While perusing the records, the Court pointed out other instances where integrity of the petitioner had been marked as lacking. One instance were warning had been issued to the petitioner was when he had referred to himself as a VIP level officer in several communications. At other times, petitioner was found passing orders against the settled position of law. It was observed that the petitioner was not maintaining proper records of listing of cases and Presiding Officer's diary.

It was observed that the private character of the petitioner was also not appreciated in as much as in the opinion the District Judge, “it brought down the image of administration of justice.”

The Court noted that after considering the entire records, the Screening Committee had opined that “the petitioner was a deadwood and had outlived its utility requiring his compulsory retirement in public interest in terms of F.R.56(C).”

The Court held that once the order of compulsorily retirement of the petitioner was passed by the State Government, the master servant relation has ended and the inquiry proceedings stood abated. It was held that the proceedings could have only continued for under Civil Services Regulation 351A for decisions regarding pension.

The Court held that the exoneration of the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer was without any jurisdiction. It was held that the allegations of bias were unsustainable as the District Judge who had awarded the adverse entry was not a part of the disciplinary proceedings and the proceedings before the High Court on the administrative side.

Observing that a single adverse remark is sufficient for compulsory retirement, the Court held that

“In this case, there is sufficient material to sustain the order of compulsory retirement and also subjective satisfaction arrived at in this regard.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Niyukti Anubhag- 4,Lko.And Another [WRIT - A No. - 1382 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order