Orissa High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Order Passed Against A Judicial Officer For Being Inefficient

The Orissa High Court last week dismissed a writ plea filed by a Judicial Officer challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed agaisnt him in the year 2012 on account of not possessing the standard efficiency required to discharge the duty of a Judge.

While referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Babulal Jangir (2013) 10 SCC 551, the Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray also observed that a very limited scope of judicial review is available in cases where an order of compulsory retirement is passed.

The case in brief 

The Petitioner was given compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 44 of the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007. As per the said Rule 44 of the OSJS and OJS Rules 2007, the High Court is authorized to retire, in the public interest, any member of the service who has attained the age of 50 years.

Now, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement in the year 2012 after an opinion was formed by the full bench of the High Court of Orissa that the Petitioner does not possess the standard efficiency required to discharge the duty of the post held by him.

Justifying its decision, the Registrar General of the HC argued before the Court that the Petitioner, during his service term as a judicial officer, failed to earn even three consecutive 'Good' ratings and that he was also found unsuitable for promotion and ACP-II scale.

It was further submitted that an overall assessment was made of the performance of the Petitioner during his entire service period and he was found unsuitable for being continued as such and therefore, the impugned compulsory retirement order was passed.

High Court's observations 

The Court, having assessed the overall personal record of the Petitioner, observed that during his service career spanning fourteen years and eight months, he was not able to get a 'good' grading for at least three consecutive years and that he was earlier also let off with a warning to be careful in future. '

The Court also noted that the petitioner was not found suitable either for promotion to the higher post or for getting higher pay in the ACPII scale and that his performance was often rated 'average'.

The Court further took into account the fact that there were allegations against him of his passing indiscriminate orders in particular cases or failing to maintain uniformity or consistency in passing judicial orders. 

Against this backdrop, the Court observed thus:

"The overall assessment of all the materials including the ratings of performance in the CCRs, the nature of allegations, charges in the pending disciplinary proceeding against him, the report of the review committee, his performance on judicial as well as administrative side, his reputation as such during entire service period are among the several factors considered by the authority before recommending his compulsory retirement. An overall consideration of all those factors, tested on the touchstone of the standard of efficiency of the Petitioner as a Judicial Officer reveals that the decision of authority cannot be said to be as mala fide or arbitrary or based on no evidence."

Lastly, stressing that the scope of judicial interference in such matters involving compulsory retirement is very limited, the Court did not find any reason to interfere and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed being without merit.

Case title - Ashok Kumar Agarwala v. Registrar General of Orissa High Court, Cuttack, and others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 4

Click Here To Read/Download Order