Can the court set aside the order of Compulsory Retirement if it Was Passed To Circumvent Disciplinary Proceedings?

 Dehors the aforesaid allegations of institutional bias and malice, having perused the material placed on record, we find merit in the other grounds taken by the appellant. It is noticed that though FR 56(j) contemplates that the respondents have an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest and such an order could have been passed against the appellant any time after he had attained the age of fifty years, the respondents did not take any such decision till the very fag end of his career. The impugned order of

compulsory retirement was passed in this case on 27th September, 2019 whereas the appellant was to superannuate in ordinary course in January, 2020. There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents who had till as late as in July, 2019 continued to grade the appellant as ‘Outstanding’ and had assessed his integrity as ‘Beyond doubt’. But in less than three months reckoned therefrom, the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conclusion that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scale of 1 - 10 on 31st July, 2019 it has not been shown as to what had transpired thereafter that made the respondents resort to FR 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire him with just three months of service left for his retirement, in routine. In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public. {Para 39}

40. In view of the above discussion, it is deemed appropriate to reverse the impugned judgment dated 31st May, 2022 and quash and set aside the order dated 27th September, 2019 passed by the respondents, compulsorily retiring the appellant. Resultantly, the adverse consequences if any, flowing from the said order of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant, are also set aside. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6161 OF 2022;

CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Coram: A.S. BOPANNA; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. 

Author: HIMA KOHLI, J.

Dated:  MARCH 03, 2023 

Print Page

Whether Compulsory Retirement Warrants Reduction In Pension/ Gratuity To Be Decided At Time Of Imposing Punishment?

 It is trite law that pension is a legal right available to an

employee on the basis of long years of service rendered by him and the said right can be taken away only after following due procedure. It is pertinent to note that even in a case where an employee is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, compassionate allowances amounting to 2/3rd of the pension can be granted in special circumstances. Further, Rule 6(c) provides that where a person, who has been granted pension on compassionate retirement dies, and his family is entitled to a family pension under Section 7 of Part III KSR. {Para 10}

11. On a close reading of the provisions of the KSEB Employees

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, I notice that orders

adverse to the interest of an employee are liable to be passed after

conduct of a due enquiry as provided in the said Regulations. Rule

6(a) of Part III, KSR provides that pension and death-cum-retirement

gratuity admissible to the employee on the date of such retirement is

liable to be granted to an employee by the competent authority

provided that the authority imposing the penalty may order reduction

if the circumstances of any particular case warrant such reduction.

Therefore, the question whether a particular case where compulsory

retirement is imposed warrants reduction in pension or gratuity or both

is to be specifically considered by the authority imposing the

punishment. According to me, it appears that such consideration

whether the penalty should result in any reduction in pension or

DCRG is a decision which has to be taken by the authority at the time of imposition of penalty itself. If not, the entire exercise of

appreciation of the factors which lead to the imposition of the penalty will have to be redone at a later point in time which, according to me, would be impermissible since that would amount to a re-appreciation of the facts involved and therefore to double jeopardy.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 9290 OF 2021

A.G.DINESH  Vs THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

PRESENT

 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

Dated this the 26th day of September, 2022

Print Page

When the high court should not consider a complaint against Judicial Officer in his transfer, promotion and compulsory retirement?

  In context of the three complaints filed against the appellant, it is important to note that the same were never communicated to the petitioner during his service tenure and that the complaints had been subsequently closed. Moreover, two out of the three complaints were closed prior to the meeting of the Higher Judicial Committee and therefore, could not have been the basis of the decision of the Committee. Additionally, in so far as the complaint dated 20.10.2015 (bearing No. R/V/JP/PIN/118/2015) is concerned, it is neither supported by any affidavit nor has any address been provided in it and importantly, was also closed by the respondent prior to the appellant’s discharge order. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the Standing Order No. 03./S.O./2015 dated 10.06.2015 which directed that:

“The complaint making allegations against members of the subordinate judiciary in the states should not be entertained and no action should be taken thereon, unless it is accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit and verifiable material to substantiate the allegations made therein

……..

……..

……..

The entry of the complaint in the pre-institution register for inward number will not be treated as pendency of Vigilance matter against the Judicial Officer and will not be taken into consideration against the Judicial Officer in any service matter including transfer, promotion and for compulsory retirement.”

(emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the record clearly showcases that no verifiable complaint was filed against the appellant that could form the basis of the disciplinary proceeding against him. {Para 55}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2022

 ABHAY JAIN Vs THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Error of judgment committed by Judicial officer does not amount to misconduct

It is a disturbing trend nowadays that Judicial Officers are made

scapegoats and penalized whether by inconvenient transfers or otherwise,

whenever there are agitations/ demonstrations against the Judicial Officers

whether by Advocates or others, irrespective of the extent of the fault or

responsibility of the Judicial Officers concerned. In this case, it is patently clear

that action against the Judicial Magistrate had been prompted by the agitation

of Railway employees and disruption of services. No one examined whether

there was any justification for the disruption of services by the Railway

employees for requiring information from two of them or for the detention of a

third employee, a rank outsider to the investigation by the Railway Magistrate,

for hurling abuses at the Magistrate in open Court and threatening him.

It is well settled that an error of judgment does not per se constitute misconduct.

If the Railway Magistrate had acted bona fide but exercised his

powers erroneously based on his perception of the powers of a Judicial Railway

Magistrate, he could not have been held to have committed mis-conduct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24840/2019

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA  Vs MINTU MALLICK 

Dated:NOVEMBER 15, 2019

Print Page

Whether Judicial officer who is compulsorily retired is entitled to get compensation?

A bare perusal of these two paragraphs clearly shows
that the Division Bench of the High Court itself was
aware that no case for imposing punishment was made out.
It appears that the High Court was of the view that since
the present appellant had already been out of job for
eight years and he was aged about 53 years, he should not
be brought back in service after such a long time. We are
not inclined to agree with this view of the High Court.
Once the High Court held that the charges had not been
proved against the appellant, who was a judicial officer,
his honour and dignity required that he should be brought
back into the service. We hold that the appellant has not
committed any act unbecoming of a judicial officer.
Unfortunately, we cannot do so because now he has already
passed the age of superannuation. Therefore, the only
issue is how should the relief be molded? Should he be
granted the entire back-wages with interest or can one
lump-sum amount be granted as compensation?
We are of the considered view that since the
appellant has not worked during all these years and this
will lead to another round of litigation to decide what

he was earning during this period, in lieu of awarding
him back-wages, we direct that a lump-sum amount of Rs.20
lakhs be paid to the appellant. This amount to be paid
within six months from today, failing which it shall
carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4514 OF 2010

YOGESH M. VYAS Vs  REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Dated:September 03, 2019

Print Page

High court reinstate compulsory retired Magistrate and imposes costs on high court administration

 Indeed, the handling of the matter by the High Court may have left the
appellant both bemused and betrayed. A possible union leader, P. K. Singh, led a
group of indisciplined railway employees to chant slogans against the Railway
Magistrate for the Railway Magistrate’s grievous fault of trying to correct what he
perceived was a wrong to the public. The disruption of train services appears to
have been after P. K. Singh was detained. P. K. Singh had been detained for his
unruly behaviour in the Railway Magistrate’s court for which separate
proceedings were instituted and neither charge brought against the appellant
referred to such matter. Rather than the judicial officer being protected by the
High Court against the act of insult and intimidation faced by him in the Railway
Magistrate’s court by unruly railway employees, it was the Railway Magistrate
who was pushed to the dock to suffer for wanting to remedy a public wrong. At
any rate, the appellant may have acted in error or in excess of the authority that
he perceived to possess but even the preliminary report said that it did not find
that the appellant acted in bad faith or with any malicious intention. The
preliminary report expressly said so. The inquiry report endorsed the preliminary
report. Even the disciplinary authority did not expressly find the appellant to
have acted in bad faith or with any malice.
69. In the light of the above, the order of the disciplinary committee finding the
appellant guilty of the charges brought against him cannot be sustained. As a
consequence, the punishment inflicted on the appellant, which is otherwise
found to be disproportionate and shocking even if the guilt was established, is set
aside. The decision of the appellate authority is quashed. The judgment and
order impugned dated July 14, 2017 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed
to such extent.
70. The appellant is to be reinstated in service immediately and the appellant
should be considered to have been in continuous service without any break. The
appellant will be entitled to all benefits and promotion as if no disciplinary
proceedings had been initiated against the appellant, save the full complement of
his salary. The appellant will be paid 75 per cent of the salary that he would have
earned had he remained in service, since it does not appear that the appellant
had taken up any alternative work in the interregnum. Though the appellant did
not render any service, his punishment was unjustified and, at any rate, grossly
disproportionate to the conduct complained of. The appellant appears to have
used some of the time to obtain a Master’s degree.
71. The court appreciates the erudite and impartial assistance rendered by
learned Advocate-General in the matter.
72. FMA 26 of 2019 is allowed as above with costs assessed at Rs.1 lakh to be
paid by the High Court to the appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
 JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
And
 JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
FMA 26 of 2019

MINTU MALLICK Vs  HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND OTHERS

Date: July 4, 2019.
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : –

Print Page

Whether government servant can be denied pension if he is compulsorily retired?

In the present case, the qualifying service for getting the pension is of 10 years' duration, as prescribed under Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations. The right to get the pension accrues as soon as an employee completes 10 years of his service. It cannot be denied to him unless it is shown that he is either disqualified for getting the pension or the past service rendered by him is forfeited under any of the statutory provisions. Under the service jurisprudence, normally an employee, who is terminated, dismissed or removed from service by way of punishment, is disqualified for getting the pension. On tendering resignation upon rendering qualifying service, an employee incurs forfeiture of his past service. The voluntary retirement, after rendering qualified service, or compulsory retirement, would not result either in disqualification for getting the pension or forfeiture of the past service rendered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2017

Decided On: 21.09.2018

 Vandana Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Deshpande and Arun D. Upadhye, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 197

Print Page

Whether a government servant can be compulsorily retired on ground that FIR is registered against him?

 The facts in the present case are eloquent. The petitioner has appended with the writ petition ‘Annual Performance Reports’ wherein and whereunder his achievements, have been judged/evaluated from time to time by his superiors. For the periods 2005/06, 2006/07 & 2007, 08, the petitioner has been rated as an official whose work has been Excellent/Good/satisfactory. Annexure (C) attached to the petition is a communication of the Deputy General Manager, JKPCC Ltd., Kashmir, addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Administration, JKPCC Ltd., Jammu, which reveals that the APRs of the petitioner, as these relate to the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, along with the Integrity Certificate, have been forwarded to the addressee for necessary action at his end.

22. The aforementioned Annual Performance Reports have been shelved. These have escaped the scrutiny of the Committee. It appears to have been done with an ultimate aim of showing the petitioner the exit and, had these reports been considered, the conclusion would have been otherwise. The enunciation of law, signifies that registration of FIR or pendency of criminal case(s), cannot form the edifice for retirement of an employee compulsorily when his APR entries are good and integrity is portrayed in the APRs as satisfactory not to mention as excellent. 

In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar

(Before M.K. Hanjura, J.)

Mohammad Shafi Shah

v.

Comm. Sectt. PWD & Ors.

Case No: SWP 1379/2015

Decided on March 1, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 138

Print Page

How to ascertain reputation of Government servant for purpose of compulsory retirement?

On Reputation

31. Counsel for the appellant urged that the recommendations of the Committee were not based only upon the fact that an FIR had been registered against the respondent but apart from that the committee took into consideration the fact that the petitioner didn't enjoy good reputation and his integrity was doubtful.

32. It was stated that with a view to get information regarding the reputation which an officer, in this case the petitioner enjoyed, the concerned secretary of the Administrative Department had been co-opted as a member of the committee whose views were given due respect and weightage while making the recommendation.

33. While the committee can always assess the integrity of a government servant and consider the reputation which he enjoys yet for assessing the same, there has to be some basis in the service records. Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning the integrity of a person ought not to be considered for the same may be baseless or attributed for malafide purposes. Even for purposes of assessing the reputation of a government servant, the material must be cogent, the same must be in the shape of record which must then be considered in the correct perspective. Opinion regarding doubtful integrity and questionable reputation must emanate from an officer who has had an opportunity to see the work and conduct of the officer from a close quarter on a day to day basis. Relying upon opinion of a Secretary of the Administrative Department who might not have any first hand information and experience of having seen and worked with the officer concerned would be both risky and uncalled for and would give credence to the saying “give a dog a bad name and kill it”.

34. In the present case, the Committee has not discussed as to what was the source or material based upon which the petitioner was said to be not enjoying good reputation. If that be so, the order of pre mature retirement based upon any such assessment can only be said to be arbitrary and thus cannot be upheld on the legal touchstone.
In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu

(Before Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, JJ.)

State of J&K & ors.v.Krishan Lal

LPASW No. 154/2017

MP No. 1/2017

Decided on December 12, 2017.
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 731

Print Page

Whether a person below 18 years of age can be appointed as government servant?

For the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions of reference, as follows:-

(i) In view of the specific provision in Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, providing the age of compulsory retirement as 60 years (now), a regular Government servant holding the post in substantive capacity, even if appointed prior to the age of 18 years, cannot be superannuated before actually attaining the age of 60 years according to his date of birth recorded in his service records, irrespective of his length of service, treating his age to be 18 years on the date of his appointment.

(ii) In absence of any provision in the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, prohibiting the appointment of a Government servant prior to the age of 18 years, the appointment of a person prior to attaining the age of 18 years, cannot be said to be against Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875.

(iii) Jharkhand Service Code, being a complete Code in itself, and Rule 73 thereof being specific and unambiguous in its terms, there is no scope of taking help of any other law or rule for drawing any inference that the intention of the Legislature was to allow only 40 years (or 42 years now) of service, as the maximum period of service, to which a Government servant can be allowed to continue in Government service. Accordingly, even if a person enters into the service prior to the age of 18 years, he shall be entitled to continue in service, until he actually attains the age of 60 years as per his date of birth recorded in his service records, which is the prescribed age of compulsory retirement from service, irrespective of his length of service.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 262 of 2011

Decided On: 08.05.2017

 The State of Jharkhand and Ors.Vs.Arun Kumar Dhar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harish Chandra Mishra, Aparesh Kumar Singh and Dr. S.N. Pathak, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 JHARKHAND 126 (FB)

Print Page

When Judicial officer should not be compulsorily retired without departmental enquiry?

By the impugned judgment under appeal, the High Court opined that the compulsory retirement order impugned before it was not sustainable. Hence the appeal. During the pendency of the matter, on two earlier occasions, this Court passed two orders dated 1.12.2016 and 8.12.2016. The substance of the said orders is that the appellant submitted before this Court that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the first respondent, therefore, the continuation of the respondent's service will not be in the larger public interest and the judiciary. In the context of the submissions made by the appellant, this Court by the above mentioned orders called upon the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the statements made at the bar. Such affidavit alongwith huge volume of the material in support of the affidavit is filed. 2 It all boils down to this that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the first respondent. If that is the case, the appellant is always at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent which action according to us, the High Court is duty bound to take. If the officer whose conduct is questionable warranting his removal or compulsory retirement from the service, such an officer cannot simply be sent home with all the retiral benefits. But at the same time, if an officer is to be retired on the ground that his conduct is unwholesome, he is entitled to claim that the due process of law be followed.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8665 OF 2015 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 
VERSUS 
AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
Dated:JANUARY 12, 2017.
Citation:(2017) 5 SCC 138 

Print Page

What are basic principle for compulsory retirement of Judicial officer?

It is indeed settled by this time that the order of
compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it implies no stigma-
nor any suggestion of misbehavior and is based on subjective
satisfaction of the authority and this principle has been
consistently followed by the Apex Court that while considering
the case of an Officer as to whether he should be continued in
service or compulsorily retired, his entire record of service upto
that date on which consideration is made has to be taken into
account while taking decision of compulsory retirement, of
course, attaching more importance of service record of last 5-10
years but the evaluation has to be made on the basis of entire
service record and even if one has been promoted that will not
wipe out the earlier adverse entry, if any, and even one solitary
adverse entry in the record of service regarding honesty &
integrity would be considered to be sufficient in taking a decision
of compulsory retirement.
More so, in Judicial service which cannot be considered to
be a service in the sense of employment and the Judicial Officers
discharge their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial
power of the State. There is no manner of doubt that the nature
of Judicial service is such which cannot afford to suffer
continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or those
who have lost their utility & integrity. The honesty and integrity
of an Officer is always expected to be beyond doubt, should also
be reflected in his overall reputation. In the case of Baikuntha
Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer,
Baripada & Anr. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 the Apex
Court has laid down certain guidelines & the scope of judicial
review to be kept in mind by the courts while examining the
order of compulsory retirement and that include malafides, even
if the order is based on no evidence or if the order is arbitrary in
the sense that no reasonable person with ordinary prudence
would form the requisite opinion on the given material, if it is
found to be a perverse order. The Apex Court, thus, held ad
infra:-
“(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no
stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion
that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily.
The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of
compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded
altogether. While the High Court or the Court would not examine the matter
as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is
passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is
arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite
opinion on the given material: in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall
have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the
matter- of course attaching more importance to record of and performance
during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally
include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both
favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher
post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks loose their sting,
more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon
seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court
merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse
remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself
cannot be a basis for interference”.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
(1) D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION (CW) No. 12015 of 2010
Petitioner:
Gavendra Singh Chauhan 
VERSUS
Respondent:
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Law, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jodhpur through
its Registrar General.

Date of Judgment : 22nd August, 2016.
HON'BLE MR.AJAY RASTOGI,J.
HON'BLE MR.JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J.

Print Page

Duties of board of directors while making decision of retirement/compulsory retirement of employee of company

In pursuance to the directions of the Single Bench, record pertaining to the retirement/compulsory retirement was produced by the counsel for the appellant bank wherein it was evident that the impugned orders had been passed by the Board of Directors on the advise of the Legal Advisers and the Banking Experts. In terms of Rule 15, it was incumbent upon the Board of Directors to have independently applied their mind and taken decision based on specific grounds. The specific grounds which have been spelt out in Rule 15 include doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties which would have the effect of the employees losing their utility.        It was, therefore, necessary for the Board of Directors to have independently considered the entire service record of the employees so as to form opinion with regard to their utility to the Bank. The requirement of recording specific grounds to arrive at the decision in the rules is intended to ensure that the Board of Directors does not act arbitrarily while compulsorily retiring the employees. There does not seem to be any independent and due application of mind on the part of the Board of Directors while arriving at the decision which has the effect of bringing the services of the employees to a premature end. The function which had been entrusted upon the Board of Directors by the rule could not have been outsourced to the legal advisers. 
The Single Bench has also held that the record which had been produced had not been contemporaneously maintained inasmuch as that the proceedings of the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 31.03.2010 was not made available and instead only an office note dated 31.03.2010 had been produced. This office note refers to the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 22.03.2010 wherein it was decided to compulsorily retire the officials. The proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 22.03.2010 indicate that the decision had been arrived in view of the earlier meetings held on 24.02.2010 and 10.03.2010. However, in the proceedings of the meetings held on 24.02.2010 and 10.03.2010 there is no mention of any consideration of the matter as contemplated under Rule 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2006 regarding superannuation and retirement/ compulsory retirement of the officials. 
It has also been held by the Single Bench that the record which had been produced included the attendance register of the meetings of the Board of Directors from 01.07.2009 onwards as well as the register containing details of the proceedings of the Board of Directors from 01.07.2009 to 27.04.2011 which were serially paginated. However, the office note dated 31.03.2010 and the report on the analysis of the service record of the employees alongwith annexures had been prepared in separate sheets. Even in the legal opinion which had been tendered by the legal Advisers, there was no mention of any reference number and date of any document in response to which the legal opinion had been furnished. It has been held that these documents along with the fact sheet reflecting consideration of the service record of the respondents by the committee of four senior and experienced staff and banking expert (on contract) which examined the individual records of the employees on 20th March appear to be documents which were subsequently generated to fill the lacuna. Therefore, the Single Bench has expressed serious doubts about the contemporaneity of the record. We find that there is no basis for us to take a different view in the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

(1) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.529/2015
Rajasthan Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Katewa & Ors.


Date of Judgment : 12th January, 2016

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.AJIT SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL



Reportable

Print Page

When Judicial officer can be compulsorily retired in public interest?

When even verbal repeated complaints are
received against a judicial officer or on enquiries,
discreet or otherwise, the general impression
created in the minds of those making inquiries or
the Full Court is that concerned judicial officer
does not carry good reputation, such discreet
inquiry and or verbal repeated complaints would
constitute material on the basis of which ACR
indicating that the integrity of the officer is
doubtful can be recorded. While undertaking
judicial review, the Court in an appropriate case
may still quash the decision of the Full Court on
administrative side if it is found that there is no
basis or material on which the ACR of the judicial
officer was recorded, but while undertaking this
exercise of judicial review and trying to find out
whether there is any material on record or not, it
is the duty of the Court to keep in mind the nature
of function being discharged by the judicial officer,
the delicate nature of the exercise to be performed
by the High Court on administrative side while
recording the ACR and the mechanism/system
adopted in recording such ACR.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2013
Smt.Shraddha Vinod Deo. ..
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and another. 
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND
B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 8th October 2014.
Citation;2015(1) MHLJ 62

Print Page

Whether theory of washed off adverse remark is applicable to compulsory retirement?

“In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that

in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of

this Court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed.

More so, the washed off theory does not have universal

application. It may have relevance while considering the case of

government servant for further promotion but not in a case

where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing

Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service

or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the

Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration

his "entire service record".

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8245/2013

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17760 OF 2013)

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Ors.

V

Babu Lal Jangir

Print Page