Jharkhand High Court
Umesha Nand Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 22 January, 2020
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7444 of 2017
Umesha Nand Mishra, son of Late Kunj Bihari Mishra, resident of Village
Bali, P.O. Alawalpur, P.S. Gourichak, District Patna (Bihar).
....... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand.
2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand.
3.The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi through its Registrar General.
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Diwakar Jha, A.C to S.C-IV.
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
-----------
Oral Judgment:
Order No.16/Dated: 22nd January, 2020
1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia therein the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No.8987 dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure-10) communicated vide memo no.8991 whereby and whereunder the Respondent State has compulsorily retired the petitioner in the most arbitrary and whimsical manner.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to the post of District and Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, with dignity and respect along with all the monetary benefit.
2. The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which requires to be referred herein for consideration of the issue agitated by the writ petitioner reads hereunder as:
2
The petitioner joined the services on 12.12.1995 in the erstwhile State of Bihar and served at different places. After reorganization of the State, was finally allocated to the cadre of the State of Jharkhand as Judicial Magistrate and thereafter he discharged his duties in different capacity at different places. The petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Sub Judge on 02.04.2012, subsequently to the post of District and Additional Sessions Judge vide notification dated 05.06.2014. The petitioner since discharged his judicial services for about 21 years and 8 months and during the aforesaid period there are no adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Record (ACR) and never any adverse entry has been communicated to him rather his ACR reflects that his services are satisfactory and maintaining the higher ranks in judiciary. The petitioner along with other 11 judicial officers were compulsorily retired on the basis of ACR and Vigilance report vide order dated 11.09.2017 which according to the writ petitioner is not justified since no adverse entry has been made in the ACR or communicated at any time.
3. The writ petition has been heard and on being called upon the respondent no.3, the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court who has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, therein the stand has been taken that a list of 130 judicial officers who come under the purview of the age of 50-55 years (57 officers), 55-58 years (44 officers) and 58-60 years (29 officers) as on 30.06.2017 was placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, whereupon vide minutes dated 12.07.2017, the matter has been referred before the Screening Committee for consideration. The name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No.38 among the list of 44 officers under the age group of 55-58 years.
The Screening Committee considered the entire service records, ACR, overall performance and Vigilance report and on careful consideration of service record of each and every judicial officers, it was resolved vide 3 minutes dated 03.08.2017 that the services of 12 judicial officers including the petitioner are not required to be continued and they be retired from their services compulsorily under Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 03.08.2017 was placed before the Acting Chief Justice, whereupon the matter was transferred upon the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee of the High Court after considering the recommendations/reports of the Screening Committee including the service records, Vigilance files and entries made in the ACRs and after consideration of each and individual case, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 8(1) (ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, resolved to accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 03.08.2017 and accordingly, 12 judicial officers including the petitioner were recommended for compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b)
(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, in public interest.
The State of Jharkhand has acted in pursuance to the recommendation of the Standing Committee, as requested by this Court vide letter no.09.08.2017 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for issuance of appropriate notification and in terms thereof the order for compulsory retirement has been issued. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the suitability of the officers who have completed 30 years of qualifying service or have attained 50 years of age in service is to be considered. It has further been stated by taking reference of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule, which confers power upon the authority in public interest conferring absolute right to retire any Government Servants by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three 4 months' pay and allowance in lieu of such notice once he attains the age of 50 years and again at the age of 55 years. The provision of Rule 8(ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 has also been referred which empowers the Standing Committee to make recommendation to the State Government for compulsory retirement of any judicial officers. It has been stated that the adverse remarks was for the year 2003-04 by the then Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the Ranchi Judgeship while the petitioner was posted as the Administrative Officer, Judicial Academy, Ranchi which was communicated to him vide letter dated 01.05.2004. The petitioner has submitted his representation for expunging of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2003-04 which was rejected by this Court which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2004. Further adverse entries have been made against the petitioner for the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 which were recorded by the then District and Sessions Judge, Giridih which were communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 12.10.2009. The petitioner represented before the Court for expunging the aforesaid entries but was rejected which was also communicated vide memo dated 02.04.2011. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been a man of disputed character and throughout his career he has indulged in family dispute with his wife, who herself is a judicial officer, which has also led to explanation being called for him. The details of one such instance has been mentioned in para 15(b) of the writ petition wherein an allegation petition dated 19.04.2011 was sent by Smt. Veena Mishra, wife of the petitioner and upon consideration of which under the direction of the Zonal Judge an explanation was called for from the petitioner with regard to the contents of the allegation petition.
5
Another allegation petition was also sent by wife of the petitioner alleging therein the concealment of the fact about a daughter of 10-11 years by him at the time of marriage with her and also for neglecting her and making objectionable remarks on her complexion.
It has further been stated that a letter from the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India dated 05.05.2015 was received in the office of the respondent no.3 through which a copy of the grievance petition of Annapurna Mishra of Allahabad, mother in law of the petitioner against the petitioner who was posted as SDJM, Gumla, alleging therein that at the time of marriage with her daughter Smt. Veena Mishra, District and Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, he concealed the fact that he is already married and after marriage, her daughter was blessed with one daughter of 17 years and one son of 11 years, however, the petitioner lives with his daughter of first wife at Gumla and there also he used to torture her physically. The further statement has been made by making reference of the statement made by the writ petitioner at paragraph 15 thereof, certain instance leading enquiry has been mentioned.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted by assailing the impugned decision of compulsory retirement, inter alia, on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement is stigmatic and not sustainable as would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 that the entire service career of the writ petitioner has not been taken into consideration while passing the order under the provision of Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and merely on the ground of certain instances of commission of alleged irregularity or misconduct and only taking into consideration the ACR of three or four 6 assessment years, the decision of compulsory retirement has been taken against the petitioner.
He has contended that the petitioner has put in more than 21 years services and therefore, the entire service career ought to have been taken into consideration, according to the petitioner, save and except some instance of adverse entry as also the alleged irregularity/misconduct said to have been committed for which impeccable service rendered for the rest period, would not be allowed to vanish, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by this Court while taking such decision of compulsory retirement.
5. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, while opposing the ground as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as above, has submitted that the decision has been taken by the Standing Committee with all due application of mind by considering the nature of allegation levelled against the writ petitioner which is serious in nature and as such it cannot be said that any mala fide has been committed in taking such decision of compulsory retirement. He further contends that the decision if taken in exercise of power conferred under Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the same is in the public interest for which the principle of natural justice is not required to be followed and further if decision has been taken under the provision of Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 it will not be said to be punitive in nature rather the sole object and provision of Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 is to get rid of certain employees who are not found perfect for the system. The decision of compulsory retirement is not by way of mala fide, apart from that other cases were also considered and on 7 perusal of the relevant service record of the judicial officers the decision of compulsory retirement has been taken who were 11 in numbers.
6. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the backdrop of the factual aspects as has been enumerated hereinabove, required to refer herein that in order to be satisfied about the principle upon which the order has been passed against the petitioner, in pursuance to the provision of Rule 74(b) (ii), has directed the learned counsel appearing for the High Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 to produce the entire service record of the petitioner, in pursuance thereto, the service record has been produced along with the decision of the Screening committee and the recommendation of the Standing Committee of this Court.
7. This Court in order to appreciate the rival submission of the parties, basing upon the factual background as discussed hereinabove, deem it fit and proper first to refer Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, which reads hereunder as:
"74 (b) (ii) The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from 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."
It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the order of compulsory retirement is required to be taken in the public interest, which if the appointing authority consider to take such decision depending upon the service record and conduct, the issue of compulsory retirement on different 8 instances with the scope of judicial review by the Court of law has been discussed time to time by the Hon'ble Apex Court in different judgments.
In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Another vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh reported in (1998) 4 SCC 92, in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. vs. Hari Kishan Verma reported in (2015) 13 SCC 156, it has been laid down therein that for purpose of considering compulsory retirement, it is permissible for the employer to take into consideration the adverse entries which were not communicated to the employee concerned and if representation made against those entries were still pending, the authorities in such circumstances need to examine the overall performance on the basis of the entire service record to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a dead wood and it is in public interest to retire him compulsorily. The authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry as it will be under the same case that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsory retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of such authority the post have to be filled by more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee rendered himself liability to the post there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in exercise of its limited power of judicial review.
It has further been laid down in the judgment about the proposition with respect to interference by Court of law in the matter of compulsory retirement which is neither punitive nor stigmatic, it is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and as such there is very limited scope of judicial review available. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non- 9 application of mind, mala fide, perverse and arbitrary. Power to retire compulsorily the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that the compulsory retirement is in public interest.
8. Since this Court has dealt with the case of judicial officer, therefore, the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 144 wherein Their Lordships have been pleased to discuss about the role of the judicial officers. For ready reference, para 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the judgments are required to be referred, which reads hereunder as:
"5. The first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity. The need of integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions. The judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court in Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu held as follows: (SCC p. 203) "Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others. It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice-delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. It must be remembered that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside."
6. The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad held thus: (SCC p. 1) "Judicial officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy."
7. Judges are also public servants. A Judge should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.
8. Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold high public office. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., this Court held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge 10 is much higher than that of an ordinary person. The following observations of this Court are relevant: (SCC p. 70, para 29) "29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty." It is evident from the judgment quoted in the preceding paragraph that the role of the judicial officer although they are also public servants, but a Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in another judgment rendered in the case of Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2019 SCC On Line SC 1589, wherein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pyre Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693 and judgment rendered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Another (supra), Union of India vs. Duli Chand, reported in (2006) 11 5 SCC 680, has been pleased laid down the role of the judicial officer as would appear from paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof, which reads hereunder as:
"14. A person entering the judicial service no doubt has career aspirations including promotions. An order of compulsory retirement undoubtedly affects the career aspirations. Having said so, we must also sound a caution that judicial service is not like any other service. A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious mater. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A Judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
15. It has to be kept in mind that a person seeking justice, has the first exposure to the justice delivery system at the level of subordinate judiciary, and thus a sense of injustice can have serious repercussions not only on that individual but can have its fall out in the society as well. It is therefore absolutely necessary that the ordinary litigant must have complete faith at this level and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even create a perception to the contrary as the consequences can be very damaging. The standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer therefore has necessarily to be strict. Having said so, we must also observe that it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will make a judicial officer culpable. The State Judicial Academies undoubtedly has a stellar role to perform in this regard. A bona fide error may need 12 correction and counselling. But a conduct which creates a perception beyond the ordinary cannot be countenanced. For a trained legal mind, a judicial order speaks for itself."
In the light of the provision of law as also the judgments referred herein above, this Court has proceeded to examine the scope of this Court in interfering the decision of compulsory retirement taken against the petitioner under the power of judicial review, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power of judicial review in such case is to be exercised only on the ground of non-application of mind, mala fide, perverse or arbitrary.
9. This Court in order to examine the aforesaid ingredients, has called upon the original record as also the decision of the Screening Committee and the recommendation of the Standing Committee which has finally been accepted by the State Government.
In order to examine the averments made by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, it is evident from the original record that the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by Smt. Veena Mishra, the then Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad alleging in the allegation petition dated 19.04.2011 that her husband, Sri Umesha Nand Mishra, the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma (writ petitioner herein) has been involved in a number of indecent activities in the judgeship of having physical contact with some lady advocate at Koderma which is known to the Bar, Bench and Staff of the Koderma Civil Court.
Apart from that he has been involved in illicit relationship with a number of women at Patna, Ranchi and Koderma. A rape case was also said to have been managed by him due to his official influence last year. It has been alleged that the writ petitioner has neglected his children and family and put her to shame. In an instance while the writ petitioner was at Madhupur hotel, Sikidiri, district Ranchi on 10.04.2011 he was intercepted by a judicial 13 officer where he was found sitting with a lady aged 28-30 years and claiming her to be his kept. He, on 18.04.2011 conveyed a message at telephone no.9471096011 that he has committed mistake and he has another marriage at Giridih and has two sons and that he has nothing to do with the children of Smt. Veena Mishra whom he never considered as a wife and that Smt. Veena Mishra should take divorce. It further appears from the record that upon consideration of the matter, the Zonal Judge has called upon an explanation from the writ petitioner, in pursuance thereto explanation was submitted, however, the Standing Committee took decision not to take any decision in the administrative side due to his superannuation. The another allegation which was sent by one Ajit Kumar Barnawal of Koderma alleging therein that he has apprehension of not getting justice from the court of writ petitioner while he was Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint case no.753 of 2008 and 681 of 2008 because he favours people of Brahmin Caste and has biased attitude.
It has further been alleged that in the judicial order passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.233 of 2010 (Saraswati Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Lakshman Singh) arising out of Complaint Case No.10/10 instituted under section 323, 386 of the Indian Penal Code as order for enquiry about the role of the Magistrate, the petitioner herein, with a direction upon the Registrar, Vigilance to hold an enquiry upon which the enquiry was conducted and explanation was sought for, the explanation submitted has been found not satisfactory, however, no action was taken since in the meanwhile, the officer has already superannuated.
Further the allegation about demand of Rs.1,50,000/- for passing favourable order in Title Suit No.38 of 2003 has been made, upon which also 14 show cause notice was issued which was considered but no action was taken because in the meanwhile he has already superannuated.
Apart from the above allegations, as would appear from the record, the adverse entry for the assessment year 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 has also find mentioned which were duly been communicated and the representation filed against the said adverse entries have been rejected.
10. The question herein is that when on the basis of such allegations as has been referred hereinabove against the petitioner, based upon which the decision has been taken by the Screening Committee having been recommended by the Standing Committee, can it be said to be mala fide, without any application of mind, perverse or arbitrary.
So far as ground of non-application of mind is concerned we are of the considered view that allegations as have levelled against the petitioner cannot be expected from a judicial officer and if the decision has been taken by the competent authority, based upon the aforesaid bunch of allegations it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind, more particularly the part of the character as has been found by the Committees of keeping kept sitting in a room of hotel and having illicit relationship with the other lady advocates. Further his wife is alleging about the suppression of the fact of solemnizing of first marriage and child with the said wedlock that cannot be expected from a judicial officer.
So far as the mala fide ground is concerned, the same is not available since it is not only the petitioner for which the power under Section 74 (b)
(ii) has been exercised, rather the matter pertaining to several judicial officers have been referred before the Screening Committee upon which 11 have been found to be not fit to keep them in the judicial service and as such the ground of mala fide is not tenable in the facts of the present case. 15
So far as perverse or arbitrary is concerned, the same is also not available as because the perverse would be said to be found only if certain facts have not been considered but herein the decision has been taken by the competent authority for compulsory retirement after considering the nature of allegation which is on the subjective satisfaction of the Screening Committee and subsequently by the Standing Committee who have found, in public interest, to take such decision about compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner and as such neither it is perverse nor it is arbitrary.
11. Since we are dealing with the case of the judicial officer herein, therefore, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare (supra) and Ram Murti Yadav (supra) are of much relevance wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has gone to the extent by saying that a Judge is judged not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and personal life of a Judge.
Further, it has been laid down that a person entering in judicial service acts on behalf of the State in discharging of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strives for the highest standards of integrity in both their 16 professional and personal lives (para-14 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Yadav).
12. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Registrar, High Court of Madras vs. K. Rajeswaran reported in (1988) 3 SCC 211 wherein it has been discussed about the adequacy or sufficiency of material basing upon which order of compulsory retirement has been passed which has been quashed by the Division Bench of the High Court, has been declared to be interfered with but the fact is quite different, as has been narrated hereinabove showing the nature of allegation levelled against the writ petitioner.
In another judgment in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Das reported in (1996) 5 SCC 331, more particularly at paragraph 7 thereof, wherein the contention of the respondent has been referred in taking decision of compulsory retirement on the basis of adverse entries for the two years and while considering the aforesaid argument, the question has been framed, " whether the entire record of service was considered or not?"
While answering the aforesaid issue it has been absorbed by the Hon'ble Apex Court "it is not for the Court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the government servant is justified or not.
It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf.
What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision."
This Court, is not in dispute about aforesaid settled position, rather that is the position of law in taking decision of compulsory retirement and in 17 the present factual aspects, the competent authorities have scrutinized the service record, which has been found to be a serious one which pertains to the character of the writ petitioner which cannot be expected and allowed to be done by a judicial officer and if in such circumstances decision of compulsory retirement has been taken, it cannot be said that a reasonable prudent man would differ from such decision.
The reliance has also been placed in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 396. Relying upon para 32, it has been argued that merely on the ground of the entries made in the character role for certain years, no decision for compulsory retirement can be justified. This judgment is not applicable in the facts of the instant case since apart from adverse entries for three assessment years, there are serious allegations of having illicit relationship with the woman as also demanding bribe are the reason for taking such decision for compulsory retirement, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case.
Likewise, the judgment rendered in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314 and rendered in the case of Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, we are of the view that on fact the said judgment is not applicable taking into consideration the nature of allegation.
This Court on the basis of the aforesaid discussions and based upon the power conferred upon the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India which not only vests total and absolute control over the subordinate courts in the High Courts but also enjoins a constitutional duty upon High Court to keep a constant vigil on the day to day functioning of these courts.
18
As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2319, wherein it has been laid down that " while it is imperative for the High Court to protect honest and upright judicial officers against motivated and concocted allegations, it is equally necessary for the High Court not to ignore or condone any dishonest deed on the part of any judicial officer. It needs little emphasis that the subordinate judiciary is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. It is the trial Judge, who comes in contact with the litigant during the day to day proceedings in the court and, therefore, a heavy responsibility lies on him to build a solemn unpolluted atmosphere in the dispensation of justice which is an essential and inevitable feature in a civilized democratic society.
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 416, highlighting a marked and significant difference between a judicial service and other services, speaking for a bench of three judges, K.T. Thomas, J. observed as follows:
"23.The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. If a judicial officer "tips the scales of justice its rippling effect would be disastrous and deleterious". A dishonest judicial personage is an oxymoron."
13. This Court on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, considering the power of superannuation in public interest under Section 74
(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and as per the jurisdiction laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in taking decision of compulsory retirement in public interest, is of the view that the Screening Committee or 19 the Standing Committee of this Court, has taken such decision after considering the nature of allegation which is serious in nature which pertains to the morale of the writ petitioner by establishing the illicit relationship as also other allegation and therefore, are of the view that the decision aforesaid of compulsory retirement, cannot be said to be suffer from perversity or any vice of arbitrariness or mala fide or without any application of mind, hence, according to our considered view, the power of judicial review conferred to this Court in interfering with the aforesaid decision is not warranted to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the result, the writ petition fails and hence, is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-
A.F.R.