Karnataka High Court
G.V. Naik vs State Of Karnataka And Another on 30 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000(85)FLR484], ILR2000KAR881, 2000(3)KARLJ340
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan, R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Appellant who was a practising Advocate was selected for the post of munsiff by the Public Service Commission in the year 1971. He was appointed as a Munsiff on 15-11-1971. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge on 30th May, 1983. He completed 50 years of age on 28th of June, 1988. He was retired from service by the Governor under Rule 285(4) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short, 'the rules') on a recommendation made by the High Court of Karnataka by order dated 30th of July, 1991.
2. Being aggrieved appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order retiring him from service raising the following three contentions:
(i) that Rule 285 is not applicable to the appellant who is a Judicial Officer;
(ii) that the appellant had been retired under Rule 285(4)(b) and not under Rule 285(4)(a) thereof and therefore he should have been retired on attaining the age of 55 years;
(iii) that the order impugned herein is punitive in character.
3. Learned Single Judge did not agree with either of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition, aggrieved against which the present appeal has been filed.
4. Pleas raised before us are the same as were raised before the Single Judge. Rule 285(4) reads as follows:
"285(1).....
(2).....
(3).....
(4) Retirement of a Government servant in public interest under the orders of Government:
(i) Government may, by order, retire.-
(a) A Government servant in Group A or Group B service post, who is working in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity, or who is in a Group C post service in a substantive capacity, but officiating in a Group A or Group B post service after he has attained the age of 50 years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service; and
(b) In any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service, if the retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest, provided that the Government servant concerned shall either be given a notice of three months before the date of retirement or if he is ordered to retire forthwith be permitted to draw, every month in lieu of pension for the period of three months, from the date of such retirement, a sum equivalent to the salary which he was drawing immediately before the date of retirement. Any increment which accrues to him during the said period shall be paid to him and the said period for which he draws such salary shall be treated as duty.
(ii).....
(iii).....
(iv).....
(v).....
(vi).....
(vii).....".
5. First contention advanced is that in view of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the conditions of service applicable to the Government servants cannot be made applicable to a Judicial Officer except with the approval of the High Court. The rules framed by the Government have been made applicable to the Judicial Officers in consultation with the High Court. The power to appoint includes the power to impose major penalties of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank and if such a power is exercised on the recommendation of the High Court there is no violation of constitutional mandate. High Court on appraisal of his work had recommended to the Governor that appellant be retired under Rule 285(4). We fail to see as to how the rules could not be made applicable to the appellant. Counsel for the appellant did not argue that the entire rules are not applicable to the Judicial Officers. His limited contention is that only Rule 285(4) is not applicable. Once the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are made applicable to the Judicial Officers subject to the control of the High Court, it cannot be said that one particular rule would not be applicable to that officer. Counsel for the appellant was unable to give any cogent reason as to why Rule 285(4) was not applicable to the case of the appellant.
6. Second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that sub-rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Rules is applicable to two categories of officers --one to Government servants who have attained the age of 50 years or completed 25 years of qualifying service and the others who have attained the age of 55 years or completed 25 years of qualifying service. According to him since Rule 285(4) talks of applicability to the Government servants, the appellant not being a Government servant Rule 285(4)(a) would not be applicable. According to him he would be governed by Rule 285(4)(b). As the appellant had neither completed 25 years of service nor attained the age of 55 years, he could not be retired from the service. We do not find any substance in this submission.
7. From a conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 285(4), it is evident that clause (a) is applicable to Groups 'A' and 'B' officers only on attaining the age of 50 years or on completion of 25 years of service. Clause (a) is not applicable to Groups 'C' and 'D' officials. Sub-rule 'B' is applicable to all the four categories i.e., Groups 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. It would be applicable to all Government servants and their work can be reviewed on completion of 55 years of age and 25 years of service irrespective of the group to which they belong. Contention that the appellant would be governed under Rule 285(4)(a) cannot be accepted. Appellant was a Group 'A' officer and his service record could be reviewed on completion of 25 years of service or on attaining 50 years of age. Appellant would therefore be governed both by clauses (a) and (b) at different stages of his career. Contention that the appellant would be governed by clause (b) alone and not clause (a) cannot be accepted.
8. Lastly it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order is punitive in nature; that the appellant had not been retired in public interest and had been punished without holding a proper enquiry, This contention has to be rejected. We examined the service record of the appellant and find that for the year 1982 he was categorised as an officer of average ability who did not enjoy good reputation. There were doubts about his integrity as well. For the year 1983 also similar note was made. It was opined that he lives beyond his known sources of income. Keeps contact with public and people whose cases are fixed before him. He also keeps contact with the lawyers. For the year 1984 it was stated that he indulges in loose talks, quarrels and does not take responsibility. For the years 1987 and 1988 he has been given doubtful integrity report. Counsel for the appellant contended that since the appellant was promoted in the year 1983 his adverse report for the years 1982 and 1983 could not be taken into consideration while considering his case under Rule 285(4). Even if these reports are ignored it would be seen that the appellant had earned doubtful integrity reports for the years 1987 and 1988 which would be within 5 years when the review of the service record of the appellant was undertaken on the completion of 50 years of age. In this background it cannot be said that record of the appellant was good so as to entitle him to continue in service. There was sufficient material to retire him from service prematurely. The action was not punitive as alleged. The employer had a right to review the service record of the appellant under Rule 285(4)(a) on completion of 25 years of service or 50 years of age to assess whether he should be continued in service thereafter or not. From the service record it was found that the appellant did not deserve to be continued in service beyond 50 years of age. Accordingly he was prematurely retired.
9. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Single Judge. Dismissed. No costs.