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 

The appellant is the High Court of Patna. The first respondent is a judicial officer of Bihar Higher Judicial Service who was compulsorily retired on the ground that he was no more of any utility for the Bihar Higher Judicial Service. The respondent successfully challenged the said order. 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 circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court under appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. The judgment under appeal recognises the liberty of the appellant to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant if the appellant is so advised. Though it is not necessary, in the circumstances, we reiterate the same.

NEW DELHI 
JANUARY 12, 2017 

Print Page