RAM MURTI YADAV vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8875 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 22709 of 2018) RAM MURTI YADAV ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  AND ANOTHER           ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The   appellant,   a   judicial   officer   of   the   rank   of   Additional District   and   Sessions   Judge,   assails   his   order   of   compulsory retirement dated 03.05.2016 at 56 years of age under Rule 56 (C) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 2. The   appellant   while   posted   as   a   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MEENAKSHI KOHLI Date: 2019.12.10 16:44:06 IST Reason: granted acquittal to the accused on 17.09.2007 in Criminal Case No.4670 of 2005 “State vs. Mohd. Ayub” under Sections 467, 468, 1 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was lodged against the appellant with regard to the acquittal.  After calling   for   comments   from   the   appellant,   and   perusing   the judgement and the order of reversal in appeal, the Administrative Judge on 24.02.2009 recommended an enquiry. A vigilance enquiry, V.B. Enquiry No.26/2009, was  held by the  OSD, Enquiry, High Court   of   Allahabad.   The   enquiry   report   dated   10.05.2012   was adverse   to   the   appellant.     His   comments   were   called   for   on 28.06.2012.   On 20.12.2012, the appellant was informed that on basis of the  enquiry, a  censure entry had  been recorded in his character   roll.   The   order   of   punishment   was   accepted   by   the appellant without any challenge. On 01.04.2016, a committee of three Hon’ble Judges constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsorily   retirement   under   the   Rules   recommended   the compulsory retirement of the appellant which was endorsed by the Full   Court   on   14.04.2016   leading   to   the   impugned   order   of compulsory retirement.  The challenge laid out by the appellant to his order of retirement before the High Court was unsuccessful and thus the present appeal. 2 3. Learned senior counsel Shri R. Basant, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that since joining the service in 1996­97 as a Civil Judge (Jr. Division) his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) till 2014­15 certify his integrity. The quota of cases allocated to the appellant being inadequate, his percentage of work was considered adequate. The adverse remark in 1996­97 for below performance had been expunged. An error of judgment in deciding a criminal case, while discharging judicial functions, cannot  ipso facto  lead to an inference of dishonesty. There was in fact no material to infer dishonesty or lack of integrity on part of the appellant in granting acquittal in the criminal case.  Merely because a different view was possible does not justify the extreme step of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement being stigmatic in nature, the failure   to   hold   departmental   enquiry   vitiates   the   same.   The appellant   was   promoted   to   the   post   of   Additional   District   and Sessions   Judge   on   the   basis   of   merit­cum­seniority   and   was confirmed in 2013.   He had also crossed the efficiency bar. The punishment   of   censure   therefore   stands   obliterated   and   was irrelevant for the purpose of compulsory retirement.  The conclusion that the appellant had lost his utility and efficiency as a judicial 3 officer   to   be   declared   deadwood   was   unsustainable   without adequate consideration of his ACRs in the recent past years before retirement, at least from 2012 to 2015.  Reliance in support of the submissions   was   placed   on   Ram   Ekbal   Sharma   vs.   State   of , (1990) 3 SCC 504;   Bihar and Anr. Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr.   vs.   Chief   District   Medical   Officer,   Baripada   and   Anr. , (1992) 2 SCC 299;  ,   (2001) 6 P.C. Joshi vs. State of U.P. and Ors. SCC   491,   and   Ramesh   Chander   Singh   vs.   High   Court   of , (2007) 4 SCC 247. Allahabad and Anr.   4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the adverse remarks   against   the   appellant   for   the   year   1996­97   was   never expunged as the explanation furnished was not found satisfactory by   the   District   Judge   which   was   informed   to   the   appellant   on 12.10.1998.   His   disposal   was   also   found   to   be   inadequate   in subsequent years.  The complaint against the appellant for granting acquittal was examined at several levels before the impugned action followed. The appellant never questioned the punishment of censure in   connection   with   the   very   same   order   of   acquittal.   The   entire 4 service record of the appellant was considered by the Screening Committee and again by the Full Court.  The fact that the appellant may have been promoted subsequently is irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of compulsory retirement. Reliance in support of the   submissions   was   placed   on   (supra); Baikuntha   Nath   Das   Union of India & Ors. vs. K.K. Dhawan ,  (1993) 2 SCC 56;  Union of India & Ors. vs. Duli Chand ,   (2006) 5 SCC 680;  Nawal Singh , (2003) 8 SCC 117;  vs. State of U.P. and Another Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. , (2010) 10 SCC 693;  R.C. , (2012) 8 SCC 58, and Chandel vs. High Court of M.P. and Anr. Punjab   State   Power   Corpn.   Ltd.   and   Ors.   vs.   Hari   Kishan , (2015) 13 SCC 156. Verma   5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and   also   the   precedents   sought   to   be   relied   upon   by   them respectively.   The High Court also noticed that another vigilance enquiry VB No.06 of 2009 had also been initiated but was dropped. The   enquiry   which   followed   on   the   complaint   against   acquittal manifests that the appellant was provided proper opportunity of his 5 defence at every stage. Quite apart from the scrutiny of his service records by the Screening Committee and again by the Full Court, the Division Bench again perused his ACRs and opined as follows: “We   have   perused   the   expunged   portion   of   the annual   remarks   of   the   petitioner   and   found   that rating of the petitioner as fair officer has not been expunged.   Likewise, in the year 2008­09, 2009­10, 2010­11,   the   petitioner   was   posted   as   Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Pratapgarh and his disposal of work prescribed as Additional   District   Judge,   Fast   Track   Court   was found inadequate.   Censure entry, recorded against the   petitioner   and   considered   by   the   Screening Committee   and   Full   Court,   still   has   not   been expunged.   The petitioner has never challenged the said censure entry, therefore, there is no substance in   the   arguments   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner   that   single   censure   entry   relating   to integrity could not be considered by the Screening Committee and Full Court.   The expositions of law relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner are of no help for the petitioner.  The expositions of law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.” 6. The service records of the appellant have been examined by the Screening Committee, the Full Court as also by the Division Bench of the High Court.   The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be 6 based   on   arbitrary   or   capricious   grounds,   vitiated   by   malafides, overlooks   relevant   materials,   could   there   be   limited   scope   for interference. The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over   the   same   as   an   Appellate   Authority.   Principles   of   natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement.   7.   The   performance   chart,   as   furnished   by   the   appellant, demonstrates that his assessment from 1996­97 till 2014­15 rates him as a “fair” or “good officer” only, except for one entry of “very good” in the year 2011­12.  The submission that his integrity was certified on each occasion leaves us unimpressed.  There can hardly be any direct evidence with regard to integrity as far as a judicial officer is concerned. It is more a matter of inference and perceptions based on the conduct of the officer.  The inadequacy of the present system of writing ACRs of judicial officers has deficiencies in several ways, was noticed in   Registrar General, Patna High Court vs. ,  (2012) 6 SCC 357. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Ors. 8.   The   complaint   against   the   appellant   with   regard   to   the acquittal granted by him was first considered by the Administrative 7 Judge, who was satisfied that it is a matter for further enquiry.  The comments of the appellant were called for.  A vigilance enquiry was recommended by the Administrative Judge, who obviously was not satisfied with the explanation furnished.   The officer holding the vigilance enquiry was also a judicial officer who opined that the act of acquittal by the appellant was not above board.  The comments of the   appellant   were   again   called   for.   The   Screening   Committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges, on an overall assessment of the appellant’s service record, recommended his compulsory retirement. The Full Court scrutinised the service records of the appellant again while considering the recommendation of the Screening Committee and   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   it   was   in   public   interest   to compulsory   retire   the   appellant.   It   is   undisputed   that   the punishment   of   censure   meted   out   to   the   appellant   was   never assailed by him. 9. The   submission   of   Shri   Basant   that   compulsory   retirement could not have been ordered for mere error of judgment in decision making merits no consideration in view of     (supra) K.K. Dhawan and  Duli Chand  (supra). Likewise, what has been euphemistically 8 described   as   "washed­off   theory"   by   reason   of   any   subsequent promotion after adverse entry being relevant for further promotion but not for compulsory retirement has to be rejected in view of Pyare Mohan Lal  (supra). A single adverse entry could suffice for an order of compulsory retirement as held in   Pyare Mohan Lal (supra) as follows : “29. The law requires the authority to consider the “entire   service   record”   of   the   employee   while assessing   whether   he   can   be   given   compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse   entries.   More   so,   a   single   adverse   entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement. The   case   of   a   judicial   officer   is   required   to   be examined, treating him to be different from other wings of the society, as he is serving the State in a different capacity. The case of a judicial officer is considered by a committee of Judges of the High Court  duly   constituted   by   the   Hon’ble   the   Chief Justice and then the report of the Committee is placed before the Full Court. A decision is taken by the Full Court after due deliberation on the matter. Therefore, there is hardly any chance to make the allegations   of   non­application   of   mind   or   mala fides.”   10. This Court in   Syed T.A. Naqshbandi & Ors. vs State of

9 scope of judicial review of an assessment of the conduct of a judicial officer approved by a Full Court, observed as follows:   “ 7 . … As has often been reiterated by this Court, judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has   been   observed   correctly   and   not   the   decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the courts exercising powers   of   judicial   review   unlike   the   case   of   an appellate   court,   would   neither   be   permissible   nor conducive   to   the   interests   of   either   the   officers concerned   or   the   system   and   institutions   of administration   of   justice   with   which   we   are concerned in this case, by going into the correctness as   such   of   ACRs   or   the   assessment   made   by   the Committee and approval accorded by the Full Court of the High Court.”

(D) thr. Lrs. vs.   Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) , (2011) 10 SCC 1, reiterating the principle laid down in   High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil   & Anr. , (2000) 1 SCC 416, this Court observed as follows:  “191. … in case where the Full Court of the High Court   recommends   compulsory   retirement   of   an officer, the High Court on the judicial side has to exercise great caution and circumspection in setting aside that order because it is a complement of all the Judges of the High Court who go into the question and it is possible that in all cases evidence would not 10 be forthcoming about integrity doubtful of a judicial officer….” It was further observed that:  “192. … If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised   on   the   administrative   side   of   the   High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be   confined   strictly   to   the   parameters   set   by   this Court   in   several   reported   decisions.   When   the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest,   the   writ   court   under   Article   226   or   this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the order.” 12.   (supra)   was   a   case   relating   to   an   order   of P.C.   Joshi punishment in a departmental proceeding held to be vitiated for want of any legally acceptable or relevant evidence in support of the charges of misconduct.    (supra) related to Ramesh Chander Singh an   order   of   bail   dealing   with   exercise   of   discretionary   powers specially when a co­accused had been granted bail by the High Court.  An order of compulsory retirement not been a punishment, much less stigmatic in the facts and circumstances of the present case.    (supra) was dealing with the issue that Ram Ekbal Sharma 11 the form of the order was not conclusive and the veil could be lifted to determine if it was ordered as punishment more so in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit with regard to grave financial irregularities, again has no relevance to the present controversy. 13.  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 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 12 from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.     14. 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   correction   and   counselling.   But   a conduct which creates a perception beyond the ordinary   cannot be 13 countenanced.  For a trained legal mind, a judicial order speaks for itself. 15.  In conclusion, we are of the considered opinion that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant calls for no interference. The Appeal is dismissed. .……………………….J.   (Ashok Bhushan) ………………………..J.    (Navin Sinha)   New Delhi, December 10, 2019 14