Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5397 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Shiv Dayal Gupta
RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2005
BENCH:
H.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
SEMA, J.
The appellant at the relevant time was holding the post of Additional
District Judge (Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service). By an order dated
9.11.2000, he was compulsorily retired from service. He has assailed the
order of compulsorily before the High Court. The High Court of Rajasthan
dismissed the Writ Petition after perusing the entire records placed before
it. The appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of Review Committee
report submitted by four Senior Hon’ble Judges of the High Court which was
approved by the Full Court of the High Court.
We have been taken through the entire judgment of the High Court. The High
Court, on perusal of the record produced before it, found that in the year
1983, the appellant was not assessed as good officer and his integrity was
doubtful. In 1984 he was reported to be corrupt officer. The High Court was
also of the view that when the appellant has been granted selection grade,
the adverse entries were not brought to the notice of the authority. The
High Court also noted that the Review Committee consisting of four Senior
Hon’ble Judges of the High Court noticed that the performance of the
appellant was poor and he was advised to improve his judgment writing, In
1974 there was a remark that he should be watched and quality of case work
was found unsatisfactory. The remarks were also communicated to the
appellant. In 1977 there was also an entry that he should improve the
quality of his judgments. In 1983 he was not assessed as good officer and
his integrity was found doubtful. His representation against adverse entry
was reflected. In 1993 there was an entry in his ACR that he failed to
inspire the confidence in subordinate staff and lawyers and his disposal
was also found low. The Review Committee also noted that he has been
superseded without being considered for promotion in 1983. The departmental
enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) rules, 1958 where finding against the appellant of
being negligent and grossly careless in discharging his judicial duties,
have been recorded, which ended in minor penalty of censure imposed on him
and he was further warned to remain careful and cautious while discharging
his judicial functions.
On the basis of overall perusal of the ACR and overall assessment of
service record of the appellant, the Review Committee consisting of four
Senior Judges found that continuance of officer would be liability to the
Department and adverse to the public interest and recommended that he
should be compulsorily retired. It is noticed that the recommendations of
the Review Committee was accepted by the Full Court in a meeting held on
8th November, 2000. It is really a case of chopping of the dead wood.
That apart, either before the High Court or before this Court, the
appellant never raised and allegation of mala fide nor the said order has
been passed without application of mind. In fact, considering the aforesaid
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
facts and circumstances the appointing authority has come to the conclusion
that the appellant’s continuance in the service will be a liability to the
public interest and passed the order after subjective satisfaction of the
matter on the basis of the record placed before the authority.
Learned senior counsel cited the decisions rendered in 1. [1992] 2 SCC 299
(Bhaikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer Braipada
and Anr.,) 2. [2001] 3 SCC 341 (State of Gujarat v. Umedhbhai M. Patel,) 3.
[2002] 3 SCC 641 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Vinay Kumar Jain) and 4. [2001]
3 SCC 389 (State of U.P. and Anr. v. Lalsa Ram.)
The ratio of the decision cited quoted by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant, are not applicable in the facts of this case.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our
view does not merit consideration in view of the facts and circumstances as
recited above.
In the result, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.