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

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

Bihar and Anr., (1990) 3 SCC 504;  Baikuntha Nath Das and

Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr.,

(1992) 2 SCC 299; P.C. Joshi vs. State of U.P. and Ors., (2001) 6

SCC 491, and  Ramesh Chander Singh vs. High Court of

Allahabad and Anr., (2007) 4 SCC 247.

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  Baikuntha Nath Das  (supra);

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

vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 117;  Pyare Mohan

Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 693;  R.C.

Chandel vs. High Court of M.P. and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 58, and

Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Hari Kishan

Verma, (2015) 13 SCC 156.

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.

Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 357.

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  K.K. Dhawan  (supra)

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

Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 592, considering the

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.”

11. The question was again considered in Rajendra Singh Verma

(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. P.C. Joshi  (supra) was a case relating to an order of

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.  Ramesh Chander Singh (supra) related to

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.   Ram Ekbal Sharma (supra) was dealing with the issue that

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