news details |
|
|
| Judicial Officer's premature retirement without Guv's order is legal: HC Full Bench | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 20: The Full Bench J&K High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today held that the order of retiring judicial officer at the age of 58 was legal. The case has been decided after 15 years. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Single Judge wherein Jankar Singh Cheema had questioned his retirement on completion of 58 years of age as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Reasi, on March 31, 1996. The writ court had allowed the petition by its May 17, 2001 order with a direction to request the governor to pass formal order of retirement of the petitioner and also held that he is entitled to salary, allowances and all other consequential benefits. During arguments, the counsel, who appeared for the High Court, argued that the governor's order was not required when a judicial officer was retired at the age of 58 years after the resolution in this regard was passed by high court full bench. "So, the order of the writ court was liable to be set aside," he said.
The counsels of both sides submitted that since legal heirs of the respondent, who passed away on June 21, 2015, had been brought on record by this court by its December 29, 2015 to claim service benefits of the writ petitioner up to his age of 60 years, therefore, while answering the question of law raised, the facts of the case could also be looked into and a final order of the validity of the respondent's retirement age was justified or not could be decided by the full bench itself.
"On perusal of the above amended Civil Service Regulations, it is clear that a judicial officer would retire at the age of 60 subject to the provisions of sub-clause 2, the Full Bench observed. The high court would evaluate record of judicial officer for his continued utility before he attains the age of 58 by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and if he is not found fit and eligible, he will compulsory retire at 58. It is to be noted if a judicial officer is to be sent on compulsory retirement other than punishment based on performance appraisal, it would not attract any stigma and it is otherwise called graceful exit at 58. A reference was also made to a similar issue that had arisen before Supreme Court in the case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh v/s Bihar. In this case, the respondent's performance from the date of appointment till his age of 58 years was assessed based on ACR recordings, which was properly considered by the committee of judges headed by Chief Justice which was also approved by the full court. Supreme Court considered similar aspect with reference to one Shakti Kumar Gupta v/s State of Jammu & Kashmir and another, who was denied service beyond 55 years and was prematurely retired on the ground of overall assessment of his performance, in writ petition (C) No 355 of 2014 decided on December 11, 2015. In the said judgment, criteria to be followed was that overall past service record of the officer shall be examined and considered with emphasis on the last 5 years' record to assess his potential for continued utility in the service beyond 50, 55 and 58 years. The quality of the judgments delivered by the officer, whether or not assailed before the high court, in suits, appeals, session cases, revisions and other proceedings during the past 10 years of his service, would be determined by their content, the legal acumen it reveals, the nature of approach adopted, the language employed and the results achieved. The rate of disposal of the case by the officer in the light of separate criteria is prescribed by the high court for this purpose. Material reflecting the character of officer includes complaints, inquiries and vigilance reports lodged against him. The fact that the officer was superseded in the last promotion shall also be taken into consideration. Annual Confidential Reports for the last five years should be taken into account and if the other record of the officer is at variance with ACRs.
The bench held that a judicial officer could be permitted to continue beyond 50, 55 and 58 years if he fulfilled the following conditions: the Officer has on the basis of the prescribed criteria earned seventy five per cent or more ('A' Grading) of his total ACR entries in 'Very Good' or 'Good' gradings and if the officer has not earned any adverse or average entry in his ACRs after his last promotion. Besides ACR, his integrity, honesty and judicial conduct, relations with the bar and his administrative capacity; his dealing with the finance shall also be taken into account while evaluating his all round potential; ACRs shall not constitute the sole guiding factor but shall be given due weightage along with other equally relevant factors; the institutional integrity being in larger public interest is the uppermost and shall be preferred to individual interest. However, it would not limit the power of high court vested by Article 235 of the Constitution of India read with Article 104 of the J&K Constitution, the bench said.
With these observations, the bench set aside the writ court judgment with the observation that the order of retiring the respondent at 58, with effect from March 31, 1996 without the governor's order was held legal and the interference made by the writ court was unwarranted. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
