A Single Adverse Remark Regarding Integrity Of Judicial Officer Sufficient For His Compulsory Retirement: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court said that a single adverse remark regarding the integrity of a judicial officer is sufficient for his compulsory retirement.
The Lucknow Bench was dealing with a petition filed by a compulsorily retired judicial officer challenging the recommendations of the Screening Committee.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “The assessment of the work and conduct of a judicial officer by his immediate superior is of immense importance as has been opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma (supra) and Rajendra Singh Verma (supra) especially in view of the report of the Vigilance Officer. The law is settled that a single adverse remark regarding integrity of a judicial officer is sufficient for his compulsory retirement. In this case, there is sufficient material to sustain the order of compulsory retirement and also subjective satisfaction arrived at in this regard.”
Advocate Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman represented the petitioner while Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra and Standing Counsel M.K. Dwivedi represented the respondent.
Factual Background -
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) and became a member of U.P. Nyayik Sewa in 1996. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2003. Thereafter, he was further promoted to Higher Judicial Service and was posted as Additional District Judge in 2013. For the year 2012-13, the District Judge, Badaun recorded an adverse Confidential Report and did not certify his integrity for the said period. Vide his letter addressed to the Registrar General, he communicated various instances of misconduct on his part requiring a full-fledged inquiry especially with regard to his integrity and the properties amassed by him.
Based thereon, a vigilance inquiry was ordered by the Chief Justice and the Vigilance Officer submitted his report wherein he found the allegations to be correct. The matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court which accepted the report in its meeting and recommended a regular departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The compulsory retirement of the judicial officer was considered in the year 2020 by a Screening Committee of the High Court and it recommended his compulsory retirement. The recommendations were accepted and hence, the petitioner challenged the same before the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “As regards the rating of the petitioner as 'average' by the District Judge for the year 2016-17, the Administrative Judge upgraded the said categorization to 'Good' but did not record any opinion on the integrity of the petitioner on account of pendency of vigilance inquiry against him. The petitioner submitted a representation in this regard on 19.04.2018 which was considered and rejected by the Administrative Committee in its meeting dated 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020 while considering compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the Administrative Committee refused to certify the integrity of the petitioner for the said year.”
Considering the nature of the material against the petitioner and the report of the Vigilance Officer, the Court enunciated that, merely because a chargesheet had been issued to the petitioner and a disciplinary proceeding had been initiated, did not preclude the High Court from considering him for compulsory retirement.
“… once a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken, it was implied therein that the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated for imposing a punishment stood dropped but merely because the Inquiry Judge may not have been informed about the said fact resulting in an inquiry report dated 23.12.2021 would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as already discussed”, it added.
The Court further said that the judicial decisions may not entail disciplinary proceedings but the same can certainly form the basis for an opinion while recording annual confidential reports and also for assessing the work and conduct of a judicial officer as was done by the District Judge, Badaun and the said exercise can culminate in a report by Vigilance Officer which was a material which could have been taken for consideration by the Screening Committee as has been done rightly so and the decision arrived at cannot be said to be one without any material or so apparently arbitrary or capricious so as to warrant interference in the matter.
“As observed by the Supreme Court of India, it is not always possible to have positive evidence in matters of integrity of a judicial officer and the assessment by the immediate superior officer regarding his work and conduct including his integrity should not be brushed aside lightly, unless of course, any malafide is proved which is not the case here. Therefore, the decision of the Screening Committee, the Administrative Committee and the Full Court based on the material before it, are required to be given due weightage. Decisions relied by the petitioner do not help his cause in view of the above discussion”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:71681-DB)
