Judicial Review Has Limited Scope In Context Of Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer: Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court at Cuttack in its judgment in case of Rama Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa, refused to quash the compulsory retirement of judicial officer.

“Judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the State are under the administrative control of the High Court in terms of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. They are different from other civil servants. A single blot in their service record makes them vulnerable. They are expected to have a good character in all respects” observed the HC.

In the matter of compulsory retirement in public interest, the Supreme Court has laid down legal principles in Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, to be governed:

1. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies neither stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior.

2. The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily.

3. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or

4. The government shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse.

5. An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it, un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration.

The personal file of the Petitioner reveals that several complaints were received against him, right from his posting as J.M.F.C., Soro till the end of his career as Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Koraput. Further, two disciplinary proceedings were found to have been initiated against him for grave charges.

The Bench observed that personal record of the Petitioner does not support his contention that he had an unblemished career as a judge. The pending disciplinary proceedings against him, the nature of charges framed thereunder, and the entries made in the CCRs, as well as the nature of complaints seen from the personal file, all present a picture that at oddly with what the Petitioner has sought to project. All the evidences on record justify the order of compulsory retirement.

The present HC said that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dishonest, the corrupt and the deadwood. It is true that if an honest and sincere judicial officer is compulsory retired, it might lower the morale of his colleagues. Equally, an officer having sound knowledge of the law but lacking in integrity or having a dubious character, is a great danger to the smooth functioning of the judiciary.

What is to be weighed is the performance of the officer on an overall evaluation of his entire service period, the bench noted.