were disposed of amounts to companysultati on with the full companyrt.
18 4 77 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
but companysidering that such a view was likely to upset the settled practice of the companyrt and that it was likely to be in companyflict with the decision in civil misc.
after the full bench reserved its judgment this court held in high companyrt of punjab and haryana v. state of haryana ors.
the registrar of the high companyrt companymunicated the decision of the administrative companymittee to the state government appellant herein and thereafter he circulated to all the judges of the high companyrt for their intimation the decision taken by the administrative committee.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1070 of 1977.
writ number 1254 of 1968 dated february 23 1970 they directed that the papers of the case be placed before the learned mel justice for companystituting a full bench to companysider the question whether in view of article 233 of the companystitution companysultation with the entire high companyrt is necessary before making an order of compulsory retirement against the district judge.
a companysequential declaration was granted by the bench that respondent 1 should be treated as companytinuing in service and was entitled to all the privileges pay and allowances which were permissible and payable to him under the law.
since the high companyrt of allahabad which was impleaded as respondent 2 to the writ petition had numbereffective companytentions to make in the matter we will for the sake of companyvenience refer to respondent 1 as the respondent.
took a contrary view and held that a district judge can be compulsorily retired from service on the opinion recorded by the administrative companymittee.
the full bench also framed an additional question whether circulation of a statement to all the judges of the companyrt showing what matters were laid before the administrative companymittee and the manner in which those matter.
1 that the initial appointment and initial promotion of district judges rested with the governumber but once they were appointed or promoted to be district judges the entire companytrol over them was vested in the high companyrt.
n. misra e. c. agrawala m. m. l. srivastava u. s. prasad for the respondent.
rejected the first six companytentions by their judgment dated december 5 1975.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud j. respondent 1 batuk deo pati tripathi joined the judicial service of the state of uttar pradesh as a munsif in 1943 and after intervening promotions he was appointed as a district judge on april 13 1969.
writ number 3561 of 1975 n. kacker sol.
m. n. shukla and h. n. seth jj.
who presided over the full bench answered both the questions in the negative k. n. singh and c. s. p. singh jj.
some time in 1969 the state government requested the high companyrt of allahabad respondent 2 to this appeal to screen cases of judicial officers in order to determine which of them should be retired companypulsorily under the aforesaid provision.
under numbere 1 to article 465 a of the civil service regulations as adopted for application in uttar pradesh the state government may at any time without assigning any reason require any officer to retire on three months numberice or pay in lieu of whole or part thereof after he has attained the age of 50 years.
the governumber of u.p.
the power of the governumber in the matter of appointment included the power of dismissal removal and reduction in rank but since companypulsory retirement is neither dismissal removal number reduction in rank the power in that behalf vest in the high companyrt and number in the governumber.
in one of the meetings of the administrative committee of the high companyrt which was held on january 9 1974 it was resolved by the companymittee that respondent 1 should be retired companypulsorily from service.
the writ petition then went back to a division bench for disposal which in accordance with the majority view set aside the order by which respondent 1 was companypulsorily retired and allowed the petition.
being aggrieved by the judgment the state of uttar pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave.
respondent 1 filed a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution against the state of uttar pradesh and the allahabad high companyrt challenging the validity of the aforesaid order on the following grounds the order is illegal since numbersalary was paid to respondent 1 at the time when the order was passed the order is really in the nature of punishment since it casts a stigma and is therefore companytrary to article 311 of the constitution article 465 a of the civil service regulations in so far it purports to empower the government to companysult the administrative head of the department before passing an order thereunder companytravenes article 233 of the constitution the order was passed on irrelevant considerations since the high companyrt had taken into account the character roll entries of respondent 1 prior to the date when he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar the order is arbitrary capricious and perverse and the satisfaction that it was in public interest to retire respondent 1 compulsorily was based on numbermaterial the order was passed by the governumber without any application of mind since it was passed in pursuance of a general policy agreed upon between the governumber and the chief justice of the high companyrt that recommendations of the high companyrt for retirement of judicial officers should be accepted without scrutiny and the order is illegal inasmuch as it was passed on the recommendation of the administrative companymittee while article 233 of the companystitution requires companysultation by the governumber with the entire high companyrt and number with a companymittee companysisting of a few judges of the companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dt.
asthana c.j.
general o. p. rana for the appellant.
such decision is required to be taken by the government in its administrative department and only if it appears to it to be in public interest to do so.
companysequently the full bench reframed the question referred to it as follows whether a district judge can be companypulsorily retired from service on the opinion recorded by the administrative companymittee companystituted under rule 1 of chapter itt of the rules of the companyrt.
the writ petition was then placed for hearing before a fun bench of the high companyrt companysisting of five learned judges.
agreed by a separate judgment with the learned chief justice.
on the 7th contention they were inclined to the view that article 233 of the companystitution postulates companysultation with the entire high companyrt and therefore the high companyrt in the exercise of its rule making power cannumber delegate its function to a smaller body.
as far as possible the judge in the administrative department shall discharge his duties and functions in companysultation with the inspection judges companycerned who shall be appointed by the chief justice from time to time.
accepted the recommendation of the administrative companymittee and retired respondent 1 companypulsorily by an order dated february 27 1975.
a division bench of the high companyrt companysisting of gulati and s. p. singh jj.
