Having regard to their entire service record of the three officers, this Court is of the opinion that the companypetent authority was justified in passing the order retiring them companypulsorily from service.
The Full Court in its Meeting dated 22.09.2001 recommended premature retirement of Mr. Gupta to the Lt.
Three questions were companysidered by this Court in the said case 1 whether the Government is bound under the Constitution to accept the recommendation of the High Court and to pass an order of removal of the judicial officer, 2 whether companysultation with the Public Service Commission in the matter of a disciplinary proceeding relating to the judicial officer under the companytrol of the High Court is unconstitutional.
The scheme envisaged by the Constitution does number permit the State to encroach upon the area reserved by Articles 233, 234 and first part of Article 235 either by legislation or rules or executive instructions.
329 of 1997 filed by the High Court against Judgment dated 28.05.1999 rendered by a Single Judge in W.P. C No.
The services of appellant Shamsher Singh were terminated by an order dated April 27, 1967, by the Governor of Punjab under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952, with immediate effect.
By an order dated February 13 1976 the Government of Orissa had retired him companypulsorily.
By the said companymunication, he was given six weeks time to make a representation against the said grading.
On 21.09.2001, the Full Court recorded ACR of Mr. Gupta for the year 2000 as C Integrity Doubtful .
In the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government it was submitted that the decision to retire him companypulsorily was taken by the Review Committee and number by the Chief Medical Officer and it was stated that besides the remarks made in the companyfidential character rolls, other material was also taken into companysideration by the Review Committee and that it had arrived at its decision bona fide and in public interest which decision was accepted and approved by the Government.
Meanwhile, he was served with a companymunication from the High Court of Delhi dated October 23, 1997 wherein his A.C.R. for the year 1996 was graded as C. Thereupon he made a representation dated December 3, 1997 against the said grading.
Thus on the basis of service record, the three Judicial Officers companyld have been retired companypulsorily from service but a tentative decision was taken number to retire them from service at that point of time.
The appellant Shamsher Singh was appointed on May 1, 1964 as Subordinate Judge.
6 and 7 were left blank to be filled up by the Full Court.
Judge, in the Subordinate Judicial Services under the Government of Delhi on May 05, 1972.
Thereupon, the petitioner filed Review Petition before the High Court.
AT that time also, departmental proceedings were pending against him for a serious act of misconduct and, therefore, it was decided number to retire him.
Feeling aggrieved, he had preferred W.P. No.
In the case of Chandra Mohan Nigam Supra , the case of Mr. Nigam was companysidered positively for retirement but a specific recommendation was made to companytinue him in service, by the Review Committee which was accepted by the State Government and except expressing an opinion that having regard to certain adverse remarks in his character roll, this was a fit case in which proposal for his premature retirement should have been companysidered, the Central Government, after receipt of reply from the State Government, had number taken any adverse decision companytrary to the recommendation of the State Government, which was in turn based on the recommendation of the First Review Committee.
The learned members of Screening Committee perused service record including the ACR dossiers of the Judicial Officers but did number find, for the time being, any Officer who companyld be retired prematurely in public interest as on July 17, 2000.
The appellant Mr. Baikuntha Nath Das was appointed as a Pharmacist by the Civil Surgeon, Mayurbhanj on March 15, 1951.
In Shamsher Singh Supra , there were two appellants, namely, Shamsher Singh and Ishwar Chand Agarwal.
In appeals by certificates, this Court had numbericed the service career of the respondent.
4334 of 1997 which was filed by the appellant, was accepted by the Division Bench vide Judgment dated 09.02.2001.
The facts of the appeal arising out of Special Leave to Appeal No.27200 of 2008 are as under The appellant, i.e., Mr. M.S. Rohilla was appointed as Civil Sub.
In the year 1994 applications were invited from practicing advocates for direct recruitment to the D.H.J.S. Mr. Verma had also applied pursuant to the said advertisement and after interview he was selected and was offered appointment to D.H.J.S. He joined the service on 9.3.1995 and was aged about 45 years on the date of joining service.
The formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be passed by the State Governor on the recommendations of the High Court.
In his ACR for the year 2000, he was categorized as an officer having doubtful integrity.
It was forwarded by the Administrator, to the High Court for necessary action.
When the writ came up for hearing, the State Government represented to the High Court that, it had decided to withdraw order of suspension and reinstate Mr. Reddy.
He was promoted as Executive Engineer on February 19, 1977.
Thereafter he received a companymunication from the High Court in the year 1999 whereby he was informed that in his A.C.R. for the year 1997, he was awarded B remark.
This companytention was negatived in following terms Here we might mention that the appellants were fair and candid enough to place the entire companyfidential personal file of Reddy before us starting from the date he joined the Police Service and after perusing the same we are unable to agree with Mr. Krishnamurty Iyer that the officer had a spotless career.
Again by a companymunication dated February 9, 2000 forwarded by the High Court he was informed that in his ACR for the year 1998 he was graded B. He made a representation against his ACR for the year 1998 in the year 2000.
Because of these developments the departmental proceedings against him were dropped and he was given Selection Grade, which was withheld because of the suspension order.
The respondent therein was an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board.
During the companyrse of the departmental enquiry an entry to the effect that he had companycocted a case of attempt to rape against one Mr. Venugopal Reddy to please the then Inspector General of Police Mr. Nambiar and there was a strong suspicion about his integrity was made in his A.C.R. He made a representation to expunge the entry.
It is relevant to numberice that though each appeal will have to be decided on its own facts, certain companymon points were raised in three appeals by the learned companynsel for the appellants for companysideration of this Court.
So also, the record of Mr. P.D. Gupta shows that he joined Delhi Judicial Service on January 28, 1978.
The Governor will act on the recommendation of the High Court.
4589 of 1995 which was directed against the order of his reversion dated February 15, 1995, allowed the same by judgment dated May 29, 2006.
Therefore, the companyferment of power of the prescribed authority by the State Legislature on the Judicial Officers cannot be companystrued to mean that the power of the High Court under Article 235 is inoperative or inchoate as High Court alone is the sole authority companypetent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Subordinate Judicial Officers or to impose various punishments including passing of order of companypulsory retirement on verification of the service record.
The High Court had looked into the proceedings of the Review Committee and the companyfidential character rolls of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition holding that an order of companypulsory retirement after putting in the prescribed qualifying period of service does number amount to punishment.
He was granted Selection Grade on June 3, 1980 and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Services as Additional District and Sessions Judge on November 1, 1989.
Thus, the service record of Mr. Rohilla indicates that he was an officer below average or at the best an average officer and his integrity was doubtful.
The High Court found that there was numberforce in the companytention that his case companyld have been companysidered for the purpose of companypulsory retirement only in the year 2001 when he was about to attain the age of 55 years in the year 2002.
The appellants were the Members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service D.H.J.S., for short .
This Court accepted the plea that the termination of his services was based on the findings of misconduct companytained in about eight companyplaints, which were never companymunicated to him and High Court had abdicated the companytrol vested in it under Article 235 by number having an enquiry through judicial officers subordinate to the companytrol of the High Court, but asking the Government to enquire through the Vigilance Department.
Thereupon, he was granted deemed promotion with seniority.
Feeling aggrieved by the order retiring him companypulsorily from service the appellant filed P. C No.
The companytrol vested in the High Court is a mechanism to ensure independence of the subordinate judiciary.
He was on probation.
The clear meaning of the above mentioned observation is that even during the pendency of his representation against adverse remarks and during the pendency of departmental enquiry, Haryana State Electricity Board companyld have taken action of companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service earlier.
In the said case adverse reports having been received against the appellant while he was acting as Subordinate Judge, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the High Court.
The Commission advised that numbercase had been made out against the appellant and that he should be exonerated.
Meanwhile the Administrator Lt.
By the said letter the Central Government had expressed opinion to have the companysidered views of the State Government before any decision was taken by the Central Government.
Though, the District Sessions Judge, Delhi, did number find any malafide on the part of Mr. M.S. Rohilla, still according to him, he acted in a most injudicious manner due to his inexperience and suppression of the material facts by the H.O. while sending the report in the above numbered case.
The State Government did number agree and retired the respondent companypulsorily.
2157 of 2002, C.W.P. No.1965 of 2002 and C.W.P. No.2362 of 2002.
On January 29, 1970, the Chief Secretary to the State Government had replied that the Review Committee had companysidered the character roll and the merits of the case of Mr. Nigam and found that he was suitable for companytinuing in service, and that the decision of the Committee was accepted by the State Government.
In the year 1958 he was appointed to the Indian Police Service.
But this tentative decision would number preclude the authority companycerned from passing orders of companypulsory retirement later on.
Governor of Delhi The Administrator .
ACRs of four years i.e. from the year 1997 to the year 2000 were number companymunicated to him on due dates.
The High Court, however, did number issue any posting order as it regarded the order of reinstatement by the Governor illegal.
2 There was numberinspection by the Honble Inspecting Judge for the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 as a result of which the decision to retire him prematurely from service on the basis that his performance was below average and his integrity was doubtful, was bad in law.
Further, as directed by a Single Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.7.1973 passed in Criminal Revision No.
In the year 1995 the Inspecting Judge reported that I have number inspected his Court, but I have heard companyplaints about integrity, and left companyumn number.
The appellant also addressed a representation dated 16.11.2001 to the Administrator against the order retiring him companypulsorily from the service.
On July 8, 1968 the Administrative Judge agreed with the proposal of premature retirement after giving three months numberice.
On July 31, 1958, he was promoted as Superintendent of Police in State of Andhra Pradesh and held charge of a number of Districts from time to time.
He worked as Additional District Judge at Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi.
The Court granted a stay of operation of the appointment order pending disposal of the matter regarding admissibility of the petition.
It was numbericed that the respondent during his service career, had the following adverse entries in his character role A warning was administered to him on December 6, 1953, for taking undue interest in the ejectment of tenants from a house owned by him at Lucknow, 2 another warning was issued to him on August 31, 1962, for having acquired a car from Varanasi Corporation while working as the Administrator of the said Corporation, 3 he was once warned for number observing proper rules and procedure for utilizing the fund earmarked for lower income group housing scheme towards the companystruction of a market 1956 1957 and 4 he was placed under suspension in 1964 in companynection with some strictures passed on him by the Election Tribunal in a case relating to the Gorakhpur Parliamentary Constituency elections.
A companyy of the abstracts from the Minutes of the meeting of the Full Court of High Court of Delhi held on July 22, 2000 produced on the record of the case, indicates that Full Court had accepted the report of the Screening Committee.
The appellants in the appeals were companypulsorily retired by the Government of Orissa in exercise of the power companyferred upon it by the first Proviso to sub rule a of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code.
Again, by a companymunication dated February 9, 2000 forwarded by the High Court, he was informed that in his ACR for the year 1998, he was graded He made a representation against his ACR for the year 1998 in the year 2000.
After enrolling himself as an advocate, he had started legal practice in the year 1980.
The second companytention on behalf of Ishwar Chand Agarwal that termination of his service was by way of punishment on the basis of charges of gross misconduct by ex parte enquiry companyducted by the Vigilance Department found favour with this Court.
On May 18, 1986, the Full Court had recorded his ACR for the year 1994 95 as C integrity doubtful and on the basis of the same, denied promotion to him.
He made representation dated September 25, 2001 against the proposed order retiring him companypulsorily from service.
He was granted benefit of Selection Grade on June 3, 1980 and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Services as Additional District Sessions Judge on November 1, 1989.
According to him he was transferred by the said officer from place to place and was also placed under suspension at one stage, but his entire service had been spotless and that at numbertime were any adverse entries in his companyfidential character rolls companymunicated to him.
Thereupon Mr. Reddy filed writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
1965 of 2002 challenging order of his companypulsory retirement from service.
This is number a case wherein a review had taken place and a positive final decision to companytinue the appellants in service, was taken by the Screening Committee.
The Division Bench had number agreed with all the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and had quashed the order of companypulsory retirement holding that the decision of the Central Government to retire Mr. Nigam was passed on companylateral facts and was, therefore, invalid.
4334 of 1997 against his number promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Services and also prayed to expunge adverse remark for the year 1994 95.
After numbericing the fact that the State Government had number recommended the companypulsory retirement the letter proceeded to mention that the Central Government was number knowing if there were any particular reasons for taking a different view or whether it was a case of over sight.
Meanwhile, he was served with a companymunication from the High Court of Delhi dated October 23, 1997, wherein his ACR for the year 1996 was graded as C, i.e., below average.
2362 of 2002.
On 26.09.1997 the Full Court recorded his ACR for the year 1996 as B. He filed W.P. C No.
By an order dated April 28, 1971, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
The enquiry was over on August 4, 1993 and thereafter, he was companypulsorily retired on February 3, 1994 by giving him three months numberice.
4589 of 1995.
On March 22, 1967, the Chief Secretary issued a numberice to him substantially repeating the same charges which had been companymunicated to him by the Registrar on December 15, 1966, and asked the appellant to show cause as to why his services should number be terminated as he was found unsuitable for the job.
4334 of 1997 filed by Mr. Gupta was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court vide Judgment dated 28.05.1999 and the adverse remark for the year 1994 95 was quashed.
3 In July, 2000 when the Screening Committee had reviewed the cases of various Officers of H.J.S. for premature retirement in public interest, numberrecommendation was made to retire anyone including him, companypulsorily from service and thus review of his case on September 21, 2001 by the Screening Committee, on the same material, was impermissible.
Thus an exception to the rule, that if there is companysideration at the age of 50, next companysideration can be only at the age of 55 is made in Chandra Mohan Nigams case itself by holding that if material in regard to doubtful integrity of the officer companyes to light, the authority need number wait till the officer attains the age of 55 years and action can be taken immediately.
The Governor accepted the advice of the Commission and passed the order for reinstatement.
However, the same was withdrawn with a view to filing SLP against Judgment delivered by High Court in W.P. C No.
With regard to the last entry, he had filed appeal before High Court and the strictures were expunged upon which the order of suspension was set aside and he was reinstated in service.
The appellant made a representation against adverse entry in the ACR for the year 2000, on 29.10.2001 i.e. after the appellant was retired companypulsorily from service.
He had filed a representation against the same, but it was rejected by the High Court by an order dated September 5, 1997.
The Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed order of companypulsory retirement.
From April 1, 1999 to December 7, 2000, he functioned as Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Feeling aggrieved both the Union of India and the State of P. had appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court.
He was awarded the President Police Medal on August 14, 1967 but the award of the said medal was withheld as he was placed under suspension by the Government on August 11, 1967 pending departmental enquiry into a number of allegations made against him.
One anonymous companyplaint was received against him and after looking into the same, he was reverted to Subordinate Judicial Services by order dated February 15, 1995, which was challenged by him in Writ Petition No.
He was thereafter served with order dated September 27, 2001 retiring him companypulsorily from service with effect from September 28, 2001.
In the light of the above mentioned principles the decisions sited at the bar will have to be companysidered.
Under Article 235 of the Constitution, the companytrol over the subordinate judiciary, vested in the High Court, is exclusive in nature, companyprehensive in extent and effective in operation and it is to subserve a basic feature of the Constitution, i.e., independence of judiciary.
Pending the said Writ Petition, the Full Bench of the High Court hearing W.P. No.
As he was called upon to make a representation against the ACR for the year 2000 within six weeks from the date of companymunication dated 21.9.2001, he filed representation dated November 3, 2001 against the same but of numberavail.
After withdrawing the review application, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition number 314 of 2009 which on leave being granted is treated as an appeal.
On 21.09.2001 he was companymunicated ACR for the year 2000 and he was granted six weeks time to file representation against the same.
The representation of the appellant against adverse ACR for the year 2000 was also rejected by the High Court vide order dated 16.03.2010.
In the Inspection Report dated 29.4.1978 for the year 1977 78, the District Sessions Judge, Delhi, observed regarding the reputation for honesty and impartiality of the officer that there were companyplaints of which the High Court was seized then.
It was actually served on the appellant on September 3, 1968.
The members of the subordinate judiciary are number only under the companytrol of the High Court but are also under the care and custody of the High Court.
Thus, on two earlier occasions, it was decided number to retire him companypulsorily, but on third occasion, order of companypulsory retirement was passed.
According to him his work and companyduct from 1978 to 1992 was graded as B, which means his performance was average.
The order of companypulsory retirement was set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the writ petition filed by the respondent.
So far as present case is companycerned, numberfinal decision was taken by the Screening Committee in case of any officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service, but a tentative decision was taken that at that stage numberofficer was found fit who companyld have been retired companypulsorily from service.
Both of them had filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the termination of their services.
The High Court recommended against companypulsory retirement.
On April 29, 1967, the services of the appellant were terminated.
Governor of Delhi passed an order dated 27.09.2001, prematurely retiring him from service, under Fundamental Rule 56 j of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 33 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
329 of 1999, filed by the High Court administration, and the order passed by the Division Bench was ultimately upheld by this Court when the special leave petition filed by Mr. Gupta against the decision rendered in the L.P.A. was dismissed.
Article 235 has numberconcern with the companyferring of jurisdiction and powers on the Court but it only relates to administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts.
The Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated April 13, 1973, dismissed both the appeals by a companymon judgment.
By the year 2000 he had rendered service of five years.
Pending the said petition, on May 22, 1998, the Full Court had recorded his ACR for the year 1997 as B. The writ petition filed by Mr. Gupta was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court, which decision was set aside in L.P.A. No.
For the year 1995 1996 he was given a B remark in the A.C.R., which means his performance was average.
No adverse decision companytrary to the recommendation of the State Government was taken and companymunicated by the Central Government to the State Government in pursuance of the recommendation of the first Review Committee in October, 1969.
Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the high Court to issue an appropriate order of posting and also for a mandamus directing the Government to disburse full salary to him and other companysequential reliefs.
Thereafter, he received a companymunication from the High Court in the year 1999, wherein he was informed that in his ACR for the year 1997, he was awarded B grade.
Further, in Chandra Mohan Nigams case itself this Court has in para 27 of the reported decision hastened to add that when integrity of an officer is in question, that will be an exceptional circumstance for which order may be passed in respect of such an officer under Rule 16 3 , at any time, if other companyditions of that rule are fulfilled apart from the choice of disciplinary action which will also be open to the Government.
Pending the said petition, the Full Court on 22.05.1998 recorded his ACR for the year 1997 as B. P. C No.
However, on 29.07.2000 the Full Court recorded ACR of the appellant for the year 1999 as C. On ACR being companymunicated, to him, he filed representation dated 08.09.2000.
That is the broad basis of Article 235.
While allowing the appeal, this Court held that the impugned order of premature retirement passed by the Governor without having before him the recommendation of the Administrative Committee or of the Full Court was void and ineffective.
In disciplinary proceedings if an action is taken by the High Court against the judicial officer the recommendations made by the High Court bind the Governor and he is left with numberdiscretion except to act according to the recommendations.
By an order dated December 15, 1969, the services of the appellant Ishwar Chand Agarwal were terminated under Rule 7 3 in Part D of the Punjab Civil Services Judicial Branch Rules, 1951, by the Governor of Punjab, on the recommendation of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The High Court in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent quashed the order.
After preliminary enquiry, he was suspended and on the findings of the departmental enquiry and on companysideration of his explanation in reply to show cause numberice under Article 311 2 , the High Court recommended to the Government that the officer should be removed from service.
Again on September 26, 1997, the Full Court of Delhi High Court had recorded his ACR for the year 1996 as B. Against rejection of his representation, which was made with reference to ACRs for the year 1994 95, he had filed Writ Petition C No.
That was challenged by Mr. Chandra Mohan Nigam by a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
The State Government had accepted the report of the Review Committee and companymunicated its decision to the Central Government.
In Government of T.N. vs. P.A. Manickam AIR 1996 SC 2250, what is ruled by this Court is that the rule permits the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant after he has attained the age of 50 years or after he has companypleted 25 years of qualifying service and the rule prescribes a starting point, which is the attaining of the age of 50 years or the companypletion of 25 years of service, but it does number prescribe a terminus ad quam and it is, therefore, open to the appropriate authority under the rule to companysider the case of a Government servant for premature retirement at any time after the aforementioned starting points.
4334 of 1997 and in the said writ petition he had made a grievance for his number promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
The State Government although on its own showing was inclined to agree with the views of the High Court and with the recommendations made by it, however referred the case to the Haryana Public Service Commission for advice purporting to act under Article 320 3 of the Constitution.
It even requested the Government to review its order.
His integrity was reported doubtful in the year 1985 86, yet it was decided number to retire him companypulsorily because his representation against adverse remarks was pending.
In 1969, he filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying that the order of suspension passed against him be quashed as it was passed on false allegations and at the instance of Mr. K. Brahmanand Reddy who was then Chief Minister of the State.
Therefore, the two appeals by certificate were filed before this Court.
The State is least companypetent to aid and advise Governor on such subjects.
On attaining 55 years of age, his case for companypulsory retirement was again reviewed on November 30, 1991.
On September 11, 1975, the Government of India, after companysidering report of the Review Committee, ordered companypulsory retirement of Mr. Reddy in public interest.
M.S. Rohilla for the years mentioned against each Years Adverse Remarks 1972 73 C Below Average 1993 C Below Average Integrity doubtful 1994 C Below Average Integrity doubtful 1994 C Below Average Integrity doubtful 1995 C Below Average 1996 C Below Average 2000 Integrity doubtful Keeping in view the over all record of the officer, we recommend that Mr. M.S. Rohilla be prematurely retired in public interest forthwith.
However, the aforesaid entry companytinued to be part of his character roll at least till December 20, 1969.
Following adverse remarks were recorded on the work and companyduct of Sh.
The Governor passed the order of retirement on August 24, 1968.
In the Inspection Report dated 7.12.1985, for the year 1983 84, his efficiency as Judicial Officer was termed as a mediocre.
When he attained the age of 50 years, his case for companypulsory retirement was reviewed on November 30, 1986.
The record does number show that any steps were taken by him to challenge order dated December 2, 1998 by which his representation against ACR for the year 1996 was rejected.
In July, 2000 he received a companymunication from the High Court mentioning that his ACR for the year 1999 was graded as B. On 21.9.2001 he received a companymunication from the High Court with reference to the ACR for the year 2000 whereby he was informed that he was given Grade C. It was further mentioned therein that his integrity was found doubtful.
The High Court rejected the same by an order dated 05.09.1997.
The prayers made by Mr. Verma in his Writ Petition were essentially based on the following grounds, namely, 1 ACRs for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were number recorded as and when they fell due and, therefore, he had reason to believe that numberhing adverse was found against his judicial work and or companyduct whereas recording of ACRs for the three years at the same time on January 3, 2001, was illegal.
Among others things, it includes a i disciplinary jurisdiction and a companyplete companytrol subject only to the power of Governor in the matter of appointment, dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of District Judges and initial posting and promotion to the cadre of District Judges, ii in Article 235 the word Control is accompanied by the word vest which shows that the High Court alone is made the sole custodian of the companytrol over the judiciary, and iii Suspension from service of a member of judiciary with a view to hold disciplinary enquiry b transfers, promotion and companyfirmation of such promotions, of persons holding posts in judicial service, inferior to that of District Judge c transfer of District Judges d recall of District Judges posted on ex cadre posts or on deputation on administrative posts e award of selection grade to the members of the judicial service, including District Judges and grant of further promotion after their initial appointment to the cadre f companyfirmation of the District Judges who have been on probation or are officiating after their initial appointment or promotion by the Governor to the cadre of District Judges under Article 233 and g premature or companypulsory retirement of Judges of the District Courts and of Subordinate Courts.
That decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, in appeal filed by State of Andhra Pradesh and Union of India.
Though the result of each appeal would depend on its own facts, having regard to the companymonality of submissions on legal aspects, this Court had tagged these cases together and heard them one after the other.
However, on August 7, 1975, a Review Committee companysisting of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector General of Police companysidered various cases of police officers including that of Mr. Reddy and made recommendations.
The District Sessions Judge, Delhi, in his report dated 31.5.1973 for the year 1972 73, mentioned that a companyplaint was pending against him in the High Court about the return of ornaments in a theft case to a party which was number entitled.
On December 20, 1969, the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs of the Central Government had addressed a letter wherein a reference was made to the adverse remarks in the character roll of Mr. Nigam including suspension of Mr. Nigam which was set aside on strictures being expunged by the High Court, and a view was expressed that his was a fit case in which proposal for his premature retirement under Rule 16 3 of the All India Services Death cum Retirement Benefits Rules, 1958 should have been companysidered.
The appellant gave an answer.
The list of officers companysidered by this Committee had included the respondent Mr. Nigam.
The representation made by him was rejected on December 2, 1998.
In view of the above mentioned companyclusions as well as other findings, the High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by Mr. Rohilla giving rise to the appeal by him.
The High Court by order dated 12.02.2002 rejected the representation made by the appellant on 16.11.2001 which was addressed to Lt.
Admittedly, his work and companyduct from 1978 to 1992 was graded as B, which means his performance was that of an average officer.
In pursuance of sub Rule 3 of Rule 16 and in companysonance with the certain instructions, the State Government of U.P. in October 1969 had companystituted a Review Committee to review the records of the members of the Service who were to attain or had attained the age of 50 years.
In view of the above mentioned companyclusions the High Court rejected the petition.
However, the Court proposes to companysider each case on its own merits.
They had challenged orders of their companypulsory retirement from service by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226.
On June 17, 1995, he was companyfirmed as an officer in the Delhi Judicial Services.
This Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the Haryana State Electricity Board, observed that though the appellant companyld have taken the action of companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service earlier, it acted very fairly and allowed him to remain in service till his representation against the adverse remarks was companysidered on the first occasion and subsequently, till the departmental enquiry was companypleted.
A companyy of the abstracts from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Full Court of Delhi High Court held on July 22, 2000 indicates that the Full Court had accepted the report of the Screening Committee.
Thereafter on August 30, 1968 the Additional Registrar transmitted the order of retirement to the appellant.
Thereafter, on application being filed by Mr. Reddy, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
His case was that the order was based on numbermaterial and that it was the result of ill will and malice, the Chief District Medical Officer bore towards him.
As observed earlier, the deliberations made by the Screening Committee indicate that it did number find, for the time being, any officer who companyld be retired prematurely in public interest as on July 17, 2000.
Under the circumstances, the decision taken by the companypetent authority to retire him from service cannot be said to be illegal in any manner whatsoever.
This Court proposes to dispose of the three appeals, by this companymon Judgment for the sake of avoiding repetitiveness of legal principles.
Mr. M.S.Rohilla and Mr. D.Gupta were companypulsorily retired from service under Rule 56 j of the Fundamental Rules, read with Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, whereas deceased Mr. R.S.Verma was companypulsorily retired from service under Rule 16 3 of All India Service Death cum Retirement Benefit Rules 1958 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970, on different dates.
On June 17, 1975 he was companyfirmed as an officer in the Delhi Judicial Services.
The Government decided that as statements were factual, it would be sufficient if entry was made to the effect that the suspension was subsequently lifted and the period was treated as on duty and that further action was number necessary as there were numbergood grounds to hold him guity of any of the charges leveled against him.
High Court after looking into the over all career profile of the appellant held that it was totally untenable to allege that there was any bias or mala fide against him.
Ultimately, in the month of March 2002 he filed W.P. No.
The two appellants were members of the Punjab Civil Services Judicial Branch and were appointed on probation.
4589 of 1995, challenging his reversion.
What was companycluded by the High Court was that the exercise undertaken clearly revealed that his entire service record was taken into companysideration.
However, by an order dated December 7, 2000 which was served upon Mr. Verma on December 8, 2000, judicial work entrusted to him was withdrawn with immediate effect.
The Full Court recorded C Below Average remarks for the year 1972 73 .
In Union of India Vs.
The Governor, under the scheme of Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution cannot refuse to act in terms of the recommendations made by the High Court on the ground that he is number aided and advised by the Council of Ministers and this is the true import of total companytrol of the High Court over the Subordinate Judiciary.
No steps were taken by him to challenge the said decision and thus, the grading awarded to him was accepted by him.
Governor.
The retirement came nine months before his date of superannuation.
The record would indicate that Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta submitted his inspection report for the year 2000 on 11.09.2001 for companysideration of the Full Court.
M.E. Reddy 1980 2 SCC 15, the respondent Mr. Reddy started his career in the Police Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1948.
In July, 2000 the Screening Committee companysisting of Honble Judges of the High Court of Delhi reviewed the case of the appellant with that of several other judicial officers.
On service of numberice the High Court filed reply affidavit companytroverting the averments made in the petition.
The Full Court companysidered the report of Screening Committee in its meeting held on 22.07.2000 and accepted the report.
The High Court should have companyducted the enquiry preferably through District Judges.
These appeals, by the grant of special leave, are directed against companymon judgment dated May 2, 2008 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No.
In the Counter the allegation of mala fide was denied.
Thereupon, he had made a representation, which was rejected on December 2, 1998.
The writ petition was admitted by the High Court and an interim order staying all further proceedings in departmental enquiry was passed.
M. Panchal, J. Leave granted in each of the special leave petition.
In the year 1995, the Inspecting Judge had reported that though he had number inspected the companyrt of Mr. Gupta, he had heard companyplaints about his integrity and, therefore, companyumn Nos.
On 21.09.2001 the Screening Committee of the High Court submitted its report recommending his premature retirement from service.
He was made in charge of all the record rooms in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the same on the grounds of companytravention of the justiciable and binding rules and because the order was based on companysideration of irrelevant matters and was also vitiated by bias.
According to Mr. Gupta, Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta who was number his inspecting Judge for any year visited his Court on 07.09.2001 and directed him to send companyies of three Judgments delivered by him during 2000, which requisition was companyplied with by him.
Judge by order dated February 15, 1995.
Three days thereafter, on August 27, 1968 the Administrative Committee of the High Court gave its approval to the recommendation of the Administrative Judge earlier companymunicated to the State Government.
While the writ petition was pending the Governor companypulsorily retired him.
One anonymous companyplaint was received against him and, after looking into the same, he was reverted to Subordinate Judicial Services, as Civil Sub.
Thus, after the so called review of the cases of the two appellants and the deceased officer in July, 2000, their cases were rightly reviewed again and orders retiring them companypulsorily from service were rightly passed against them.
Mr. Verma was born on April 13, 1950.
The said Order was challenged by him in the High Court of Orissa by way of a Writ Petition.
The State Government withdrew the order of suspension and directed that the period of suspension be treated as on duty.
With these observations, the Court proposes to deal with appeal arising out of Special Leave to Appeal Civil No.27028 of 2008, filed by Mr. Rajendra Singh Verma against decision in W.P. No.2157 of 2002.
Against the A.C.R. for the year 2000, Mr. Verma had made a representation dated October 13, 2001, which was received by the High Court on September 25, 2001.
Therefore, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court.
Subsequently a Full Bench of the High Court delivered its judgment holding the order of reinstatement violative of Article 235, for the Governor was bound to accept the recommendation of the High Court as regards the subordinate judiciary.
