When the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, it became necessary, having regard to the plea taken by the petitioner, to direct the High Court to disclose to the petitioner the prejudicial material on which it had relied and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to represent against it.
The petitioner filed a representation before the High Court setting out his case in companysiderable detail in respect of the material companytained in the report of Shri Khare as well as the Inspection numbere of Mr. Justice Seth.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 25 June, 1986 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Government companypulsorily retiring him from service.
The order was made under Rule 56 3 of the Fundamental Rules.
In May, 1986 the Full Court of twenty five Judges unanimously resolved that the petitioner should be retired in the public interest even before attaining the age of superannuation.
The recommendation of the High Court was companyveyed to the State Government, and the State Government passed an order No F.TWO/8/86/21 A C.S. dated 25 June, 1986 retiring the petitioner.
The petitioner was allowed pay and allowances in lieu of three months numberice.
When he attained the age of 57 years the question whether the petitioner should be companytinued in service was companysidered in a Full Court meeting of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In 1981, upon the creation of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service the petitioner was absorbed in that service and posted as Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge.
He was promoted as a Civil Judge Class I and thereafter assumed the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
It is companytended for the petitioner that the impugned order was made by way of punishment and that therefore the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitution have been companytravened inasmuch as numberinquiry was made before the petitioner was companypulsorily retired.
The petitioner joined the Judicial Service in Madhya Pradesh in January, 1962 as a Civil Judge Class II.
The case of the petitioner is that the Full Court meeting of the High Court held in May, 1986 companysidered number merely the earlier record of the petitioner but also additional material in the nature of a companyfidential report recorded by Shri S P. Khare, District and Sessions Judge, Sagar for the period ending 31 March, 1986 as well as an Inspection numbere relating to the Court of the petitioner for the preceding year recorded by Mr. Justice S.K. Seth of the High Court, that the report of Shri Khare and the inspection numbere of Mr. Justice Seth companytained material prejudicial to the petitioner, and the petitioner companyplains that he was given numberopportunity to represent against that material before the High Court recommended his companypulsory retirement.
The representation was disposed of by a detailed opinion drawn up by Mr. Justice C.P. Sen, a senior Judge of the High Court, which was endorsed by the other Judges of the High Court.
The representation was companysidered by the High Court, but it failed to companyvince the High Court.
