# Anupati Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. &Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 777
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 29607 of 2013
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anupati-ram-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44475
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Article 235 and Rule 4 of Chapter III
of the High Court Rules, 1952- Rule 3 of
the U.P. Government Servants Rule,
1956- Judicial Officer-Adverse RemarksRepresentation
Rejected-Compulsory
Retirement.
Not
punishment.
No
requirement of opportunity of hearing.

Compulsory retirement not a punishment and
involves no penal consequences - In regard to
judicial
officers,
power
of
compulsory
retirement can be exercised at any time by
Administrative Judge by invoking Article 235 of
the Constitution of India which is not
circumscribed by any Rule or Order- Awarding
annual entries either by the District Judge or
the Administrative Judge, the principles of
natural justice have no place at all- Delay in
recording annual entry by the Administrative
Judge is merely an administrative work and
would not vitiate the entry- Delay in deciding
the representation of the petitioner would
have no adverse impact upon the order of his
compulsory retirement inasmuch as it was
decided prior to the meeting of the Screening
Committee -U.P. Government Service Rules,
1995, are not applicable upon judicial officers-
Shifting of the entry from one particular year
to another would not wipe off its vigour or
sting so long as it remains to be in the zone of
the
consideration
for
the
purposes
of
compulsory retirement.

Writ Petition Dismissed.

Case Law discussed/relied upon: -

## Text

1 All. Anupati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
777
setting
aside
the
impugned
order
26.10.2018 to the extent that DIOS after
coming to the conclusion that there are five
vacant posts but has not opted to pass order
for approval to any of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the DIOS is directed to grant
approval to petitioners at serial nos.1 to 5
(chart mentioned above) towards the five
vacant post of Class IV employees within a
period of four weeks from the date of a
certified copy of this order is produced
before him. The appointed petitioners shall
be granted salary from the date of grant of
approval. In case, any of the abovementioned five writ petitioners failed to join
the post of Class IV employees in terms of
directions passed by the DIOS, the DIOS
shall grant the appointment to the remaining
two writ petitioners namely at serial No.6
and 7 as per the merit towards the post
which remain vacant due to non-joining of
any of the petitioners mentioned in
paragraph no.11.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
partly
allowed
with
the
aforesaid
directions.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL , J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-A No. 29607 of 2013

Anupati Ram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. &Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prem Prakash, Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manish Goyal
A. Article 235 and Rule 4 of Chapter III
of the High Court Rules, 1952- Rule 3 of
the U.P. Government Servants Rule,
1956- Judicial Officer-Adverse RemarksRepresentation
Rejected-Compulsory
Retirement.
Not
punishment.
No
requirement of opportunity of hearing.

Compulsory retirement not a punishment and
involves no penal consequences - In regard to
judicial
officers,
power
of
compulsory
retirement can be exercised at any time by
Administrative Judge by invoking Article 235 of
the Constitution of India which is not
circumscribed by any Rule or Order- Awarding
annual entries either by the District Judge or
the Administrative Judge, the principles of
natural justice have no place at all- Delay in
recording annual entry by the Administrative
Judge is merely an administrative work and
would not vitiate the entry- Delay in deciding
the representation of the petitioner would
have no adverse impact upon the order of his
compulsory retirement inasmuch as it was
decided prior to the meeting of the Screening
Committee -U.P. Government Service Rules,
1995, are not applicable upon judicial officers-
Shifting of the entry from one particular year
to another would not wipe off its vigour or
sting so long as it remains to be in the zone of
the
consideration
for
the
purposes
of
compulsory retirement.

Writ Petition Dismissed.

Case Law discussed/relied upon: -

1. (1992) 2 SCC 299, Baikuntha Nath Das v.
Chief Medical Officer, Baripada & another.

2. (1998) 4 SCC 92, State of Punjab v. Gurdas
Singh.

3. (2011) 10 SCC 1, Rajendra Singh Verma
(Dead) thru LRS. & Ors v. Lt. Governor (NCT
of Delhi) &Ors.

4. (2002) 3 SCC 641, State of U.P and Others
v. Vijay Kumar Jain.

5. (2010) 10 SCC 693, Pyare Mohan Lal v.
State of Jharkhand and Others (E-3)
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The petitioner Anupati Ram
Yadav, after serving Indian Air Force for
15 years from 10.08.76 till 31.08.1991
was appointed on 19.03.1996 on the post
of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the
State of U.P. on the basis of selection in
the competitive examination.

2. In the year 2007-08 when he
was posted as C.J.M. Ambedakar Nagar,
the District Judge recorded certain
adverse
remarks
in
his
Annual
Confidential Report. The petitioner's
representation
dated
09.07.08/14.07.2008 against the said
adverse
remarks
was
rejected
as
communicated to him vide letter dated
24.03.2009 by the High Court. In the
same year his integrity was withheld by
the
Administrative
Judge
and
his
judgements were held to be very poor.
Accordingly, he was assessed as a poor
officer. The petitioner represented on
06.03.2009 for expunging the above
remarks of the Administrative Judge but
the representation was rejected vide
order dated 17.01.2013 by the High Court
as communicated to him.

3. On the basis of his past service
record specially the above entries, the High
Court recommended for the compulsory
retirement of the petitioner and the Chief
Secretary State of U.P. by the office order
dated
01.03.2013
directed
for
the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner in the above
circumstances has preferred this writ
petition challenging not only the order of
compulsory retirement but also the
rejection of his representation against the
adverse entry given by the Administrative
Judge for the year 2007-08 and has
prayed that he may be allowed to
discharge his duties as Additional District
and Sessions Judge the post which he was
holding at the time of compulsory
retirement and to pay him salary and all
arrears accordingly.

5. The parties having exchanged
pleadings agreed for the final disposal of
the writ petition at the stage of admission.

6. Sri Anupati Ram Yadav, who
appeared in person, submitted that the
then District Judge and the Administrative
Judge were annoyed with him and as such
they have awarded adverse entry so as to
ruin his career.

7. The Administrative Judge was not
competent to withhold his integrity for the
relevant year as the District Judge had
certified it. The withholding of the integrity
by the Administrative Judge amounts to
down grading his entry which could not have
been done without following the principles
of natural justice. The term of the then
Administrative Judge had expired on
31.03.2008 and as such he could have
awarded entry to him within six months
thereof i.e. by the end of September, 2008
whereas his integrity was withheld vide order
dated 03.02.2009 which was illegal.

8. The adverse entry for the year 200708 was on the basis of the inspection report of
05.07.2008 which could have been relevant
only for the year 2008-09.

9. The petitioner had represented
against the aforesaid withholding of
integrity immediately on 06.03.2009 by
filing a representation and the same was
decided after about four years though
1 All. Anupati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
779
under the U.P. Government Servants
(Disposal
of
Representation
against
Adverse Annual Confidential Report and
Allied Matters) Rules, 1995, such a
representation ought to have been decided
within four months or 120 days.

10. Lastly, he submits that his entire
service record which was otherwise
unblemished
was
not
taken
into
consideration
before
retiring
him
compulsorily.

11. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the Allahabad High
Court in response to the above arguments
submitted that in view of Article 235 and
Rule 4 of Chapter III of the High Court
Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the
High Court Rules) the Administrative
Judge has independent power to record
entries in the character roles of the
officers of the subordinate judiciary.
Thus, there is no question of down
grading of the entry of the petitioner and
to follow the principles of natural justice
in that regard.

12. The award of entry by the
Administrative Judge after the expiry of
his term though a little late would not
invalidate the entry so awarded. The
representation of the petitioner against the
said adverse entry was dealt with in all
promptness and the reasons for the delay
have been suitably explained and as such
there is no willful or deliberate delay in
deciding
the
same.
Moreover,
the
representation stood decided prior to the
decision
taken
for
the
compulsory
retirement of the petitioner.

13. The entire past service record of
the petitioner was duly considered and in
the light of the entries recorded for the
year 2007-08 and 2011-12, a conscious
decision to retire him compulsorily was
taken. There is no arbitrariness or
malafidely in taking the said decision. It is
thus beyond the judicial review.

14. In order to deal with the
aforesaid submissions advanced by the
parties it would be appropriate to
highlight some additional basic facts
leading to the compulsory retirement of
the petitioner.

15. The petitioner joined as
Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division
on 19.03.1996. He was promoted as
Additional District and Sessions Judge on
15.12.2008. He was compulsorily retired
vide order dated 01.03.2013.

16. The aforesaid order of
compulsory retirement is said to
have been passed on the basis of the
entry awarded to him for the year
2007-08 by the District Judge and
the Administrative Judge as well as
in view of the entry for the year
2010-11.

17. The annual confidential remarks
recorded by the District Judge for the said
year when the petitioner was posted as
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedakar
Nagar reveals that according to him the
integrity of the petitioner was beyond
doubt. His disposal of cases was reported
to be poor with the remark that he needs
improvement in disposal of old cases and
cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C. In over
all assessment the petitioner was assessed
as a good officer by him.

18. The petitioner had submitted a
representation dated 09.07.2008 through
the District Judge against the aforesaid
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remarks which was forwarded to the High
Court
on
14.07.2008.
The
said
representation of the petitioner was
considered by the High Court and was
rejected. This was communicated to the
petitioner vide letter dated 24.03.2009 of
the Registrar (Confidential).

19. The annual remarks so recorded
by the District Judge for the said year as
such attained finality as no further action
was taken by the petitioner thereafter.

20.

Simultaneously,
the
Administrative Judge, Ambedakar Nagar
while reviewing the work of the petitioner
for the aforesaid year assessed the
petitioner
as
a
poor
officer.
His
judgements were reported to be very poor
and his integrity was withheld till it is
cleared after due enquiry.

21. The Administrative Judge
further recorded that according to the
report of the District Judge a surprise
inspection of the office of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate i.e. the petitioner was
made on 05.07.2008 and it was found that
paper books of 90 cases were kept in his
Almirah but with incomplete records as
either the order sheets were not signed or
were
not
written.
In
many
cases
statements of the accused were not
recorded and dates were fixed without
recording
the
proceedings.
An
explanation was called from the petitioner
but he declined to submit any. He was
further
given
time
to
submit
his
explanation but he failed to obey the
repeated directions in that regard even
that
of
the
High
Court
on
the
administrative
side.
Thus,
the
Administrative Judge records that his
conduct
reflects
insubordination
in
performing duty which amounts to
misconduct under Rule 3 of the U.P.
Government Servants Rule, 1956.

22. The petitioner represented on
06.03.2009 against the aforesaid entry made
by the Administrative Judge. The said
representation
was
placed
before
the
appropriate Committee and was considered
in the meeting held on 31.07.2009. Since the
integrity of the petitioner was withheld till he
is cleared in the enquiry, the Committee
directed to call for a report from the District
Judge as to the out come of the enquiry and
to put up the representation again after
receiving the report.

23. The representation of the
petitioner was again placed before the
relevant Committee along with the letter
dated 08.02.2010 of the District Judge and
the note of the Registrar Lucknow Bench
Lucknow. The Committee resolved that as
no formal enquiry is pending against the
officer and since the officer has not given
any explanation called for by the
District/Administrative Judge, the matter
be deferred and be placed again after the
submission of the explanation by the
petitioner
or
the
decision
of
the
Administrative Judge.

24. The matter again came up before
the said Committee in its meeting held on
03.01.2013 and it was found that the officer
had by then submitted his explanation. The
Committee on consideration of the entire
material on record held that the integrity of
the officer for the year 02.07.2008 stands
withheld for cogent reasons and there are no
good reasons to expunge the remarks and
thus
recommended
for
rejecting
the
representation.

25. The aforesaid resolution of the
Committee was considered and approved
1 All. Anupati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
781
by the Administrative Committee vide its
resolution dated 11.01.2013. Accordingly,
the representation was rejected and the
petitioner was informed of the rejection
vide communication dated 17.01.2013.

26. The second representation made
by the petitioner in this regard dated
25.01.2013 was also rejected and due
information of it was given to him vide
letter dated 10.05.2013.

27. In the year 2011-12 adverse
remarks
were
recorded
against
the
petitioner by the District and Sessions
Judge, Ghazipur in the annual confidential
report of the petitioner but the same were
expunged on the representation of the
petitioner. However, the Administrative
Judge for the same year in assessing the
petitioner rated him simply as an average
officer.

28. In short, it transpires from the
above facts and circumstances that the
integrity of the petitioner stood withheld
by the Administrative Judge for the year
2007-08 and he was rated to be a poor
officer. In the year 2011-12, he was rated
as
an
average
officer
by
the
Administrative Judge. At the same time, it
was also observed by the Administrative
Judge in recording entry of the year 200708 that he was not maintaining proper
records and is guilty of insubordination.
The aforesaid said entries primarily forms
the basis for retiring the petitioner
compulsorily.

29. A screening Committee was
constituted
on
17.12.2012
for
the
purposes
of
picking
officers
for
compulsory retirement. The petitioner
was also included in the list of officers
placed for consideration. The Committee
held its meeting on 22.01.2013. The said
Committee in regard to the petitioner
observed that he has been adjudged as an
average officer in the year 2011-12
whereas in the year 2007-08 he was
assessed as a poor officer. His integrity
also stands withheld for that year. The
quality of his judgements was also very
poor. The representation submitted by
him against the said adverse remarks
stands rejected on 11.01.2013. Thus, on
his over all service record, it was
recommended that the petitioner be
retired compulsorily.

30. The aforesaid minutes of the
screening Committee were considered by
the full court in its meeting on 02.02.2013
and it was resolved to retire the petitioner
compulsorily along with some other
officers.

31. It is on the basis of the
aforesaid full court decision that the
impugned office order has been
issued
retiring
the
petitioner
compulsory.

32. The aforesaid facts clearly
reflect that a complete procedure as
provided under law was followed in
considering the case of the petitioner both
with regard to expunging the adverse
remarks and retiring him compulsorily.

33. It is trite to mention that
compulsory retirement from service is not
considered to be a punishment. It is
neither a dismissal nor a removal. It is not
a form of punishment prescribed and
involves no panel consequences inasmuch
as despite such retirement the person is
entitled to pension and other retiral dues
as well as right to employment elsewhere.
It does not have any adverse consequence.
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Thus, once the appropriate
authority forms a bonafide opinion that
the compulsory retirement of an officer
specially the Judicial Officer is in the
interest of the department/judiciary and is
in public interest, the scope of judicial
review is very narrow. It is confined and
permissible only on the ground of nonapplication of mind, mala fides or want of
material particulars.

35. In Baikuntha Nath Das the
Supreme
Court
laid
down
certain
principles for the purposes of compulsory
retirement which interalia are as under:-

(i) an order of compulsory retirement
is not a punishment or a penalty. It
implies no stigma and has no adverse
consequences;

(ii)
the
order
of
compulsory
retirement has to be passed in public
interest on the subjective satisfaction of
the employer;

(iii) principles of natural justice have
no place in context of an order of
compulsory retirement though judicial
scrutiny is not altogether excluded and
may be permissible if the order is passed
malafidely and in an arbitrary manner in
the sense that no reasonable person would
form the requisite opinion on the given
material;

(iv) the opinion should be based on
consideration of the entire service record
which includes entries in the confidential
records/character
rolls
and
if
the
government servant is promoted to the
higher post, the adverse entries recorded
earlier would lose their sting; and

(v)
the
order
of
compulsory
retirement is not liable to be quashed by
the court only for the reason that it is
based upon uncommunicated adverse
remarks.

36. In Gurudas Singh one of the
principles that the adverse remark
recorded
loses
its
effect
if
the
employee/officer
is
subsequently
promoted was overturned and it was
held any adverse entry prior to earning
promotion or crossing of efficiency bar
or picking up for higher rank is not
wiped out and can be taken into
consideration while considering the over
all performance of the employee so as to
form opinion if it is in public interest to
retain him in service. The whole record
of service of the employee will include
uncommunicated adverse entries as
well.

37. It is to be remembered that
judicial service is not a service in the
strict sense of employment as is
commonly
understood
as
judges
discharge sovereign judicial power
of the State where integrity is
expected to be beyond doubt which
has to be reflected in their over all
reputation.

38. In such a situation, judiciary
cannot afford to continue in service
persons with doubtful integrity or persons
with baggage. Persons with unnecessary
baggage have to be left behind in the
march ahead of the judiciary. Therefore,
in the case of a judiciary, there is a
constant necessity to keep vigil on the
officer of the subordinate judiciary with
the view to pick out the black-sheep or to
weed out the dead wood.

39. In regard to judicial officers
power of compulsory retirement can be
exercised at any time by invoking Article
235 of the Constitution of India which in
no manner is circumscribed by any Rule
or Order. The said Article enables the
High Court to asses the performance of
1 All. Anupati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
any judicial officer at any time by
scrutinizing his service record to keep the
stream of justice unpolluted.

40. In this factual background and
the legal position, we consider it proper to
first deal with the adverse entry or the
withholding of the integrity of the
petitioner by the Administrative Judge for
the year 2007-08 and the award of
adverse remarks of the year 2010-11 of
the Administrative Judge.

41. The Administrative Judge for the
year 2007-08 assessed the petitioner as a
poor officer and has withheld his entry till
it is cleared after due enquiry. The
integrity was withheld though it was
certified by the District Judge. The
Administrative
Judge
has
further
remarked adversely against the petitioner
with regard to incomplete records and
insubordination amounting to misconduct.
The representation of the petitioner
against the above entries recorded by the
Administrative Judge was rejected and the
rejection was communicated to the
petitioner vide letter dated 17.01.2013.

42. One of the submissions of the
petitioner is that when the District Judge
had certified his integrity for the year
2007-08 it was not open for the
Administrative Judge to withhold the
same.

43. The argument is completely
misconceived as the power to report on
the working of the petitioner is vested
independently both in the District Judge
and the High Court. Even otherwise the
entry or remark made by the District
Judge
merges
with
that
of
the
Administrative Judge. Thus, the entries or
remarks made by the Administrative
Judge prevails over that of the District
Judge.

44. Article 235 of the Constitution
of India specifically provides that the
High Court is vested with the power to
control District Court and subordinate
court in the matters of posting, promotion
and grant of leave to persons of the
judicial service. The said power vested in
the High Court has been interpreted by
the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh
Verma (Dead) and it has been held that
the control over the subordinate judiciary
vested in the High Court by virtue of
Article 235 of the Constitution of India is
exclusive and comprehensive and apart
from the other things includes disciplinary
jurisdiction, suspension from service with
the view to hold disciplinary enquiry,
transfer, promotion and confirmation,
deputation award of selection grade and
pre-mature or compulsorily retirement.

45. Thus, High Court alone is the
sole authority competent to initiate
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
subordinate judicial officers or to impose
various punishments and passing of order
of compulsory retirement and that the
Governor of the State has to act on the
basis of the recommendation so made by
the High Court.

46. Chapter III Rule 4 of the High
Court Rules provides for the matters
which are to be dealt with by the
Administrative
Judge
which
include
review of judicial work of subordinate
courts and their officers so as to record
entries in the character rolls of the
officers.
The
said
power
of
the
Administrative Judge in the light of
Article 235 is independent and can be
exercised
any
time.
Therefore,
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
withholding of the integrity of the
petitioner by the Administrative Judge
and rating him as the poor officer for the
year 2007-08 is independent of the
entry/remarks given by the District Judge.

47. The certification of integrity of the
petitioner by the District Judge and
withholding
of
the
same
by
the
Administrative Judge does not amounts to
down grading the entry of the petitioner.
The entry of the Administrative Judge is
independent of the District Judge. He has
assigned specific reasons for withholding
the entry till the petitioner is cleared in the
enquiry. Subsequently, it was informed that
no enquiry was pending against the
petitioner and therefore, there was no
question of his being cleared in the enquiry.
Accordingly, the integrity of the petitioner
stood withheld for the year 2007-08.

48. It may be remided that in the
context of awarding annual entries either
by
the
District
Judge
or
the
Administrative Judge the principles of
natural justice have no place at all.

49. The petitioner next submitted
that the term of the Administrative Judge
had expired on 31.03.2008 and as such he
could not have recorded any entry for the
year 2007-08 after more than 6 months of
the expiry of his term.

50.

The
object
of
writing
confidential report and awarding annual
entries is to give opportunity to the officer
to improve upon his working and is
primarily
and
essentially
an
administrative job where opportunity of
hearing is not necessary even if some
adverse remarks are being recorded as
such
remarks
do
not
constitute
a
punishment or a penalty.

51. The delay in recording annual
entry by the Administrative Judge as
stated earlier is merely an administrative
work and would not vitiate the entry by
itself. It at best is a mere irregularity
which ought to be avoided.

52. In Rajendra Singh Verma
(Dead) (Supra) a note of caution was
sounded that ordinarily ACRs of several
years should not be recorded at one point
of time and that entry should be made
within a specified time soon following the
end of the period in question generally
within three months and that recording of
entries after more than a year should be
avoided but at the same time merely for
the reason ACRs were recorded otherwise
would not wipe off the effect of those
entries specially for the purpose of
compulsory retirement.

53. In view of the above, only for
the reason that the Administrative Judge
recorded the entry after about six months
of the expiry of his term does not have
any adverse effect on the said entry
specially for the purpose of compulsory
retirement.

54. The next submission of the
petitioner is that there was a huge delay in
deciding his representation made against
the adverse remarks recorded by the
Administrative Judge. This delay vitiates
the order.

55. The reason for the delay has
been suitably explained in the narration of
the facts and from it we find that the said
representation was initially considered by
the appropriate Committee in its meeting
on
31.07.2009
and
ultimately
was
recommended to be rejected in the
meeting held on 03.01.2013 which
1 All. Anupati Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
resolution
was
duly
approved
on
11.01.2013
by
the
Administrative
Committee.

56. The delay in taking action or
deciding the said representation of the
petitioner would have no adverse impact
upon the order of his compulsory
retirement inasmuch as it was decided
prior to the meeting of the screening
Committee that considered the case of the
petitioner for compulsory retirement. The
information of its rejection was on record
before the screening committee.

57. The submission that under the
U.P. Government Service Rules, 1995,
the representation ought to have been
decided within 120 days is completely
misconceived inasmuch as the said Rules
are applicable only upon the government
servants and not upon the judicial
officers. The High Court has not adopted
the said Rules in its applicability to the
judicial officers under its control and
superannuation. Thus, the submission is
bereft of any merit.

58. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, we find no merit in the
challenge made by the petitioner to
withholding of his integrity by the
Administrative Judge for the year 200708 and in assessing him as a poor officer
as well as in the rejection of his
representation thereof.

59. It may also be relevant to
mention that the submission that the
petitioner has earned wrath of the District
Judge and the Administrative Judge as he
had espoused the cause of some Class
III/Class-IV of the court and as such they
have acted malafidely against him is of no
consequence as the comparison of the
entries and the remarks recorded by the
District Judge and the Administrative
Judge would reveal that the District Judge
had certified the integrity of the petitioner
whereas it was only the Administrative
Judge who had withheld the same for the
reasons recorded. The District Judge
would not have certified his integrity if he
was annoyed with the petitioner.

60. The representation of the
petitioner
against
the
entry
of
Administrative Judge was considered
by larger committee of three High
Court
Judges
and
then
by
the
Administrative Committee and all
those
persons
comprising
the
Committee and the Administrative
Committee have unanimously rejected
the same approving of the remarks of
the Administrative Judge. All these
persons would not have acted with any
bias or mala fide intention against the
petitioner. There is no allegation to
that effect also.

61. The contention of the petitioner
that the Administrative Judge in awarding
entry of the year 2007-08 has relied upon
the inspection note of the District Judge
dated 05.07.2008. The said inspection
note was not relevant for the entry of
2007-08 rather it would have been
material for the entry of the year 2008-09.

62. The above submission is bereft of
merit as shifting of the said entry from one
particular year to another would not wipe off
its vigour or sting so long as it remains to be in
the zone of the consideration for the purposes
of compulsory retirement.

63. In Vijay Kumar Jain it has
been held that shifting of the entry
awarded to a different period of service or
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
beyond 10 years of passing the order of
retirement does not mean that its effect
stand wiped off and that the said entry by
itself is not sufficient to retire the officer
compulsory.

64. In Pyare Mohan Lal a single
entry touching to the integrity of the
officer was held to be enough to retire
him compulsory.

65. Now, we turn to examine the
validity of the order of the compulsory
retirement passed against the petitioner.

66.

In
this
connection,
the
submission is that the entire service
record of the petitioner was not taken into
account which would have otherwise
revealed that the petitioner had an
unblemished career and therefore, retiring
him prematurely is not legally tenable.

67. First of all, there is no material
on record to establish that the entire
service record of the petitioner was
notexamined by the screening Committee
in recommending for his compulsory
retirement. The screening Committee
constituted for pin pointing the officers
for compulsory retirement considered the
case of the petitioner in its meeting held
on 22.01.2013. The said Committee in
view of the fact that his integrity stood
withheld for the year 2007-08 and his
representation against the same had been
rejected coupled with the fact that he was
assessed as a poor officer in the said year
and as an average officer in the year
2011-12 on the basis of his over all
service record opined to retire him
compulsory.

68. The aforesaid recommendations
of the screening Committee were placed
before the full court of the High Court in
its meeting dated 02.02.2013 and upon
deliberation, it was finally resolved to
retire
the
petitioner
compulsorily.
Accordingly,
recommendations
were
made leading to the impugned office
order dated 01.03.2013 issued by the
Chief Secretary State of U.P.

69. In Rajendra Singh Verma
(Dead) (Supra) the Apex Court observed
that where before passing the orders of
compulsory retirement, the whole service
record of the officer is taken into
consideration by the screening Committee
and that the matter is deliberated by the
full court on the basis of the record of the
work, conduct, general reputation of the
officer and since the order of compulsory
retirement is not punitive in nature, the
evaluation
made
by
the
Screening
Committee/Full Court can neither be
termed as arbitrary or capricious nor can be
said to be so irrational so as to shock the
conscious of the court to warrant or justify
any interference.

70. In the view of the above, we are
of the opinion that it is not a case where
any arbitrary or irrationally decision has
been taken by the High Court on the
administrative side in recommending for
the
compulsory
retirement
of
the
petitioner and in retiring him so.

71. The Writ Petition as a whole
lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed
with no order as to costs.
----------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.