# Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12020 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-kumar-yadav-v-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-ors-53095
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Law
-
Judicial
Officer
-
Compulsory
retirement
-
Validity
-
Petitioner,
a
Higher
Judicial
Service
officer,
compulsorily
retired
on
recommendation of Screening Committee
and approval by Full Court - Challenge
raised that adverse materials were either
irrelevant,
not
considered
in
proper
perspective, or pending representation -
Held: adverse entries including integrity
not certified (2008-09), advisory issued by
Administrative Committee (2011), and
censure entry imposed in 2012 had
attained finality and constituted valid
basis for assessing unsuitability - Though
remark
for
2018-19
was
pending
representation
and
later
expunged,
remaining materials were sufficient -
Screening Committee considered entire
service record and formed opinion in
public
interest
-
No
malafide,
arbitrariness
or
perversity
shown
-
Judicial review limited in such cases -
Compulsory retirement is not punitive,
and even uncommunicated entries may be
relied upon - Judicial officers are held to
higher standards of probity and judicial
discipline - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23 to 26)

HELD:
Upon overall evaluation of the material placed
on record, we are of the considered view that
the Screening Committee had taken note of
adverse
material
on
record
against
the
petitioner so as to recommend his compulsory
retirement. Out of three material referred to
above as 'A', 'B' & 'C' we find that the adverse
remark of Administrative Judge for the year
2008-09 as also the censure entry awarded to
the petitioner by the Administrative Committee
on 11.10.2012 in itself, were sufficient to come
to the conclusion that continuance of petitioner
in employment is not warranted and he be
compulsorily retired. (Para 15)

After analysing the facts of the case and the
judgments referred to above, we have no
hesitation in holding that there did exist adverse
material in the service record of the petitioner
on the strength on which subjective satisfaction
could have been formed to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be
compulsorily retired. Law is well settled that
sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot
be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of
the adverse material also cannot be examined
when such entries have attained finality. (Para
25)

Having evaluated the material on record we hold
that material adverse against the petitioner did
exist on record to form an opinion by the
Screening Committee that petitioner is liable to
be compulsorily retired. The decision taken by
the Full Court and the consequential decision of
the St. Government to compulsorily retire the
petitioner, therefore, warrants no interference.
This is particularly so, as the petitioner is a
Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the St. in
discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary
litigant must have complete faith in the judicial
system and no impression can be afforded to be
given to a litigant which may even remotely
create perception against the justice delivery
system. There is otherwise no allegation of any
bias or malafide against the members of
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Screening Committee nor is it shown that the
subjective opinion of the Screening Committee
is
based
upon
no
evidence.
In
such
circumstances, the order impugned compulsorily
retiring the petitioner merits no interference.
(Para 26)

Revision Application partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Baikuntha Nath Das Vs Chief District Medical
Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299

2.High Court Punjab & Haryana Vs Ishwar
Chand, (1999) 4 SCC 579

3.Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs St. of Bihar,
(1993) 3 SCC 396

4.Nand Kumar Verma Vs St. of Jharkhand &
ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580

5.St. of Guj. Vs Umedhai M. Patel, 2001 AIR
(SC) 1109

6.The Registrar High Court of Madras Vs R.
Rajiah, (1988) 3 SCC 211

7.Brij Behari Lal Agrawal Vs Hon'ble High Court
of M.P., (1981) 2 SCC 297

8.Yoginath D. Bagde Vs St. of Mah., (1999) 7
SCC 739

9.Vijendra Pal S

## Text

_Characters 0–39,737 of 50,509. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39737 for what follows._

4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
133
shall be done within a period of
three months from the date of service of a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 12020 of 2022

Ramesh Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sr. Advocate, Udayan Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Mishra, C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Judicial
Officer
-
Compulsory
retirement
-
Validity
-
Petitioner,
a
Higher
Judicial
Service
officer,
compulsorily
retired
on
recommendation of Screening Committee
and approval by Full Court - Challenge
raised that adverse materials were either
irrelevant,
not
considered
in
proper
perspective, or pending representation -
Held: adverse entries including integrity
not certified (2008-09), advisory issued by
Administrative Committee (2011), and
censure entry imposed in 2012 had
attained finality and constituted valid
basis for assessing unsuitability - Though
remark
for
2018-19
was
pending
representation
and
later
expunged,
remaining materials were sufficient -
Screening Committee considered entire
service record and formed opinion in
public
interest
-
No
malafide,
arbitrariness
or
perversity
shown
-
Judicial review limited in such cases -
Compulsory retirement is not punitive,
and even uncommunicated entries may be
relied upon - Judicial officers are held to
higher standards of probity and judicial
discipline - Writ petition dismissed. (Paras
10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23 to 26)

HELD:
Upon overall evaluation of the material placed
on record, we are of the considered view that
the Screening Committee had taken note of
adverse
material
on
record
against
the
petitioner so as to recommend his compulsory
retirement. Out of three material referred to
above as 'A', 'B' & 'C' we find that the adverse
remark of Administrative Judge for the year
2008-09 as also the censure entry awarded to
the petitioner by the Administrative Committee
on 11.10.2012 in itself, were sufficient to come
to the conclusion that continuance of petitioner
in employment is not warranted and he be
compulsorily retired. (Para 15)

After analysing the facts of the case and the
judgments referred to above, we have no
hesitation in holding that there did exist adverse
material in the service record of the petitioner
on the strength on which subjective satisfaction
could have been formed to come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be
compulsorily retired. Law is well settled that
sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot
be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of
the adverse material also cannot be examined
when such entries have attained finality. (Para
25)

Having evaluated the material on record we hold
that material adverse against the petitioner did
exist on record to form an opinion by the
Screening Committee that petitioner is liable to
be compulsorily retired. The decision taken by
the Full Court and the consequential decision of
the St. Government to compulsorily retire the
petitioner, therefore, warrants no interference.
This is particularly so, as the petitioner is a
Judicial Officer, who acts on behalf of the St. in
discharge of its sovereign function. The ordinary
litigant must have complete faith in the judicial
system and no impression can be afforded to be
given to a litigant which may even remotely
create perception against the justice delivery
system. There is otherwise no allegation of any
bias or malafide against the members of
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Screening Committee nor is it shown that the
subjective opinion of the Screening Committee
is
based
upon
no
evidence.
In
such
circumstances, the order impugned compulsorily
retiring the petitioner merits no interference.
(Para 26)

Revision Application partly allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Baikuntha Nath Das Vs Chief District Medical
Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299

2.High Court Punjab & Haryana Vs Ishwar
Chand, (1999) 4 SCC 579

3.Madan Mohan Chaudhary Vs St. of Bihar,
(1993) 3 SCC 396

4.Nand Kumar Verma Vs St. of Jharkhand &
ors., (2012) 3 SCC 580

5.St. of Guj. Vs Umedhai M. Patel, 2001 AIR
(SC) 1109

6.The Registrar High Court of Madras Vs R.
Rajiah, (1988) 3 SCC 211

7.Brij Behari Lal Agrawal Vs Hon'ble High Court
of M.P., (1981) 2 SCC 297

8.Yoginath D. Bagde Vs St. of Mah., (1999) 7
SCC 739

9.Vijendra Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2001 (4)
AWC 2738

10.Syed T A Nashqbandi & ors. Vs St. of J & K,
(2003) 9 SCC 592

11.Rajendra Singh Verma Vs Lt. Governor (NCT
Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 1

12.Arun Kumar Saxena Vs High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, 2018 SCC Online All
5728 (All HC-DB)

13.Anupati Ram Yadav Vs St. of U.P., 218 SCC
Online All 4472 (All HC-DB)

14.Ram Murti Yadav Vs St. of U.P., (2020) 1
SCC 801

15.Pyare Mohan Lal Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010)
10 SCC 693

16.U.O.I. Vs K. K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56

17.U.O.I. Vs Duli Chand, (2006) 5 SCC 680

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Petitioner is a Judicial Officer.
He was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil
Judge (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. He
was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior
Division) on 16.10.2006. He was granted
further promotion to the Higher Judicial
Service under rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher
Judicial
Service
Rules,
1975
on
02.07.2015. His date of birth is 05.02.1966
and would have attained the age of
superannuation in the month of February,
2026. His tenure, however, has been
curtailed on account of order impugned
passed by the State Government on
29.11.2021 compulsorily retiring him from
service by resorting to powers under the
Financial Hand Book (Vol. II, Part II to IV)
read with amended fundamental rule 56(C).
At the time of passing of such order the
petitioner was posted as Special Judge
(Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Prevention
of
Atrocities
Act)
at
Kaushambi. The order of compulsory
retirement dated 29.11.2021 is thus assailed
in the present writ petition.

2. The record reveals that a
Screening Committee was constituted to
examine the service record of Judicial
Officers in order to chop the deadwood,
which met on 11.06.2020 and 15.06.2020.
Apart from other Judicial Officers the
service records of the writ petitioner was
also placed for consideration by the
Screening
Committee.
The
Screening
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
135
Committee upon overall evaluation of the
service records recommended compulsory
retirement of the petitioner. This report of
the Screening Committee was placed
before the Full Court on 25.11.2021. The
Full Court agreed with the recommendation
made by the Screening Committee and
recommended compulsory retirement of the
petitioner. This decision of the Full Court
was communicated by the Registry to the
State Government on 26.11.2021. It is on
the strength of this recommendation of the
Court
that
the
petitioner
has
been
compulsorily retired from service vide
order impugned. It may also be noticed that
the judicial and administrative work was
also withdrawn from the petitioner w.e.f.
26.11.2021 on the basis of recommendation
made by the Full Court in its meeting dated
25.11.2021.

3. The petitioner has appeared in
person and has urged that there existed no
adverse material on record on the basis of
which the order of compulsory retirement
could be passed. The petitioner, during
course of argument, has submitted that the
Screening
Committee
has
erred
in
recommending the petitioner's compulsory
retirement
on
account
of
following
reasons:-

(i) Material which was not
available to form adverse opinion against
the
petitioner
has
been
taken
into
consideration;

(ii) Material in the form of
continuous satisfactory working of the
petitioner
has
been
omitted
from
consideration and, therefore, the decision of
the Screening Committee, as affirmed by
the Full Court and acted upon by the State
Government, is wholly erroneous and
perverse and consequently, the order
impugned
compulsorily
retiring
the
petitioner is liable to be set aside. Petitioner
has relied upon following judgments in
support of his contention:-

"1. Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief
District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992)
2 SCC 299;

2.
High
Court
Punjab
and
Haryana vs. Ishwar Chand, (1999) 4 SCC
579;

3 Madan Mohan Chaudhary vs.
State of Bihar, (1993) 3 SCC 396;

4. Nand Kumar Verma vs. State
of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 3 SCC
580;

5. State of Gujrat vs. Umedhai M.
Patel, 2001 AIR (SC) 1109;

6. The Registrar High Court of
Madras vs. R. Rajiah, (1988) 3 SCC 211;
and

7. Brij Behari Lal Agrawal vs.
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
(1981) 2 SCC 297."

4. Petitioner has also placed
reliance upon judgment in the case of
Yoginath
D.
Bagde
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, (1999) 7 SCC 739 as well as
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
the case of Vijendra Pal Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, 2001 (4) AWC 2738.

5. Shri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1
and 2 has controverted the submissions of
the petitioner by stating that sufficient
material did exist on record to form the
opinion that petitioner is a deadwood and
that no extraneous material has been relied
upon to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It
is submitted that the order of compulsory
retirement merits no interference in the
present writ petition. Shri Mishra has also
relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Baikunth Nath Das (supra) on
which reliance is also placed by the
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner. In addition, the respondents rely
upon following judgments of the Supreme
Court:-

"1. Syed T A Nashqbandi and
others vs. State of J & K, (2003) 9 SCC
592;

2. Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lt.
Governor (NCT Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 1;

3. Arun Kumar Saxena vs. High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 2018
SCC Online All 5728 (All HC-DB);

4. Anupati Ram Yadav vs. State
of U.P., 218 SCC Online All 4472 (All HCDB);

5. Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of
U.P., (2020) 1 SCC 801; and

6. Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of
Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693."

6. We have heard the petitioner in
person and Shri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
no.3 and have carefully gone through the
materials on record in light of the
judgments relied upon by the parties.

7. The short question that arises for
consideration in the facts of the present
case is as to whether the respondents are
justified in compulsorily retiring the
petitioner? Implicit in this question is the
issue as to whether formation of opinion by
the Screening Committee is based on
consideration of relevant materials or not?

Adverse Material

8. The minutes of the Screening
Committee have been furnished to the
petitioner on the strength of which the
petitioner is compulsorily retired. For
proper adjudication of the controversy we
intend to reproduce hereinafter the material
relied upon for such purpose by the
Screening Committee:-

"A. In the year 2008-09 the
Administrative Judge, Mirzapur
gave following adverse remark to
the officer/petitioner:

"Integrity not certified/doubtful.

On overall assessment, he is not
a good officer."

The
petitioner
submitted
a
representation
against
such
adverse
remarks
on
08.01.2010
which
was
rejected by the Representation Committee
on
20.04.2010.
The
Administrative
Committee vide its resolution dated
24.05.2010
also
rejected
such
representation. A second representation
was then made by the officer on
20.12.2012, which was rejected by the
Representation Committee on 17.09.2013
and approved by the Administrative
Committee vide its resolution dated
13.11.2013. This adverse remark for the
year 2008-09 has attained finality with
the rejection of representation made
against it by the petitioner. The adverse
remark has not been challenged any further.

B. On the basis of complaint made by
the Special Secretary, Vidhan Sabha,
Sachivalaya on 16.06.2010 an advisory
was issued to the petitioner by the
Administrative Committee vide minutes
dated 14.10.2011, which is reproduced
hereinafter:-

"......Resolved
that
officer,
namely Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, the
then Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Mirzapur presently Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Kanpur Dehat be advised to
be more careful in future."
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
137
This advisory has also attained
finality.

C. A vigilance enquiry bearing
V.B. Enquiry No.33/2009 was initiated
against the petitioner wherein a report was
submitted on 23.07.2012 by the Officer on
Special Duty (Enquiry). The comments of
the officer were invited and the matter was
considered
by
the
Administrative
Committee
in
its
meeting
held
on
11.10.2012. Upon consideration of the
explanation submitted by the petitioner the
Administrative
Committee
awarded
censure entry in the character roll of the
petitioner,
which
is
reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav-I, the
then
A.C.J.M.,
Mirzapur
is
inflicted
punishment of censure for violation of U.P.
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956
in the matter of selling a revolver no. C5856 NPB 32 Bore, to a private person
named Sri Mehtab Alam in Rs. 80,000 and
also purchasing a new revolver worth
Rs.1,14,912 on 30.03.2012 against License
No. 220/PS-GS/2001, without seeking
permission of the Hon'ble Court and for
denying release of vehicle No. U.P. 63 F
9130 in a case under Sections 307, 420,
468, 272, 273 I.P.C., read with Section 60
Excise Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District
Mirzapur on 20.1.2009 on the ground of the
continuance of confiscation proceeding
before
District
Magistrate,
Mirzapur
whereas on 2.3.2009 the same vehicle has
been released without mentioning any
ruling or any special circumstance which
did not exist at the earlier stage. Such
conduct is against judicial propriety and
unbecoming of a responsible judicial
officer of the cadre of A.C.J.M. Also has
mentioned in the enquiry report dated
23.7.2012, the officer had not yet complied
the order dated 18.04.2008 of the Court
passed by Hon'ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza
requiring him to furnish details of his
monthly expenses and its reminder dated
17.07.2008."

A representation was made by the
officer against the censure entry which
came to be rejected by the Administrative
Committee on 07.04.2014. A review
representation was also made which too
came to be rejected by the Administrative
Committee on 15.10.2014. With the
rejection of representation the censure entry
awarded to the officer has attained finality.

D. In the year 2018-19 the District
Judge, Chandauli has given following
adverse remark in the confidential roll of
the
petitioner,
which
reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "The presiding officer of the
court
of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
Chanduali i.e. Sri Munna Prasad by
referring the record including the reports
received
from
police
officers/officials
reported me in writing with several
enclosures
(in
order
to
get
further
instructions) that this officer Sri. R. K
Yadav is first informant/complainant of a
criminal case bearing case crime no.
53/2019 State versus Deepak Sharma etc.
offence
under
section
406,
409,420,467,468,471,120B I.P.C. Police
Station and District Chandauli registered on
13.03.2019. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
vide order dated 30.03.2019 passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7837 of
2019 Deepak Sharma and three others
versus State of U.P. and three others, has
ordered to take no coercive action against
Petitioners (accused of that case) till the
next date of listing. Even then in that case,
Sri R.K. Yadav has continuously moved
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
several
applications
against
police
officers/officials of district Chandauli
i.e. S.P., Addl. S.P., S.H.O. Police
Station Chandauli, Investigating Officer
and even against him (Sri Munna
Prasad) raising serious false and baseless
allegations that they in collusion with
the accused persons, are committing the
conspiracy to commit murder of Sri R.K.
Yadav and his son Sri Trivesh Yadav
and if in future the murder of Srl R.K.
Yadav
or
Sri
Trivesh
Yadav
is
committed or any loss of property is
caused
to
them,
these
police
officers/officials
and
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate should be held responsible
for that and Srl R.K. Yadav has made
several telephonic calls and sent several
messages in order to pressurize them so
that he may get the investigation
conducted and orders passed as choiced
by him. Sri R.K. Yadav on being
directed by me to submit his comments,
submitted five different comments along
with several enclosures. In which he
accepted
that
he
has
moved
such
applications containing such allegations
and has made such telephonic calls and sent
the messages and further asserted that in
future also he will continue to do the same,
if required, but he could not specify the
proper justification of doing so. Не
questioned even my authority to call for his
comments and behaved in an arbitrary,
indisciplined, objectionable and illegal
manner. All these facts in details were
reported by me to the Hon'ble High Court
vide letter No. 790/I dated 24.08.2019 with
a prayer to proceed further in the matter by
conducting an enquiry and to transfer him
from district Chandauli. A copy of that
letter is enclosed herewith. After that Sri
R.K. Yadav has been transferred to district
Kaushambi in the month of September
2019."

The aforesaid adverse remark is not
shown to have been interfered with by any
higher forum.

Explanation in respect of Adverse
Material at

'A'

9. Keeping in view the allegation
against the petitioner of passing bail orders
for
extraneous
consideration
the
petitioner's integrity was held doubtful.
The petitioner submits that a vigilance
enquiry was also ordered against him on
the complaint made by one Rajesh Kumar,
Advocate and Vinay Kumar Baghat,
Advocate. The vigilance enquiry report was
submitted on 29/30.07.2009 wherein the
charge of passing bail orders for extraneous
reasons was not found proved. The
vigilance enquiry report also stated that
though notices were issued to the alleged
complainants
for
submitting
evidence
against the petitioner but both the notices
returned with the endorsement that no such
advocates were found practising in the
District Court, Mirzapur. Yet, another
vigilance enquiry report was submitted on
the same charge on 23.07.2012 wherein also
the charge of granting bail for extraneous
consideration was not found proved. On the
strength of the vigilance report dated
29/30.07.2009 (Annexure-11 to the writ
petition) as well as the vigilance enquiry
report dated 23.07.2012 (Annexure-12 to the
writ petition) the petitioner submits that the
charge of passing bail orders on extraneous
consideration is not made out. It is also
submitted that the adverse remark of the
Administrative Judge for the year 2008-09
since is not substantiated in the vigilance
enquiry and no adverse material otherwise
existed on record, therefore, the adverse
remark made against the petitioner and
withholding of his integrity could not have
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
139
been relied upon by the Screening
Committee and the contrary view taken by
the Screening Committee is unsustainable,
and renders the order of compulsory
retirement bad in law.

'B'

So far as the advisory issued by the
Administrative
Committee
on
the
complaint of the Special Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Sachivalaya is concerned, the
petitioner submits that the advisory cannot
be treated as a adverse material against him
for passing the order of compulsory
retirement. It is moreover pointed out that a
transfer application was moved by one
Samudra Devi before the District Judge,
Mirzapur in Misc. Case No.13/08 (Savitri
Devi and others vs. Samudra Devi and
others) pending before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Mirzapur, which came to
be rejected by the said court vide order
dated 19.02.2010 and a cost of Rs.1,000/-
was also imposed. This order of District
Judge, Mirzapur is contained in Annexure13 to the writ petition. Since the order of
District Judge was not complied with as
such a direction was issued by the
competent court to the District Magistrate,
Mirzapur to recover such amount as arrears
of land revenue from the concerned party.
The District Magistrate, Mirzapur without
complying with the said order deposited the
amount of Rs.1,000/- through A.D.G.C.
(Civil). When such fact was brought to the
notice of the petitioner, he directed an
enquiry to be held against the District
Magistrate for not complying with the
order of the District Judge, Mirzapur. It is
thereafter that the Special Secretary,
Government of U.P. made a complaint
against the petitioner which formed the
basis of the advisory issued to the
petitioner. It is contended that the advisory
neither constitutes an adverse material to be
taken note of for passing the order of
compulsory retirement nor could it have
been relied upon in the facts of the case,
inasmuch as the petitioner had only acted in
due discharge of official duties and since
his order was not interfered with by any
higher forum it could not have been relied
upon as material adverse to the petitioner.

'C'

So far as the charge of buying and
selling of revolver without permission of
the Court is concerned, the Court had
called for petitioner's explanation in the
matter. Subsequently, a communication
was issued by the Deputy Registrar, High
Court, Allahabad on 15.04.2013 to the
District Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur
Dehat) requiring the petitioner to apply
afresh for permission. It is thereafter that a
fresh permission was applied whereafter
nothing was heard in the matter. It is
therefore submitted that this circumstance
also could not have been treated adverse to
the petitioner.

So
far
as
release
of
vehicle
UP63F9130 is concerned, it is submitted
that the allegation was got enquired in the
vigilance enquiry wherein the Vigilance
Officer has clearly held that there was no
error in entertaining the second release
application and the charge of extraneous
consideration
was
not
proved.
The
petitioner also submits that the charge of
not
furnishing
details
of
monthly
expenses also cannot be a ground for
passing order of compulsory retirement.
It is, moreover, urged that letters dated
18.04.2008 and 17.07.2008 were never
received by the petitioner and the details
were subsequently submitted by him
pursuant to the communication of Deputy
Registrar, High Court, Allahabad, dated
15.05.2008.
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

'D'

It is lastly urged that the adverse
remark recorded against the petitioner by
the District Judge, Chandauli for the year
2018-19 was uncalled for, inasmuch as
charge sheet was submitted in Case Crime
No.53 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. It is also
urged that despite such remark the District
Judge awarded overall assessment as
"Good" to the petitioner and certified his
integrity. It is contended that against the
entry awarded to him for the year 2018-19
a representation has been made by the
petitioner before the Administrative Judge
on 17.12.2019, which is still pending and,
therefore, by virtue of provisions contained
in U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of
Representation Against Adverse Annual
Confidential Reports and Allied Matters)
Rules, 1995 such material could not have
been treated adverse when representation
has not been decided.

ANALYSIS

10. So far as the adverse remark
awarded by the Administrative Judge,
Mirzapur to the petitioner for the year
2008-09 as well as representation made
against it is concerned, such adverse
remark has attained finality. Submission of
the petitioner that in the vigilance enquiry
conducted on the charge of passing bail
orders for extraneous consideration no
finding was returned against the petitioner
would
not
be
conclusive.
The
Administrative Judge in his adverse remark
for the year 2008-09 has clearly noticed
that complaints existed against the officer
for passing bail orders on extraneous
consideration. The Administrative Judge
has found the integrity of the officer to be
doubtful/not certified and the officer has
been assessed as "not good officer". It is
not clear that the Administrative Judge had
made adverse remark on the same material
on which the vigilance enquiry was
subsequently
conducted
against
the
petitioner. It has not been shown by the
petitioner that the comments of the
Administrative Judge for the year 2008-09
were based only upon the complaints of
Vinay Kumar Bhaghat and Rajesh Kumar,
Advocates. The mere fact that in the
vigilance enquiry the allegations made by
Vinay Kumar Bhaghat and Rajesh Kumar
were not found proved, would not lead to
an inference that there existed no material
before the Administrative Judge for
making the adverse remark against the
petitioner in respect of the year 2008-09.
Even otherwise, the adverse remark of the
Administrative
Judge
has
attained
finality. The correctness or otherwise of
the adverse remark of the learned
Administrative Judge for the year 200809 cannot be commented upon in the
present writ petition, particularly when
adverse remark itself is not under
challenge before us. In such view of the
matter, we find that the adverse remark
recorded by Administrative Judge against
the petitioner for the year 2008-09 exists
on record and was a relevant material to
be taken note of by the Screening
Committee
for
recommending
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

11.
Similarly,
correctness
or
otherwise of the advisory issued to the
petitioner cannot be commented upon in
the present writ when such advisory is
not under challenge. Though the advisory
in itself may not constitute material
adverse to pass order of compulsory
retirement but when the entire service
record of the petitioner is being examined,
such material can be looked into for the
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
141
formation of opinion regarding desirability
to compulsorily retire the petitioner.

12. Similarly, the vigilance enquiry
report dated 23.07.2012 has been examined
by the Administrative Committee and a
censure entry has been awarded to the
petitioner. This censure entry has attained
finality with rejection of representation and
review representation submitted against it
by the petitioner. The censure entry,
moreover, is not under challenge before
use. In such circumstances, we would not
be justified in embarking upon a factual
enquiry, as is sought to be canvassed by the
petitioner, so as to adjudicate whether there
existed any material on record to award
censure
entry.
This
censure
entry
admittedly is a material which could be
relied upon against the petitioner by the
Screening Committee.

13. So far as the adverse remark of
District Judge, Chandauli is concerned, the
petitioner has contended in para 52 of the
writ petition that he had submitted
representation against it which has not been
considered. This paragraph is relied upon in
para 44 of the counter affidavit. It is
averred in the counter affidavit that the
Administrative
Judge,
Chandauli
has
expunged the adverse remark of the District
Judge for the year 2018-19 vide order dated
25.08.2022. This material, therefore, could
not have been relied upon by the Screening
Committee for recommending compulsory
retirement. On this aspect, we find
substance in the petitioner's contention that
as the representation against adverse
remark was pending when the Screening
Committee met as such by virtue of rule 5
of the Rules of 1995 this adverse remark
could not have been looked into for
recommending
compulsory
retirement.
Analysis of the material on record,
therefore, persuades us to come to the
conclusion that out of material relied upon
against the petitioner for passing order of
compulsory
retirement
first
three
circumstance mentioned as 'A', 'B' & 'C'
were available for passing the order
impugned.

14. The petitioner, moreover, has
submitted that his character roll entries for
other years have not been taken into
consideration while recommending his
compulsory retirement. This contention of
the petitioner is not correct, inasmuch as
respondents in the counter affidavit have
clearly stated that entire service record of
the petitioner was placed before the
Screening
Committee.
Screening
Committee specifically noticed the adverse
material existing on the service record of
the petitioner and on the strength of it alone
it came to the conclusion that the petitioner
is not suitable to be retained in employment
and is liable to be compulsorily retired. The
Screening Committee, moreover, was not
required to specifically refer to each of the
Annual Confidential Reports in favour of
the petitioner. What was required to be
noticed was the material adverse in the
service record of the petitioner so as to
recommend his compulsory retirement.

15. Upon overall evaluation of the
material placed on record, we are of the
considered
view
that
the
Screening
Committee had taken note of adverse
material on record against the petitioner so
as
to
recommend
his
compulsory
retirement. Out of three material referred to
above as 'A', 'B' & 'C' we find that the
adverse remark of Administrative Judge for
the year 2008-09 as also the censure entry
awarded
to
the
petitioner
by
the
Administrative Committee on 11.10.2012
in itself, were sufficient to come to the
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclusion that continuance of petitioner in
employment is not warranted and he be
compulsorily retired.

16. Learned counsel for the parties
have placed reliance upon judgments
referred to above in support of their
submissions. The judgment of Supreme
Court in Bainkuntha Nath Das (supra) is an
authority for the proposition that even an
uncommunicated adverse remark can be
considered for compulsory retirement. The
Court held that opinion of the authority
regarding compulsory retirement is based
on the subjective satisfaction formed on the
basis of entire records of service of
employee. It has also been conclusively
held that an order of compulsory retirement
does not amount to an order of punishment
and principles of natural justice are not
required to be observed in passing the order
of compulsory retirement. Scope of judicial
review is limited to grounds of malafide,
arbitrariness and perversity. Observations
made by the Supreme Court in paras 31 to
33 of the judgment in Baikunth Nath Das
(supra) are reproduced hereinafter:-

 "31. Another factor to be borne in
mind is this: most often, the authority
which made the adverse remarks and the
authority
competent
to
retire
him
compulsorily are not the same. There is no
reason to presume that the authority
competent to retire him will not act bona
fide or will not consider the entire record
dispassionately. As the decided cases show,
very often, a Review Committee consisting
of more than one responsible official is
constituted to examine the cases and make
their recommendation to the government.
The
Review
Committee,
or
the
government, would not naturally be swayed
by one or two remarks, favourable or
adverse. They would form an opinion on a
totality of consideration of the entire record
- including representations, if any, made
by the government servant against the
above remarks - of course attaching more
importance to later period of his service.
Another circumstance to be borne in mind
is the unlikelihood of succession of officers
making unfounded remarks against a
government servant.

32. We may not be understood as
saying either that adverse remarks need not
be
communicated
or
that
the
representations, if any, submitted by the
government servant (against such remarks)
need not be considered or disposed of. The
adverse remarks ought to be communicated
in the normal course, as required by the
rules/orders
in
that
behalf.
Any
representations made against them would
and should also be dealt with in the normal
course, with reasonable promptitude. All
that we are saying is that the action under
F.R. 56(j) (or the rule corresponding to it)
need not await the disposal or final disposal
of such representation or representations, as
the case may be. In some cases, it may
happen that some adverse remarks of the
recent years are not communicated or if
communicated, the representation received
in that behalf are pending consideration. On
this account alone, the action under F.R.
56(j) need not be held back. There is no
reason to presume that the Review
Committee or the government, if it chooses
to
take
into
consideration
such
uncommunicated remarks, would not be
conscious or cognizant of the fact that they
are not communicated to the government
servant and that he was not given an
opportunity to explain or rebut the same.
Similarly, if any representation made by the
government servant is there, it shall also be
taken into consideration. We may reiterate
that not only the Review Committee is
generally
composed
of
high
and
4 All. Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
143
responsible officers, the power is vested in
government alone and not in a minor
official. It is unlikely that adverse remarks
over
a
number
of
years
remain
uncommunicated and yet they are made the
primary basis of action. Such an unlikely
situation, if indeed present, may be
indicative of malice in law. We may
mention in this connection that the remedy
provided by Article 226 of the Constitution
is no less an important safeguard. Even
with its well known constraints, the remedy
is an effective check against mala fide,
perverse or arbitrary action.

33. At this stage, we think it
appropriate
to
append
a
note
of
clarification. What is normally required to
be communicated is adverse remarks - not
every remark, comment or observation
made in the confidential rolls. There may
be any number of remarks, observations
and comments, which do not constitute
adverse remarks, but are yet relevant for
the purpose of F.R. 56(j) or a rule
corresponding to it. The object and
purposes for which this power is to be
exercised are well stated in J.N. Sinha
[(1970) 2 SCC 458 : (1971) 1 SCR 791]
and other decisions referred supra."

17. Petitioner has placed reliance
upon judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of High Court Punjab and Haryana Vs.
Ishwar Chand (supra). In this case the
Judicial Officer was a member of the
Superior Judicial Service, who was on
probation. Though his Inspecting Judge had
found his working to be satisfactory, yet,
the Full Court downgraded him and found
his working to be not satisfactory and
dispensed his engagement. This order was
set aside by the High Court and SLP before
the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The
officer was continued in service. Certain
complaints were made against the officer
while he was working at Jind. He was
placed under suspension and disciplinary
enquiry proceeded against him. While such
enquiry was pending the officer was
compulsorily retired. The Division Bench
of the High Court set aside the order of
premature retirement primarily on the
ground that the decision to retire the officer
was based on the allegation of misconduct,
which was subject matter of enquiry. This
judgment of High Court was affirmed with
dismissal of SLP. The principles laid down
in this decision are peculiar to the facts of
its own case and have no applicability in
the facts of the present case. The order of
compulsory retirement was founded on
misconduct for which an enquiry was
already pending. In view of the settled
position in law that order of compulsory
retirement cannot be passed as a means of
punishment, whereas such order was
founded on misconduct due to which the
Court interfered in the matter. This
judgment, therefore, cannot be of any help
to the petitioner since the order of
compulsory retirement is not founded on
any allegation of misconduct.

18. The next judgment relied upon
by the petitioner is in the case of Madan
Mohan Chaudhary (supra). The Supreme
Court had noticed the facts of this case in
para 29 of the judgment, according to
which, no entries were recorded in the
character roll of the officer for the year
1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The entries
were made for these years in one go and
were communicated to the officer on
11.09.1996. These entries were considered
on
30.11.1996.
The
Supreme
Court
observed that these entries were recorded at
the stage when Screening Committee had
already made up its mind to compulsorily
retire the officer from service. The fact that
the officer had been promoted and no other
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material existed on record against him was
noticed. The Court observed that no
opinion could be reasonably formed that it
was in public interest to retire the officer.
The Supreme Court in para 37 observed
that the officer was categorized as 'B+' in
1999 and for three years there was no
communication of any adverse entry to the
officer. It was only when anticipatory bail
was granted under Section 307 IPC the
officer was categorized as 'not fair' for
three years in one go. The decision to
compulsorily retire the officer was taken
prior to his being assessed 'not fair'. It is in
this factual backdrop that the Court found
that the decision of compulsory retirement
was not fair. We, therefore, find that the
facts of the present case are entirely distinct
and the observations made in Madan
Mohan Chaudhary (supra) cannot be of any
help to petitioner's cause.

19. Judgment of Supreme Court in
Nand Kumar Verma (supra) relied upon by
the petitioner also has no relevance in the
facts of the present case. The controversy
in the said case was noticed in para 33 of
the
judgment,
which
is
reproduced
hereinafter:-

"33. This Court in High Court of
Punjab & Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain
[(1999) 4 SCC 579 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 881]
, has discussed the purpose, importance and
effect
of
the
remarks
made
during
inspection which ultimately become the
part of the ACR of the judicial officer
concerned. This Court has observed thus:
(SCC pp. 597-98, para 32)

"32. Since late this Court is
watching the spectre of either judicial
officers or the High Courts coming to this
Court when there is an order prematurely
retiring a judicial officer. Under Article 235
of the Constitution the High Court
exercises
complete
control
over
subordinate courts which include District
Courts. Inspection of the subordinate courts
is one of the most important functions
which the High Court performs for control
over the subordinate courts. The object of
such inspection is for the purpose of
assessment of the work performed by the
Subordinate Judge, his capability, integrity
and competency. Since Judges are human
beings and also prone to all the human
failings inspection provides an opportunity
for pointing out mistakes so that they are
avoided in future and deficiencies, if any,
in the working of the subordinate court,
remedied. Inspection should act as a
catalyst in inspiring Subordinate Judges to
give the best results. They should feel a
sense
of
achievement.
They
need
encouragement. They work under great
stress and man the courts while working
under great discomfort and hardship. A
satisfactory judicial system depends largely
on the satisfactory functioning of courts at
the grass roots level.