# Shobh Nath Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 266
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2440 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shobh-nath-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52312
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India.
1950-Article
226-The
petitioner
challenged his premature compulsory
retirement on adverse remarks in his
Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)-The
petitioner claimed that his exoneration
in disciplinary inquiries should negate
adverse remarks-The court held that
compulsory retirement is not a punitive
action but is intended to remove
officers whose performance and conduct
raise
serious
doubts
about
their
suitability
for
continued
service-The
High
Court
Screening
Committees
decision was based on the petitioner's
overall
service
record,
including
repeated adverse remarks about his
integrity and thus was neither arbitrary
nor illegal.(Para 1 to 32)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. There is a difference between a
matter being barred by limitation and the
petition which suffers from the vice of
latches. In a writ petition the provisions of
the Limitation Act do not apply, however,
the Courts have evolved the concept of
latches to ensure that a person who
approaches the Court must do so promptly
while
invoking
the
extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.

12. A writ court exercises powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, which is a purely discretionary.
Thus, the issue of latches assumes
significance as it guides the Court to
determine whether the 'lis' before it
deserves the indulgence in order to exercise
its discretion in befitting matters. This is
quite different from a proceedings which is
governed by the Limitation Act and in
terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act,
even if at all, a party does not raise the
issue of limitation yet it is incumbent upon
the Court to look into this aspect.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances,
though the issue of limitation is not
attracted to a writ petition but taking an
overall scenario, the Court would be
well justified in refusing to entertain a
petition on the ground of latches. This
has been noticed by the Apex Court in
Printers Mysore Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed
and others (2004) 4 SCC 460 and
Northern India Glass Industries Vs.
Jaswant Singh and others AIR 2003 SC
234.

14. This aspect has been taken note of
by
the
learned
Single
Judge
while
dismissing the petition as it did not find any
cogent reason for interfering with the order
of punishment and that too after nine years.

15. The two decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the appellant in C/M
Distt Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. U.P.
Cooperative Institutional Service Board &
another, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4646 and
Constable (Civil Police) Sandeep Kumar
Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko &
others, MANU/UP/2268/2023 are of no
consequence at this stage as the delay in
filing the appeal is under consideration and
only if the delay is condoned and the
latches in filing the petition is found
satisfactory only then the merits can be
examined.

16. In light of the aforesaid
discussions, this Court does not find that
there is any adequate explanation tendered
to seek condonation of delay in filing this
appeal and moreover the petition itself
suffered from latches as the petition was
filed after nine years.

17. In light of the aforesaid, this Court
does not find any palpable error committed
by the learned Single Judge in exercise of
its jurisdiction while dismissing the writ
petition. Accordingly, the application for
condonation of delay is dismissed and
consequently appeal too is dismissed. Costs
are made easy.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 266
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 2440 of 2022

Shobh Nath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
8 All. Shobh Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shivam Sharma, Dileep Kumar Yadav,
Manoj
Kumar
Mishra,
Sunil
Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

A. Service Law-Constitution of India.
1950-Article
226-The
petitioner
challenged his premature compulsory
retirement on adverse remarks in his
Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)-The
petitioner claimed that his exoneration
in disciplinary inquiries should negate
adverse remarks-The court held that
compulsory retirement is not a punitive
action but is intended to remove
officers whose performance and conduct
raise
serious
doubts
about
their
suitability
for
continued
service-The
High
Court
Screening
Committees
decision was based on the petitioner's
overall
service
record,
including
repeated adverse remarks about his
integrity and thus was neither arbitrary
nor illegal.(Para 1 to 32)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. HC of P&H & Vs Ishwar Chand Jain (1999) 4
SCC 579.

2. R.K. Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1991) Supp (2) SCC
126

3. Nand Kumar Verma Vs St. of Jhar.(2012) 3
SCC 580

4. St. of Guj. Vs Umedbhai M. Patel (2001) SC
1109= (2001) 3 SCC 314

5. Avinash Chandra Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(2018) 7 ADJ 582

6. Ram Murti Yadav Vs St. of UP & anr.. (2020)
1 SCC 801

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra,
and Shri Shivam Sharma, the learned
counsels
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent No.1-State of U.P. and Shri
Gaurav Mehrotra, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.2- High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged
validity
of
an
Office
Memorandum dated 29.11.2021 issued by
the
State
Government,
whereby
the
petitioner has been retired prematurely. The
petitioner has also challenged the validity
of the recommendation for his compulsory
retirement made by the High court, which
was communicated through a letter dated
26.11.2021.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that the petitioner was appointed as an
Additional Munsif in U.P. Judicial Services
in the year 2003. In the year 2008, he was
promoted to a post of Civil Judge (Senior
Division). In the year 2010-2011, he was
given adverse remarks in his Annual
Confidential Report and his integrity was
not certified as there were oral complaints
against him regarding dishonesty and
corruption. The petitioner was placed under
suspension vide order dated 04.10.2013. A
disciplinary inquiry was instituted against
him and in the inquiry report dated
11.02.2014, he was exonerated of all the
charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was
reinstated in service by means of an order
dated 16.04.2014 with full salary and
allowances for the period of suspension.

4. The petitioner submitted a
representation against the adverse remarks
made in the Annual Confidential Report for
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the year 2009-10 and 2010-11, which were
rejected. The petitioner filed Writ-A
No.40376 of 2016 before this Court sitting
at Allahabad challenging the adverse
remarks made in his Annual Confidential
Report and the said writ petition is still
pending.

5. On 22.03.2017, the petitioner was
appointed as Secretary, District Legal
Services
Authority,
Mahoba.
On
17.06.2017, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the Registrar General of
this Court stating that the District Judge
was depriving him of the facilities to which
he was entitled and that he was being
neglected by the District Judge. He further
stated in the aforesaid representation that
he is suffering from Diabetes and some eye
disease for the past 10 years due to which
his vision was being affected and he had to
undergo a surgical operation in P.G.I.,
Lucknow in October, 2016. By the
aforesaid representation dated 17.06.2017,
the petitioner had requested that he be
transferred to some other district.

6. Thereafter, the District Judge again
made some adverse remarks against the
petitioner in the Annual Confidential
Report for the period 2017-18 wherein the
District
Judge
remarked
that
the
petitioner's integrity is doubtful. For the
year 2018-19 also, the District Judge
remarked that the petitioner's integrity is
doubtful and several other adverse remarks
were made against the petitioner.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid
Annual Confidential Report, a departmental
inquiry was set-up against the petitioner
and he was placed under suspension by
means of an order dated 01.04.2019. A
charge-sheet was issued to him on
22.07.2019.
An
inquiry
report
was
submitted on 10.07.2020, whereby the
petitioner was exonerated of all the
charges.

8. A vigilance inquiry was also
instituted against the petitioner and in the
report submitted by the Special Officer
(Vigilance) of this Court, it was found that
the petitioner indulged in non-cooperative
activities by not organizing legal literacy
camps in the month of June, 2017 and that
he indulged in an act of indiscipline by not
receiving a D.O. letter issued by the
District and Session Judge and by using
reckless and derogatory language against
the District and Session Judge, Mahoba in
his explanation submitted to the latter. The
Administrative Committee of the High
Court issued a warning to the petitioner to
remain vigilant in future and the matter was
dropped.

9. On 14.09.2020, the petitioner
submitted a representation against the
Annual Confidential Report recorded by
the Administrative Judge, Mahoba against
him
for
the
year
2017-18
to
the
Administrative Committee of this Court
and
he
submitted
an
additional
representation for the same purpose on
28.09.2020. The Administrative Committee
ordered that the overall performance of the
Officer for the year 2017-18 be assessed
'Average' and has found that there was
nothing in the representation which may
warrant interference regarding integrity
recorded by the Hon'ble Administrative
Judge. Thus, the petitioner's representation
was partially allowed to the extent
mentioned above.

10. Thereafter, the petitioner has been
retired prematurely by means of the
impugned order dated 29.11.2024 in
8 All. Shobh Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269
furtherance of recommendation made by
this Court.

11. The petitioner has himself given
the following information in para-30 of the
writ petition. Which reads as under:-

"30. That the ACR of THE last
ten years, the adverse remarks for three
years, and the disciplinary proceeding for
the years in which the adverse ACRs have
been made are reproduced herein in a
tabulated form as follows:-

Status
of
Enquiry
Year
Overall
Assessme
nt of the
petitioner
in
the
ACR
Remark
s about
integrit
y
N/A
2009
-10
Average
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
Disciplinary
Enquiry was
initiated
wherein
petitioner
was
exonerated
upon
the
basis report
of
enquiry
dated
11.02.2014
in
D.E.
No.23/2013
N/A
2010
-11
Average
Integrit
y is not
certifie
d
N/A
2011
-12
Good
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
N/A
2012
-13
Good
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
N/A
2013
-14
Good
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
N/A
2014
-15
Good
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
N/A
2015
-16
Good
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
N/A
2016
-17
Average
Integrit
y
is
certifie
d
Vigilance
Enquiry was
initiated
against
the
petitioner
wherein
upon
the
basis
of
enquiry
report dated
19.11.2019
in
V.B.
Enquiry
No.06/2019,
the
petitioner
was
absolved
from
the
charges and
was warned
to be vigilant
in future by
the
administrativ
e committee
of
the
2017
-18
Average
Doubtf
ul
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble
High Court
of Judicature
at
Allahabad.
Disciplinary
Enquiry was
initiated
upon
the
similar
allegations
as mentioned
in the ACR
of
year
2018-19
wherein the
petitioner
was
exonerated
upon
the
basis
of
enquiry
report dated
10.07.2020
in D.E. No.
04/2019/Cf(
A).
2018
-19
Average
Doubtf
ul

12. The respondent No.2 - the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad has filed a
counter affidavit and a copy of the relevant
excerpts of minutes of the meetings of
Screening Committee held on 11.06.2020
and
15.06.2020
have
been
annexed
therewith. The Screening Committee has
taken into consideration the facts that
disposal of old cases by the petitioner was
not satisfactory during the year 2009-2010
because 1964 civil suits were pending out
of which 678 cases were old cases but the
petitioner decided only 3 contested cases.
Out of 224 regular execution cases, the
petitioner decided only 6 contested matters
and out of 16 small causes execution cases,
he decided only one contested case. Some
complaints
were
made
against
the
petitioner by members of the Bar. The
District Judge had made adverse remarks in
the Annual Confidential Report for the year
2009-10 and the petitioner's representation
against those remarks had been rejected by
the Representation Committee as also by
the Administrative Committee. In the year
2010-11, the District Judge has recorded in
the Annual Confidential Report that several
complaints of dishonesty and corruption
had been received against the petitioner
and, therefore, his integrity was not
certified. His private character was also not
good. He used to pass injunction orders
without sufficient grounds, on pick and
choose basis. He was not amenable to the
advice of the District Judge. He did not
enjoy a good reputation and he was
troublesome in judicial administration. The
petitioner's
representation
against
the
aforesaid remarks had been rejected by the
Administrative Judge, who affirmed the
remarks made by the District Judge.

13. In the year 2012-13, it was
recorded by the District Judge that a
complaint had been received against the
petitioner, regarding which an inquiry was
being made by the High Court. The
petitioner did not decide a single execution
case during the year and he has no interest
in disposal of execution cases. His
judgments were not sound and appreciation
of evidence was not good. Disposal of
work was not adequate. The petitioner had
submitted his works done statement with
wrong entries, regarding which a D.O.
letter was issued to him but he again
submitted the statement with another wrong
entry. The petitioner has no control over
the office. He had made only two
inspections during the year, which were not
effective. There was a general complaint
that he was not punctual in sitting on the
8 All. Shobh Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
271
dais. He was not amenable to the advice of
the District Judge. His overall assessment
was made as 'Average'. The District Judge
rejected the petitioner's representation
against
the
aforesaid
entries.
The
Representation Committee also rejected the
petitioner's representation finding it sans
merit
and
it
was
affirmed
by
the
Administrative
Committee
vide
its
resolution dated 03.07.2019.

14. In the year 2017-2018, the District
Judge
remarked
that
the
petitioner's
integrity is doubtful. He was in-disciplined
and non-cooperative. He was habitual of
not attending the office without any
information. His character adversely affects
the discharge of his official duties. In his
reply dated 06.07.2017, the petitioner has
used reckless and defamatory language
against the District Judge. His overall
assessment was found to be poor.

15. In the year 2018-19, the District
Judge has remarked that the petitioner's
integrity is doubtful. He is not fair and
impartial in dealing with the public and the
Bar. His private character is such as lowers
him in the estimation of the public and
adversely affects the discharge of his
official duties. In some instances, his
judgments are not proper on facts and law,
though some judgment are good also. His
overall assessment was made as 'Average'.
The District Judge further remarked that
the petitioner was habitual of passing
indiscreet orders on applications under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for which he had
been
warned
on
judicial
side.
The
petitioner's representation made against the
aforesaid adverse remarks was rejected by
the Administrative Judge.

16. A Vigilance inquiry had been
initiated
against
the
petitioner
on
complaints
of
misconduct
and
on
consideration of the inquiry report, the
Administrative Committee of this Court has
warned the petitioner to remain vigilant in
future.

17. The Screening Committee has
also taken into consideration the fact that
the District Judge, Mahoba had submitted a
letter dated 22.12.2018 complaining about
the work, conduct and integrity of the
petitioner and the then Administrative
Judge, Mahoba, finding the allegations to
be serious in nature, had recommended the
petitioner's suspension and a vigilance
inquiry was set-up against him and the
Administrative Committee had placed him
under suspension.

18. While assailing the validity of the
aforesaid order retiring the petitioner
prematurely, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the Screening
Committee has not taken into consideration
the fact that the petitioner has been
exonerated of all the charges in both the
departmental inquiries set-up against the
petitioner and that the Committee has
recommended premature retirement of the
petitioner without consideration of the
relevant material.

19. The provisions for compulsory
retirement is contained in Rule 56(j) of the
Fundamental Rules, which reads as under: -

"56(j) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this rule, the Appropriate
Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it
is in the public interest so to do, have the
absolute right to retire any Government
servant by giving him notice of not less
than three months in writing or three
months" pay and allowances in lieu of such
notice;
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) If he is, in Group A or Group
B service or post in a substantive, quasipermanent or temporary capacity and had
entered
Government
service
before
attaining the age of 35 years, after he has
attained the age of 50 years;

(ii) in any other case after he has
attained the age of fifty- five years."

20. The submissions of the learned
Counsel for the parties were heard on and
judgment had been reserved on 21.08.2024.
On 23.08.2024 Sri. Manoj Kumar Mishra,
the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
supplied written submissions alongwith a
compilation of six judgments and we
proceed to deal with all of those. The first
judgment is in the cases of Madan Mohan
Choudhary v. State of Bihar: (1999) 3
SCC 396 and the learned Counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the following
passages: -

"26. From the scheme of the
Constitution, as set out above, it will be
seen that though the officers of the
subordinate judiciary are basically and
essentially
government
servants,
their
whole service is placed under the control of
the High Court and the Governor cannot
make any appointment or take any
disciplinary action including action for
removal or compulsory retirement unless
the High Court is "consulted" as required
by the constitutional impact of both the
Articles 233 and 234 and the "control" of
the High Court indicated in Article 235.

27. The word "consult" in its
ordinary meaning means "to ask advice"
or "to take counsel". The Governor is thus
a "consultor" and the High Court is the
"consultee" which is treated as an expert
body in all matters of service including
appointments,
disciplinary
action,
compulsory retirement etc. relating to State
Judicial Services. Since the Governor
cannot act on his own unless he has
consulted the High Court, the Constitution
has conferred upon the High Court a
sacred and noble duty to give the best of
advice or opinion to the Governor; an
advice tendered after due deliberation and
after taking into consideration all the
relevant material and record relating to the
problem on which consultation is made or
advice is sought by the Governor. It is,
therefore, essentially a matter of trust and
confidence between the Governor and the
High Court. The High Court cannot act
arbitrarily in giving its opinion to the
Governor or else it will be a betrayal of
that trust. If the advice is not supportable
by any material on record and is arbitrary
in character, it may not have any binding
value.

28. It has already been pointed
out by this Court in Registrar, High Court
of Madras v. R. Rajiah (1988) 3 SCC 211
that though the High Court, in its
administrative jurisdiction, has the power
to recommend compulsory retirement of a
member
of
the
Judicial
Service
in
accordance with the Rules framed in that
regard, it cannot act arbitrarily and there
has to be material to come to a decision
that the officer has outlived his utility. It
was also pointed out in this case that the
High Court while exercising its power of
control over the subordinate judiciary is
under a constitutional obligation to guide
and protect judicial officers from being
harassed or annoyed by trifling complaints
relating to judicial orders so that the
officers may discharge their duties honestly
and independently, unconcerned by the illconceived or motivated complaints made by
unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

21. There can be no dispute against
the aforesaid proposition of law and none
8 All. Shobh Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
of the principles laid down in the aforesaid
case have been violated in the present case.
In Madan Mohan Choudhary (Supra) the
adverse remarks for the years 1991-92,
1992-93 and 1993-94 were not recorded in
the "normal course" but were recorded "at
one go" and that too when the Standing
Committee of the High Court had already
formed an opinion to compulsorily retire
the appellant from service. These remarks
which were recorded in the character roll of
the appellant "at one go" and were
communicated to the appellant on 29-111996 were considered by the Full Court on
30-11-1996 which approved the proposal of
compulsorily retiring the appellant from
service. The appellant had been categorised
as 'B' plus in 1990. There was no
categorisation for the next three years and
when the action for compulsory retirement
of the appellant was initiated by the High
Court on the ground that he had granted
anticipatory bail in a case under Section
307 IPC, categorisation for 1991-92, 199293 and 1993-94 was done "at one go". The
Hon'ble Supreme Court found it to be
unreasonable and not fair. Moreover, the
compulsory retirement was ordered in 1996
and the appellant's categorisation for 199495 and 1995-96 was not indicated in the
original service record placed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is on account of
these abnormalities coupled with other
strange circumstances of this case that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
categorisation of the appellant as a 'C'
Class Officer for the years 1991-92, 199293 and 1993-94 could not have been legally
taken into consideration and the impugned
action
of
compulsorily
retiring
the
appellant from service was arbitrary in the
sense that no reasonable person could have
come to the conclusion that the appellant
had outlived his utility as a judicial officer
and had become dead wood which had to
be chopped off. The aforesaid observations
made in light of the peculiar facts of that
case will not apply to the facts of the
present case.

22. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has next relied upon a judgment
in the case of High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Ishwar Chand Jain: (1999) 4
SCC 579. In that case, the Inspecting Judge
had graded the officer as "B+Good" for the
year 1984-85 but the Full Court modified
the same to "C-Below average". In an
earlier appeal filed by the Officer, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had restored the
grading of the Officer in his ACR as
"B+Good", but there was no indication of
this in the precis prepared by the Registry
which certainly would have misled many of
the Judges of the Full Court. There was no
ACR recorded for the years 1992-93, 199394, 1994-95 and for nine months of 199596 when the Full Court met on 12.12.1995.
In its earlier meeting on 22.09.1995 the
Full Court had it recorded ACR for the year
1991-92 grading the Officer as "C-Integrity
doubtful" by relying upon an inspection
report prepared by the Inspecting Judge on
25.02.1992. There was no material to
justify as to why the inspection report of
February 1992 was considered by the Full
Court in September 1995 and why there
could be no inspection from that year till
holding of the Full Court meeting.
Inspection note by the Inspecting Judge
gives an impression that he inspected the
Court of the Officer and visited the bar
room before he gave his report, whereas in
fact the Inspecting Judge had inspected the
Court of the Officer only in March 1992.
The Inspecting Judge had noted that there
were some complaints which formed the
subject-matter
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
him,
which
the
Hon'ble Supreme Court found incorrect, as
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the date of the inspection report no
disciplinary proceedings were pending
against the Officer. There were no
particulars of the complaints whether these
were in writing or oral and if these related
to the judicial work performed by the
officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found
that the inspection note was certainly
flawed and it could not have formed the
basis for the Full Court to record that
integrity of the officer was doubtful and to
grade him 'C'. The Inspecting Judge had
taken charge of the District only on
21.11.1991 and within three months, i.e.,
on 25.02.1992, he gave his inspection
report. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the ACR for the year 199192 was to be kept aside. There were only
four ACRs, which were for the years 198384
(B-Average/Satisfactory),
1984-85
(B+Good), 1988-89 (B-Satisfactory) and
1989-90 [(B+(Good)]. On the basis of these
ACRs the recommendation of the High
Court could not be justified. Further, the
Officer was retired while under suspension.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the
view that the action of the High Court in
retiring the Officer was based on the
allegation of misconduct, which was the
subject-matter of the enquiry before a
Judge of the High Court and which was the
basis for recording of adverse remarks by
the High Court in ACR of the officer for
the
year
1991-92.
The
order
of
compulsorily retiring the Officer though
innocuously worded, was in fact an order
of his removal from service. This case was
also decided in view of the peculiar factual
background of the case, which is in no way
similar to the facts of the present case.

23. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has next relied upon a judgment
in the case of R.K. Singh v. State of U.P.:
1991 Supp (2) SCC 126, which was an
appeal directed against the order denying
Selection Grade to the appellant on the
ground that he had been awarded two
adverse entries for the years 1980-81 and
1982-83. During the pendency of the
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the appellant's representation against the
adverse entries was allowed and the entries
were expunged from his service record and
the State Government granted Selection
Grade to the appellant with effect from the
date he takes over charge. In these
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that once the adverse entries awarded
to the appellant were expunged, the
appellant was entitled to Selection Grade
with effect from the date on which he
became eligible for grant of Selection
Grade. We fail to appreciate as to how this
case is relevant for adjudication of the
controversy involved in the present case
and we are constrained to observe that
citing irrelevant judgments does not serve
any purpose and it only results in wastage
of the time, which the Judges could
otherwise have utilized for some better
purpose.

24. The next judgment forming part
of the compilation is of Nand Kumar
Verma v. State of Jharkhand: (2012) 3
SCC 580, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court the High Court had selectively taken
into consideration the service record for
certain
years
only.
There
were
discrepancies in the ACRs relied upon by
the High Court and the copies of the ACRs
which had been provided to the Officer by
the High Court under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. From a comparison
of the two, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
concluded that the High Court had not
faithfully extracted the contents of the
ACRs. This case was also decided keeping
in view the peculiar facts of the matter,
8 All. Shobh Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
which are in no manner similar to the facts
of the present case.

25. The next judgment placed in the
compilation is State of Gujarat v.
Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 =
(2001) 3 SCC 314. In that case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the
law relating to compulsory retirement in
the following words: -

"(i) Whenever the services of a
public servant are no longer useful to the
general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public
interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of
compulsory retirement is not to be treated
as a punishment coming under Article 311
of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it
is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the
order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the entire
service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in
the confidential record shall be taken note
of and be given due weightage in passing
such order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries
in the confidential record can also be taken
into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory
retirement shall not be passed as a short
cut to avoid departmental enquiry when
such course is more desirable.

(vii) If the officer was given a
promotion despite adverse entries made in
the confidential record, that is a fact in
favour of the officer.

(viii)
Compulsory
retirement
shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

26. In Umedbhai M. Patel (Supra),
there were absolutely no adverse entries in
the respondent's confidential record. He
had successfully crossed the efficiency bar
at the age of 50 as well as at 55. He was
placed under suspension on 22.05.1986
pending disciplinary proceedings. The
enquiry was not completed within a
reasonable time and without waiting for
conclusion of the enquiry, the authorities
decided to dispense with the services of the
respondent merely on the basis of the
allegations which had not been proved.
Even the Review Committee did not
recommend the compulsory retirement of
the respondent. The respondent had only
less than two years to retire from service.
The High Court had quashed the order of
compulsory retirement and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court affirmed the order of the
High Court holding that in the absence of
any adverse entries in his service record to
support the order of compulsory retirement,
the order of compulsory retirement was
passed for extraneous reasons.

27. The last judgment placed in the
compilation is a judgment rendered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Avinash Chandra Tripathi Vs. State
of U.P. and Ors.: 2018 (7) ADJ 582, in
which the Bench found that the entire
service record of the petitioner was
unblemished,
the
Administrative
Committee had decided to drop action on
the basis of the vigilance enquiry report and
the enquiry report in the disciplinary
proceeding the petitioner against were not
found proved. There was nothing on record
to suggest that the general reputation of the
petitioner was tainted or not good. In view
of these facts, this Court found that the
order of compulsory retirement had been
passed without appreciating the material on
record
correctly
and
properly,
and
consequently, we the order of compulsory
retirement was quashed. In the present
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case,
the
Screening
Committee
has
considered the service record of the
petitioner for the years 2009-10 to 2018-19
and it is not that his service record was
unblemished.

28. While dealing with a challenge
made to an order of compulsory retirement
of a Judicial Officer, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held in Ram Murti Yadav v. State
of U.P. and Another: (2020) 1 SCC 801,
that:-

"14. It has to be kept in mind
that a person seeking justice, has the first
exposure to the justice delivery system at
the level of subordinate judiciary, and
thus a sense of injustice can have serious
repercussions not only on that individual
but can have its fall out in the society as
well. It is therefore absolutely necessary
that the ordinary litigant must have
complete faith at this level and no
impression can be afforded to be given to
a litigant which may even create a
perception
to
the
contrary
as
the
consequences can be very damaging. The
standard or yardstick for judging the
conduct of the judicial officer therefore
has necessarily to be strict. Having said so,
we must also observe that it is not every
inadvertent flaw or error that will make a
judicial officer culpable. The State Judicial
Academies undoubtedly has a stellar role
to perform in this regard. A bona fide error
may need correction and counseling. But a
conduct which creates a perception beyond
the ordinary cannot be countenanced. For
a trained legal mind, a judicial order
speaks for itself."

(Emphasis added)

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
further held in Ram Murti Yadav (Supra)
that: -

"6....The
scope
for
judicial
review
of
an
order
of
compulsory
retirement
based
on
the
subjective
satisfaction of the employer is extremely
narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to
be based on arbitrary or capricious
grounds, vitiated by malafides, overlooks
relevant materials, could there be limited
scope for interference. The court, in
judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over
the same as an Appellate Authority.
Principles of natural justice have no
application in a case of compulsory
retirement."

30. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down in
the cases mentioned above, we find that
there have been several complaints of
corruption and dishonesty against the
petitioner ranging from the years 2009-10
to 2018-19. The overall assessment of the
petitioner has been made as 'Average' for
five years during the aforesaid period. His
integrity has not been certified for the year
2010-11 and it has been found to be
doubtful for the year 2017-18 and the year
2018-19.
Although
the
Screening
Committee has also recorded that the
petitioner was placed under suspension and
an inquiry was set-up against him, the mere
non-mention of petitioner's exoneration in
disciplinary inquiry would not affect the
legality of the order to retire the petitioner
prematurely as had the petitioner been
found guilty in the inquiry, proceedings
would
have
been
initiated
for
his
punishment. Compulsory retirement is not
a punishment and an employee is retired
compulsorily only when no case for his
punishment is made out, but when keeping
in view his overall performance, it is found
that he is not suitable for being continued
in service, although he is not guilty of any
misconduct calling for his punishment.
8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277

31. In the present case, the Screening
Committee has recommended compulsory
retirement of the petitioner keeping in view
his overall service record for the period
2009-10 to 2018-19, which has been
referred to in the earlier part of this
judgment. There appears to be no illegality
committed in making a recommendation
for the petitioner's compulsory retirement
and in acceptance of the recommendation
by the State Government by passing an
order
for
the
petitioner's
premature
compulsory retirement.

32. The writ petition lacks merit and
the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 3071 of 2023
With
Writ-A No. 6248 of 2023

Satya Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Megha Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Girjesh Kumar Mishra, Pawan
Kumar Nigam, Ram Babu Singh

A. Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Compassionate AppointmentDependents under dying in Harness Rules,
1974-Eligibility-Separated spouse Vs Sibling
dependency-the two petitioners deceased
brother and estranged wife (divorcee) both
sought
compassionate
appointments
following the death of the deceased who
was
employed
in
the
Public
Works
Department-deceased younger brother was
dependent on his late brother, along with
their parents and two unmarried sisters
while his brother wife had separated from
the deceased, filed for divorce and accepted
financial settlement before his death but
later she changed her mind and claimed a
compassionate
appointment-Held,
the
estranged wife was not dependent on the
deceased at the time of his death, she is not
entitled-deceased younger brother being
unmarried, unemployed and living with the
family was held to be the rightful claimant
for
compassionate
appointmentCompassionate
appointment
under
the
dying in Harness Rules is meant for the
dependents
of
the
deceased,
and
dependency, not just marital status, is the
key consideration- The fact that someone is
a spouse or family member is insufficient to
claim compassionate appointment , the
claimant
must
prove
that
they
were
genuinely dependent on the deceased at the
time of their death-Hence,deceased younger
brother
petition
allowed
with
the
directions.(Para 1 to 25)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Guj.(2017) 9 SCC
641

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj.(2012) 10 SCC 303
St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688

3. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs St. of Mah.& Ors

4. The Dir. of Treasuries of Kar. & anr.. Vs
Somyashree

5. Mudita Vs St. of U.P. & anr.. SPLA No. 758 of
2015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

(I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in re: Writ-A No.
6248 of 2023)