# R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR

- **Citation:** [2012] 7 S.C.R. 205
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5790 of 2012
- **Bench:** R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-c-chandel-v-high-court-of-m-p-anr-28315
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Service Law - Judicial Service - Compulsory retirement
A
B
Of appellant-judicial officer after 25 years in judicial service
Challenge to - Scope of judicial review - Held: On facts, it C
;annot be said that the recommendation made by the Full
Court (of the High Court) to the Government for compulsory
retirement of the appellant was arbitrary or based on material
not germane for such recommendation - Recommendation
made by High Court to the Government for compulsory
D
retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory
retirement issued by the Government did not suffer from any
legal flaw - In assessing potential for continued useful service
of a judicial officer, the High Court is required to take into
account the entire service record - Those of doubtful integrity,
E
questionable reputation and wanting in utility are not entitled
to benefit of service after attaining the requisite length of
service or age - Appellant did not have unblemished service
record all along - His quality of judgments and orders was not
found satisfactory on more than one occasion - His reputation
F
was observed to be tainted on few occasions and his integrity
was not always found to be above board - Confirmation of
appellant as District Judge and grant of selection grade and
super time scale did not wipe out his earlier adverse entries
- Conduct of appellant in involving an M.P. and the Ministry
G
of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in a matter of the High
Court concerning an administrative review petition filed by him
for expunging adl(erse remarks in his ACRs was most
reprehensible and highly unbecoming of a judicial officer -
205
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Still worst, appellant had the audacity to plead that he never
made any representation to such M.P.- The Single Judge of
the High Court examined the administrative decision of the
Full Court (to recommend to the Government to compulsory
retire the appellant) as if he was sitting as an appellate
B authority to consider the correctness of such recommendation
by going into sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which
led the Full Court in reaching its satisfaction - The whole
approach of the Single Judge was flawed and not legally
proper - It did not keep the scope of judicial review - The
c Division Bench of the High Court was, thus, fully justified in
setting aside the order of Single Judge - Fundamental Rules,
as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh - Rule 56(2)(a)
as amended - Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
{Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 - Rule 14
0 - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 -
Rule 42(1 )(b) - Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions
Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 - Rule
1-A -Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235.
Judiciary - Judicial Officer - Conduct of - What should be
E - Held: Judicial service is not an ordinary government service
and the Judges are not employees as such - Judges hold the
public office - In discharge of their functions and duties, the
Judges represent the State - A Judge must be a person of
impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence - The
F standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than
an ordinary man - A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above
suspicion - A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any
external pressure and he is a/so supposed not to exert any
influence on others in any administrative or judicial matter.
G
On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on
the post of District and Sessions Judge, was
compulsorily retired from service in public interest, by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the request of the
H Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Full Court, on the basis
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
207
of the service record of the appellant, had formed a
A
unanimous opinion that he must be compulsorily retired
and had recommended to the Government, accordingly.
The order of compulsory retirement was issued by the
Gover

## Text

_Characters 0–39,903 of 57,371. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39903 for what follows._

[2012] 7 S.C.R. 205
R.C. CHANDEL
v.
HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5790 of 2012)
AUGUST 8, 2012
[R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Service Law - Judicial Service - Compulsory retirement
A
B
Of appellant-judicial officer after 25 years in judicial service
Challenge to - Scope of judicial review - Held: On facts, it C
;annot be said that the recommendation made by the Full
Court (of the High Court) to the Government for compulsory
retirement of the appellant was arbitrary or based on material
not germane for such recommendation - Recommendation
made by High Court to the Government for compulsory
D
retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory
retirement issued by the Government did not suffer from any
legal flaw - In assessing potential for continued useful service
of a judicial officer, the High Court is required to take into
account the entire service record - Those of doubtful integrity,
E
questionable reputation and wanting in utility are not entitled
to benefit of service after attaining the requisite length of
service or age - Appellant did not have unblemished service
record all along - His quality of judgments and orders was not
found satisfactory on more than one occasion - His reputation
F
was observed to be tainted on few occasions and his integrity
was not always found to be above board - Confirmation of
appellant as District Judge and grant of selection grade and
super time scale did not wipe out his earlier adverse entries
- Conduct of appellant in involving an M.P. and the Ministry
G
of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in a matter of the High
Court concerning an administrative review petition filed by him
for expunging adl(erse remarks in his ACRs was most
reprehensible and highly unbecoming of a judicial officer -
205
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Still worst, appellant had the audacity to plead that he never
made any representation to such M.P.- The Single Judge of
the High Court examined the administrative decision of the
Full Court (to recommend to the Government to compulsory
retire the appellant) as if he was sitting as an appellate
B authority to consider the correctness of such recommendation
by going into sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which
led the Full Court in reaching its satisfaction - The whole
approach of the Single Judge was flawed and not legally
proper - It did not keep the scope of judicial review - The
c Division Bench of the High Court was, thus, fully justified in
setting aside the order of Single Judge - Fundamental Rules,
as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh - Rule 56(2)(a)
as amended - Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
{Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 - Rule 14
0 - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 -
Rule 42(1 )(b) - Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions
Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 - Rule
1-A -Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235.
Judiciary - Judicial Officer - Conduct of - What should be
E - Held: Judicial service is not an ordinary government service
and the Judges are not employees as such - Judges hold the
public office - In discharge of their functions and duties, the
Judges represent the State - A Judge must be a person of
impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence - The
F standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than
an ordinary man - A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above
suspicion - A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any
external pressure and he is a/so supposed not to exert any
influence on others in any administrative or judicial matter.
G
On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on
the post of District and Sessions Judge, was
compulsorily retired from service in public interest, by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the request of the
H Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Full Court, on the basis
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
207
of the service record of the appellant, had formed a
A
unanimous opinion that he must be compulsorily retired
and had recommended to the Government, accordingly.
The order of compulsory retirement was issued by the
Government in exercise of its power under amended Rule
56(2)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in
B
the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 1994, Rule 42(1 )(b) of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and
Rule 1-A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions c
Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964. In
lieu of notice of three months, it was directed in the order
that the appellant shall be entitled to three months' salary
and allowances which he was receiving prior to his
retirement. At the time of issuance of the order of 0
compulsory retirement on 13.09.2004, the appellant had
completed 25 years or so in judicial service.
The appellant challenged the order of compulsory
retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
A Single Judge of that Court allowed the writ petition;
E
quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated
13.09.2004 and directed that he be reinstated with all
consequential benefits. The High Court on the
administrative side challenged the order of Single Judge
in writ appeal. The Division Bench of that Court held that
F
the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was
ill-founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the
Single Judge.
In the instant appeal, the counsel for the appellant G
submitted that compulsory retirement of the appellant on
the basis of adverse entry recorded in 1989 and two
subsequent adverse entries for 1993 and 1994 was wholly
unjustified. As regards 1989 adverse entry, the counsel
submitted that the appellant was awarded lower selection
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 7 S.C.R.
A grade in 1990 and, therefore, the said entry had lost its
efficacy. In respect of entries recorded in 1993 and 1994,
the counsel submitted that the said entries also lost their
significance since the appellant was awarded super time
scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002 and 1n
B between in 2001, he was allowed to continue in service.
Moreover, the counsel submitted that the adverse
remarks recorded in 1993 and 1994 were challenged by
the appellant on the judicial side of the High Court and a
Single Judge of that Court, in writ petition, had accepted
c the appellant's challenge and expunged these remarks;
and that in writ appeal, though the Division Bench of the
High Court had set aside the order of the Single Judge,
but it had observed that the 1993 and 1994 entries should
not be read adverse to the appellant for all times to come.
D
The questions which therefore arose for
consideration were: whether the recommendation made
by the High Court on the basis of unanimous opinion to
the Government for compulsory retirement of the
appellant and the order of compulsory retirement issued
E by the Government suffered from any legal flaw; whether
the order of compulsory retirement was so arbitrary or
irrational that justified interference in judicial review; and
whether the view of the Division Bench upholding the
order of appellant's compulsory retirement so erroneous
F warranting interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Rule 56(2) of the Fundamental Rules
G provides that a government servant (read judicial officer)
may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he
has completed 20 years' qualifying service, or on his
attaining the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier without
assigning any reason by giving him a notice in writing.
H The notice period is three months. However, he may be
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
209
retired forthwith and on such retirement he is entitled to
A
claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus
allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at
which he was drawing them immediately before
retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which
such notice falls short of three months. Sub-rule 1-A
B
added to Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judge
(Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 provides
that with regard to age of compulsory retirement, the
permanent District and Sessions Judge shall be
governed by the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. Rule c
42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976 provides that the appointing authority may
in the public interest require a government servant (read
judicial officer) to retire from service at any time after he
has completed 20 years' qualifying service or on his 0
attaining the age of 50 years whichever is earlier by giving
three months' notice in Form 29 provided that he may be
retired forthwith and on such retirement he shall be
entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his
pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the
same rate at which he was drawing immediately before
E
his retirement or, for the period by which such notice falls
short of three months, as the case may be. Rule 14(1) of
the MadhyaPradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment
and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 provides that the age
F
of superannuation of a member of the Madhya Pradesh
Higher Judicial Service shall ordinarily be 60 years,
provided he is found fit and suitable to continue after 58
years in service of the High Court. Sub-rule (2) makes a
provision that without prejudice to the provisions
contained in Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules and
G
Rule 42(1)(b) of the 1976 Rules, a member of the service
not found fit and suitable shall be compulsorily retired on
his attaining the age of 58 years. [Para 12] [219-F-H; 220A-E]
1.2. Article 235 of the Constitution vests in the High
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Court the control over the subordinate judiciary within the
State. The power of the High Court to recommend to the
Government to compulsorily retire a judicial officer on
attaining the required length of service or requisite age
and consequent action by the Government on such
B recommendation is beyond any doubt. [Para 19] [220-F;
222-D-E]
1.3. It is clear that the appellant did not have
unblemished service record all along. He was graded
"Average" on quite a few occasions. He was assessed
C "Poor" in 1993 and 1994. His quality of judgments and
orders was not found satisfactory on more than one
occasion. His reputation was observed to be tainted on
few occasions and his integrity was not always found to
be above board. In 1988-89, the remark reads, "never
D enjoyed clean reputation". In 1993, the remark "his
reputation was not good" and in 1994 the remark "officer
does not enjoy good reputation", were recorded. His
representations for expunction of these remarks failed.
The challenge to these remarks on judicial side was
E unsuccessful right upto this Court. In 1993, it was also
recorded that quality of performance of the appellant was
poor and his disposals were below average. In 1,994, the
remark in the service record stated that the performance
of the appellant qualitatively and quantitatively has been
F poor. With this service record, it cannot be said that there
existed no material for an order of compulsory retirement
of the appellant from service. Material germane for taking
decision by the Full Court whether the appellant could be
continued in judicial service or deserved to be retired
G compulsorily did exist. It is not the scope of judicial
review to go into adequacy or sufficiency of such
materials. [Para 33] [227-C-H]
1.4. Though it is true that the appellant was
confirmed as District Judge in 1985; he got lower
H selection grade with effect from 24.03.1989; he was
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
211
awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and he was also
A
given above super time scale in 2002 but the confirmation
as District Judge and grant of selection grade and super
time scale did not wipe out the earlier adverse entries
which remained on record and continued to hold the field.
The criterion for promotion or grant of increment or
B
higher scale is different from an exercise which is
undertaken by the High Court to assess a judicial officer's
continued utility to the judicial system. In assessing
potential for continued useful service of a judicial officer
in the system, the High Court is required to take into C
account the entire service record. Overall profile of a
judicial officer is the guiding factor. Those of doubtful
integrity, questionable reputation and wanting in utility
are not entitled to benefit of service after attaining the
requisite length of service or age. [Para 34] [228-A-D]
1.5. The appellant's challenge to 1993 and, 1994
entries was unsuccessful right upto this Court. Though
D
the appell3nt placed heavy reliance upon the
observations made by the Division Bench (of the High
Court) in its judg:nent that adverse remarks on his
E
reputation in the relevant years should not haunt him all
through his judicial career and hamper his prospects for
all times, the above observations by the Division Bench
while upholding the remarks in no manner restricted the
power of the Full Court in taking into consideration these
F
adverse remarks in its exercise to find out whether or not
the appellant should be retained in service after he has
attained the required length of service. The consideration
of the appellant's case for grant of selection grade and
super time scale stood on different footing. The entire
G
service record and overall profile of a judicial officer guide
the Hig'h Court in reaching its satisfaction about the
continuance or otherwise after the judicial officer has
attained the required length of service or age. When the
entire service record of a judicial officer is under
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A consideration, obviously the High Court is alive to such
judicial officer's having got promotion/s, increments, etc.
during the service. [Paras 35] [229-E-H, 230-A]
1.6. Though it was argued by the counsel for the
appellant that the administrative committee-1 had
B recommended the appellant's continuation in service and
there was no justification for the Full Court to take a
contrary view, but the view of the administrative
committee is not final. It is recommendatory in nature. It
is open to the Full Court to accept the committee's report
C or take a different view. In the present case, the Full Court
on the basis of the entire service record of the appellant
formed a unanimous opinion that the appellant must be
compulsorily retired and recommended to the
Government, accordingly. On the basis of the existent
D material, it can hardly be said that the recommendation
by the Full Court to the Government for compulsory
retirement of the appellant was arbitrary or based on
material not germane for such recommendation. [Para 36]
[229-B-D]
E
1.7. Judicial service is not an ordinary government
service and the Judges are not employees as such.
Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the
essential functions of the State. In discharge of their
functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The
F office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A
Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and
unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the
core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the
courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before
G whom his matter has come, would deliver justice
impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The
standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher
than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the
standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are
H drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
213
standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A
A
Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The
credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the
Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule
of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process
have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his
B
judicial functions with integrity, impartiality" and
intellectual honesty. (Para 37) (229-E-H; 230-A-B]
1.8. The most shocking and unbecoming conduct of
the appellant highlighted by the respondent no. 1 before
C
the High Court in opposition to the writ petition and in
response to the present appeal is his act to overreach the
administrative decision on the review petition filed by him
before the Chief Justice after his representations for
expunction of adverse remarks for the period ending on
31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994 had been thrice earlier D
rejected. The appellant approached 'RKM', Member of
Parliament and Chairman, House Committee (Rajya
Sabha) for his grievance concerning rejection of his
representations for expunction of remarks for 1993 and
1994. The conduct of the appellant in involving an M.P.
E
and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in
a matter of the High Court concerning an administrative
review petition filed by him for expunging adverse
remarks in ACRs is most reprehensible and highly
unbecoming of a judicial officer. His conduct has
F
tarnished the image of the judiciary and he disentitled
himself from continuation in judicial service on that count
alone. A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any
external pressure and he is also supposed not to exert
any influence on others in any administrative or judicial
G
matter. Secondly and still worst, the appellant had an
audacity to set up a plea in the rejoinder that he never
made any representation to 'RKM', M.P. for any purpose
whatsQever. But for the appellant's approaching 'RKM'
and his request for help, 'RKM' would have never written
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A the letter to the Minister of State for Law, Justice and
Company Affairs. On this ground also his writ petition
was liable to be dismissed. [Paras 38, 40] [230-B-D; 232F-H; 233-A-B]
8
1.9. The Single Judge examined the administrative
decision of the Full Court to recommend to the
Government to compulsory retire the appellant as if he
was sitting as an appellate authority to consider the
correctness of such recommendation by going into
C sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which led the
Full Court in reaching its satisfaction. The whole
approach of the Single Judge in consideration of the
matter was flawed and not legally proper. The Single
Judge did not keep the scope of judicial review in view
while examining the validity of the order of compulsory
D retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court in the
intra-court appeal was, thus, fully justified in setting aside
the impugned order of the Single Judge. In view of that,
the recommendation made by the High Court to the
Government for compulsory retirement of the appellant
E and the order of compulsory retirement issued by the
Government did not suffer from any legal flaw. The order
of compulsory retirement is neither arbitrary nor irrational
justifying any interference in judicial review. The
impugned judgment of the Division Bench is not legally
F unsustainable warranting any interference by this Court
in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
[Paras 41, 43] [233-B-E; 234-C-D]
Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and others
G (2012) 3 SCC 580: 1992 (3) SCR 213 - held inapplicable.
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRs. and others
v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others (2011) 10
SCC 1: 2011 (12) SCR 496; Samsher Singh v. State of
Punjab and another (1974) 2 sec 831: 1975 (1) SOR 814;
H Chandra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and another
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
215
(2003) 6 SCC 545: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674; High Court of A
Judicature at Bombay Through Its Registrar v. Shirishkumar
Rangrao Patil and another (1997) 6 SCC 339: 1997 (3) SCR
1131; All India Judges' Association (2) and others v. Union
of India and others (1993) 4 sec 288: 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR
749; State of UP. and another v. Bihari Lal 1994 (Suppl) 3
B
SCC 593: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 108; Union of India v. V.P.
Seth and another (1994) SCC (L&S) 1052; Baikuntha Nath
Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada
and another (1992) 2 sec 299: 1992 (1) SCR 836;
Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another (1989) c
4 SCC 664: 1989 (3) SCR 803; Union of India v. Col. J.N.
Sinha and another (1970) 2 sec 458: 1971 (1) SCR 791 and
All India Judges' Association (1) v. Union of India and others
(1992) 1 SCC 119: 1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 206 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
D
1992 (3) SCR 213
held inapplicable Para 9
2011 (12) SCR 496
referred to
Para 11
1975 (1) SCR 814
referred to
Para 14
E
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674
referred to
Para 15
1997 (3) SCR 1131
referred to
Para 17
1_993 (1) Suppl. SCR 749
referred to
Para 18
F
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 108
referred to
Para 27
(1994) sec (L&S) 1052
referred to
Para 27
1992 (1) SCR 836
referred to
Para 27
G
1989 (3) SCR 803
referred to
Para 27
1971 (1) SCR 791
referred to
Para 27
1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 206 referred to
Para 27
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5790 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.11.2006 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 72
B of 2006.
Rohit Arya, Nitin Gaur, Hitendra Nath Rath, Y. Raja Gopala
Rao, Sunil Singh Parihar for the Appellant.
Ravindra Shrivastava, Arvind Verma, C.D. Singh, Sunny
c Choudhary, Anup Jain, Anubhav Shrivastav, Aditi Mohan, Vikas
D
Upadhyay for B.S. Banthia for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on the
post of District and Sessions Judge, Punna was compulsorily
retired from the service in the public interest by the Government
of Madhya Pradesh (for short, 'the Government') on the request
E of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (for short, 'High Court'). The
order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Government
in exercise of its power under amended Rule 56(2)(a) of the
Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial
Service (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 (for
F short, '1994 Rules'), Rule 42(1 ){b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, '1976 Rules') and
Rule 1-A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges
(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 (for short, '1964
Rules'). In lieu of notice of three months, it was directed in the
G order that the appellant shall be entitled to three months' salary
and allowances which he was receiving prior to his retirement.
3. The appellant challenged the above order of compulsory
retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The
H Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 20.04.2006,
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
217
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
allowed the writ petition; quashed the order of compulsory
A
retirement dated 13.09.2004 and directed that he be reinstated
with all consequential benefits.
4. The High Court on the administrative side challenged
the order of Single Judge in writ appeal. The Division Bench
of that Court on consideration of the entire matter held that the
challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was ill-founded
and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single Judge vide
its judgment dated 23.11.2006. It is from this order that the
appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
5. The appellant was selected in the higher judicial service
B
c
of Madhya Pradesh by direct recruitment. He joined the judicial
service as an Additional District Judge on 17.10.1979. On
26.06.1985, he was confirmed as a District Judge. The
appellant was awarded lower selection grade on 07 .09.1990
D
with effect from 24.03.1989. He was awarded super time scale
in May, 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. As noted
above, by the order dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was
compulsorily retired in public interest.
6. We have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior
counsel for the High Court on the administrative side.
E
7. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that the Division Bench was not at all
F
justified in setting aside the judgment and order of the Single
Judge. The observations made by the Division Bench in the
impugned order and the findings recorded therein are founded
on incorrect and misleading facts. The service record of the
appellant speaks otherwise.The appellant has been largely
G
assessed in his ACRs 'Good' or 'Very Good'. He highlighted
that the appellant was confirmed as District Judge in 1985, he
was awarded lower selection grade in 1990, he was given
super time scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002
on merits and, on the basis of his judicial work he was also
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
recommended for elevation as a High Court Judge by the High
Court collegium in March, 2004.
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that
compulsory retirement of the appellant on the basis of an
8
adverse entry recorded in 1989 and two subsequent adverse
entries for 1993 and 1994 was wholly unjustified. As regards
1989 adverse entry, learned senior counsel submitted that the
appellant was awarded lower selection grade in 1990 and,
therefore, the said entry had lost its efficacy. In respect of entries
recorded in 1993 and 1994, learned senior counsel submitted
C that the said entries also lost their significance since the
appellant was awarded super time scale in 1999 and above
super time scale in 2002. In between in 2001, he was allowed
to continue in service. Moreover, learned senior counsel would
submit that the adverse remarks recorded in 1993 and 1994
D were challenged by the appellant on the judicial side of the High
Court. The Single Judge of that Court accepted the appellant's
challenge and expunged these remarks. The High Court on
administrative side challenged the order of the Single Judge
in writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court although
E set aside the order of the Single Judge but observed that 1993
and 1994 entries shall not be read adverse to the appellant for
all times to come.
9. Learned senior counsel referred to the guidelines dated
F 22.08.2000 issued by the Government and submitted that in
view thereof no order of compulsory retirement could be
passed on the basis of incapacity if the officer was promoted
within the last five years and during that period his performance
remained satisfactory. He submitted that throughout his work,
G the appellant achieved the norms for disposal of cases fixed
by the High Court and his reputation and integrity as well as
the judicial performance was found to be good and it is
because of that that he got lower selection grade and super
time scale from time to time. Learned senior counsel, thus,
submitted that the Single Judge of the High Court was fully
H
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
219
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
justified in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement
A
after dealing with each and every complaint made against the
appellant and none of these complaints was found meritorious
justifying compulsory retirement of the appellant. Learned senior
counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, heavily
relied upon a recent decision of this Court in Nand Kumar
B
Verma v. State of Jharkhand and others1•
10. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned
senior counsel for the High Court on administrative side
(respondent no.1) stoutly defended the impugned judgment. He
C
submitted that the High Court recommended the compulsory
retirement of the appellant to the Government as he was not
found fit for continuation in judicial service in public interest.
While making such recommendation the Full Court considered
the entire service record of the appellant. Mr. Ravindra
Shrivastava, learned senior counsel referred to ACRs of the
D
appellant recorded for the years 1982, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1997
and 1998 and submitted that the decision of the Full Court to
compulsorily retire the appellant cannot be said to be unjustified.
11. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 placed
E
reliance upon a decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh Verma
(Dead) Through LRs. and others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT
of Delhi) and others2.
12. Rule 56(2) of the Fundamental Rules provides that a
government servant (read judicial officer) may, in the public
interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years'
qualifying service, or on his attaining the age of 50 years,
whichever is earlier without assigning any reason by giving him
F
a notice in writing. The notice period is three months. However,
he may be retired forthwith and on such retirement he is entitled
G
to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus
allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which
1.
c2012) 3 sec 5ao.
2.
c2011) 10 sec 1.
H
220
SUf)REME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
he was drawing them immediately before retirement or, as the
case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of
three months. Sub-rule 1-A added to 1964 Rules provides that
with regard to age of compulsory retirement, the permanent
District and Sessions Judge shall be governed by the
8
provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. Rule 42(1)(b) of the 1976
Rules provides that the appointing authority may in the public
interest require a government servant (read judicial officer) to
retire from service at any time after he has completed 20 years'
qualifying service or on his attaining the age of 50 years
C whichever is earlier by giving three months' notice in Form 29
provided that he may be retired forthwith and on such retirement
he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of
his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same
rate at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement
0
or, for the period by which such notice falls short of three
months, as the case may be. Rule 14(1) of the 1994 Rules
provides that the age of superannuation of a member of the
Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service shall ordinarily be 60
years, provided he is found fit and suitable to coptinue after 58
years in service of the High Court. Sub-rule (2) makes a
E provision that without prejudice to the provisions contained in
Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 42(1 )(b) of the
1976 Rules, a member of the service not found fit and suitable
shall be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58
years.
F
G
H
13. Article 235 of the Constitution vests in the High Court
the control over the subordinate judiciary within the State. It
reads as follows :
"Control over subordinate courts.-The control over
district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the
posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to,
persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and
holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall
be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
221
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
be construed as taking away from any such person any
A
right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating
the conditions of his service or as authorizing the High
Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with
the conditions of his service prescribed under such law."
B
14. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and another3, a
seven-Judge Bench of this Court considered the ambit and
scope of the word "control" and while elaborating the powers
included in the High Courts with regard to control over
subordinate judiciary within its respective state, inter alia,
C
exposited the position that such power included pre-mature or
compulsory retirement of Judges of the district courts and of
subordinate courts.
15. In Chandra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan
and another4, the above position laid down by this Court in
D
Samsher Singh3 has been reiterated.
16. The above position laid down by this Court in the cases
of Samsher Singh3 and Chandra Singh4 has been reiterated
in a recent decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh Verma2 .
In paragraph 82 (Pg. 43) of the Report, this Court in Rajendra
Singh Verma2 stated as follows :
"82. As explained by this Court in Chandra Singh v. State
E
of Rajasthan [(2003) 6 SCC 545], the power of
compulsory retirement can be exercised at any time and
F
that the power under Article 235 in this regard is not in any
manner circumscribed by any rule or order. What is
explained in the said decision by this Court is that Article
235 of the Constitution of India enables the High Court to
assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time
G
with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out the
dead wood, and this constitutional power of the High Court
cannot be circumscribed by any rule or order."
3.
(1974) 2 sec 831.
4.
c2003) 6 sec 545.
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
17. Fallowing a decision of this Court in High Court of
B
Judicature at Bombay Through Its Registrar v. Shirishkumar
Rangrao Patil and another', this Court in Rajendra Singh
Verma2 reiterated that the High Court had to maintain constant
vigil on its subordinate judiciary.
18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in All India Judges'
Association (2) and others v. Union of India and others6 has
emphasized that the benefit of increase of retirement age to
60 years shall not be available automatically to all judicial
officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence
C of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit is
available to only those who, in the opinion of the respective High
Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. The Bench
said, "It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm
and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility".
D
19. That power of the High Court to recommend to the
Government to compulsorily retire a judicial officer on attaining
the required length of service or requisite age and consequent
action by the Government on such recommendation are beyond
E any doubt.
20. The appellant, as noted above, was selected in
Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service in 1979 by way of
direct recruitment. At the time of issuance of the order of
compulsory retirement on 13.09.2004 he had completed 25
F years or so in judicial service. The available materials show that
for the period from 01.04.1981 to 31.03.1982, the appellant was
given grade 'D' (Average).
21. In 1988-89, the appellant was assessed "D". ACR for
G that year also records that he never enjoyed clean reputation
although no such complaint was received in writing. It also
records that his quality of judgments and orders was not
satisfactory.
5.
(1997) 6 sec 339.
H 6.
(1993) 4 sec 288.
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
223
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
22. For the period ending 31.03.1991, the appellant was
A
graded "C" (Good) but it records, "the descriptive report of the
then Chief Justice dated 28.06.1991 is that no inspection of
Betul District Judge was made, however, the appellant was
reported to be an average judicial officer".
23. For the period ending 31.03.1992, the appellant has
been given grade "D" (Average).
B
24. For the period ending 31.03.1993, the appellant has
been graded "E" (Poor). Inter alia, the remarks read, "Inspection
note shows that the quality of his performance is poor. His
C
disposals were below average, his reputation was not good".
25. For the period ending 31.03.1994, the api;iellant has
been graded "E" (Poor). The entry reads, "His performance
qualitatively and quantitatively has been poor. The officer does
D
not enjoy good reputation".
26. The questions that fall for consideration are: whether
the recommendation made by the High Court on the basis of
unanimous opinion to the Government for compulsory
retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory
E
retirement issued by the Government suffer from any legal flaw?
Is the order of compulsory retirement so arbitrary or irrational
that justifies interference in judicial review? Is the view of the
Division Bench upholding the order of appellant's compulsory
retirement so erroneous warranting interference by this Court
F
in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India?
27. In Rajendra Singh Verma2 , this Court restated what
has been stated in earlier decisions that compulsory retirement
from service is neither dismissal nor removal; it differs from
G
both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed
by the rules and involves no penal consequences inasmuch as
the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits
proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit. An
order of compulsory retirement being not an order of adverse
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20121 7 S.C.R.
A consequence, principles of natural justice have no application.
This Court took into consideration a long line of cases including
State of UP. and another v. Bihari La/7, Union of India v. V.P.
Seth and another8, Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief
District Medical Officer6, Baripada and another , Baidyanath
B Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another10, Union of India v.
c
D
E
F
Col. J.N. Sinha and another11, All India Judges' Association
(1) v. Union of India and others12 and All India Judges'
Association (2)6 and culled out the legal position in paragraph
183 (Pg. no. 75) of the Report as follows :
"183. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court
that while considering the case of an officer as to whether
he should be continued in service or compulsorily retired,
his entire service record up to that date on which
consideration is made has to be taken into account. What
weight should be attached to earlier entries as compared
to recent entries is a matter of evaluation, but there is no
manner of doubt that consideration has to be of the entire
service record. The fact that an officer, after an earlier
adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier
adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to con~_nd that
merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an
officer was promoted that by itself would pretjude the
authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. When
the law says that the entire service record has to be taken
into consideration, the earlier adverse entry, which forms
a part of the service record, would also be relevant
irrespective of the fact whether the officer concerned was
promoted to higher position or whether he was granted
certain benefits like increments, etc."
G 7.
1994 (Suppl) 3 sec 593.
8.
(1994) sec (L&S) 1052.
9.
(1992) 2 sec 299.
10. (1989) 4 sec 664.
11. (1970) 2 sec 458.
H 12. (1992) 1 sec 119.
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
225
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
28. Few other features based on service record of the
A
appellant highlighted in the counter filed by the respondent no.
1 in opposition to the writ petition as well as in response to the
special leave petition before this Court may be noticed. The
appellant was informed of his having been assessed in grade
"D" for the period 01.04.1981 to 31.03.1982 by communication
dated 15.09.1982. The said adverse grading was not assailed
B
by the appellant and it remained on the record as it is. The
appellant was also intimated on 06.11.1989 about the adverse
remarks recorded in his ACR for the period 1988-89 that he
never enjoyed clean reputation and that his quality of judgments c
and orders was not satisfactory. The appellant made
representation against the above remarks but the same was
rejected and they hold the field as it is.