PADAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, has in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought quashing of the order dated 24th May, 1993 passed by respondent No.2 withdrawing entire judicial work and the order (Annexure-P. 12) dated 1st June, 1993 passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, compulsorily retiring him from service with immediate effect. The challenge to the impugned order has been made, inter alia, on the following grounds :-

(2.) The provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which has been made applicable to Delhi Higher Judicial Service suffers from non-application of mind and confers arbitrary powers and is violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 311(2) of the Constitution; the impugned order is vitiated because of lack of material or no material to justify passing of the impugned order; the impugned order suffers from malice in fact and malice in law. For the year 1991 no remarks, adverse in any sense, were recorded in time, nor were communicated in time. The only material before the Screening Committee was an adverse entry recorded on 2nd December, 1992 and conveyed on 1st January, 1993. Recording of confidential report for 1991 towards end of 1992 is in itself unreasonable and contrary to the binding instructions. It is unreasonable to record an entry in confidential report belatedly. Communication of such an adverse entry recorded in contravention of all norms, without furnishing any relevant material deprived even the right to represent against it or in any case made the same a mere formality: the petitioner was senior most among the Scheduled Caste Judges of lower judiciary and the impugned order on the face of it is an innocuous order, foundation of which is the alleged mis-conduct and it casts stigma; the impugned order has been passed by way of punishment and is not an order simplicitor passed under Rule 16(3) of 1958 Rules: newspaper reports appearing prior to the passing of the impugned order clearly indicate that the foundation of the order is not bona fide', the order on the face records to retire the petitioner in public interest, but the foundation is the allegation of corruption for which there is no material on record. In the absence of any material, the impugned order is vitiated; the High Court deliberated on the petitioner's represented and on the issue of compulsory retirement on the same day and at the same time, for which also the impugned order is rendered illegal; the order rejecting the representation shows a closed mind. In the absence of any relevant material, it must be inferred that the decision was influenced by extraneous considerations. The communication dated 24th May, 1993, rejecting the petitioner's representation without any reasoned order is also bad in law. The procedure regarding recording confidential reports as well as the entry relating to integrity are contrary to Office Memorandum dated 21st September, 1965, which is applicable to members of Higher Judicial Service.

(3.) On 7th September, 1993, when the petition came up for preliminary hearing, one of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner was noted that he was informed, after he had been prematurely retired, of the rejection of his representation against communication of adverse .remarks. Show cause notice in the first instance was directed to be issued to the respondents, limited to the question "if the rejection of representation was earlier in time or later than the impugned order".