MAHENDER PAL Vs. ADMINISTRATOR NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order (Annexure P.4) passed on 1.6.1993 by the 1st respondent, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of All India Serices (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the A.I.S. Rules") read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the D.HJ.S. Rules") ordering petitioner's retirement from D.H.J.S. with immediate effect, on his attaining the age of 50 years on 11.8.1988, is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner in 1968 was declared selected in Judicial Officers' Cadre in a competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh. He remained posted in Uttar Pradesh till 16.9.1971. On being selected, he was absorbed in Delhi Judicial Service on 17.9.1971 and was posted at Parliament Street, New Delhi as Judicial Magistrate. He remained posted as Sub-Judge 1st Class, Tis Hazari, Delhi from 7.2.1975 to 26.7.1976 and was posted as Presiding Officer in the designated Municipal Corporation of Delhi Court. The petitioner also remained posted as Rent Controller, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and in December, 1980 was promoted as Additional District Judge and thus became member of D.H.J.S.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that during his entire service, spanning over a period of more than 26 years, there has been no adverse remarks ever passed against him. His performance and work has throughout been satisfactory. The work, performance and conduct of the petitioner has regularly been inspected by Judges of the High Court. He was graded as 'good' in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1990 and 1991. On or about 27.5.1993 the Full Court passed a resolution recommending the petitioner's compulsory retirement from service in public interest. On 28.5.1993 a communication was received by the petitioner withdrawing all judicial work from him. As a disciplined judicial officer, the petitioner complied with the same and in the early hours of 28.5.1993 itself he submitted a letter seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2) of A.I.S. Rules, in the hope and expectation that the same would be accepted rather than orders of compulsory retirement being made by the Competent Authority. In a meeting of the Full Court held on 28.5.1993 the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted. Recommendation to that effect was also made to the Administrator. Before any order could be conveyed to the petitioner, on 31.5.1993 the petitioner withdrew the offer for voluntary retirement. The petitioner's case is that his request for voluntary retirement was not accepted and on 1.6.1993 respondent No. 1, in exercise of its powers under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of A.I.S. Rules, 1958 read with Section 27 of the D.H.J.S. Rules, 1970 ordered his retirement from Higher Judicial Service with immediate effect. The said order is under challenge, inter alia, on the grounds that there is complete absence of material; the order has been passed arbitrarily in exercise of powers; the petitioner had blemish-free career without a single adverse entry; the last entry awarded to him in the inspection held in March, 1993 was "Good"; statutory power conferred on the respondents has not been exercised bonafide; the object of such power of compulsory retirement is removal of deadwood about keeping in view the petitioner's work and conduct, he cannot be classified as a deadwood as his service record was not inferior to those who were retained in service.