PADMAKAR GANESH CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, aged 57 years, who was working as Additional District Judge, has been compulsorily retired vide order dated 28th October, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules" ). The petitioner impugns the said order of compulsory retirement in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he had meritorious judicial record with honesty and integrity and that the compulsory retirement amounts to punishment. He further contends that by the said order, he has been lowered in the estimate of dear and near ones and also of the society. The order is further challenged on the ground that it does not disclose that the same is issued on the recommendation of the learned Chief Justice of this Court (respondent No. 2) and that standard which is applied to the members of the executive cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to the members of the judiciary. According to the petitioner, the retirement casts a stigma and also civil consequences.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by the Additional Registrar (Legal) of this Court wherein it is stated that the first promotion of the petitioner was after ten years of service and the petitioner was superseded as he was not found fit for the promotion of Additional District Judge and Judicial Officers Junior to him were promoted to the cadre of Additional District Judge. Though subsequently he was promoted as Additional District Judge and was accordingly superseded. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it has been urged that compulsory retirement is not punitive nor it attaches any stigma on the service career of the employee. It is further averred in the said affidavit that the case of the petitioner was liable to be reviewed at the time of attainment of 50 years under the said Rules. The case of the petitioner was, accordingly, placed before the Review Committee and after considering the petitioners entire Annual Confidential Reports, disposal record, leave record and complaints received by the Special Investigation Department of this Court, the Review Committee unanimously decided that the petitioner be compulsorily retired in the public interest. The report of the Review Committee was placed before the Committee of Administrative Judges consisting of the learned Chief Justice and other Senior Judges of this Court and the Administrative Judges decided to accept the report of the Review Committee with further direction that the petitioner be paid salaries in lieu of notice period. In view of the said decision, the Government was moved and the Government acting upon the recommendation made by this Court issued the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed after following due process.