CHANBASAPPA DHANAPPA KONALE Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 read with articles 14, 16, 233, 235, 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of compulsory retirement dated September 13, 1995, by which the petitioner was retired from service with effect from September 15, 1995.

(2.) THE petitioner was a judicial officer in the subordinate judiciary in the State of Maharashtra, who was compulsorily retired. The respondents to the writ petition are, The Registrar of the High Court, Bombay, The Honourable the Chief Justice, High Court, Bombay, and the State of Maharashtra.

(3.) AT the outset, when the writ petition was called out for hearing, Mr. Kochar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that, though the petition raises and bristles with several legal contentions, none of them was being pressed and that the petitioner's challenge to his compulsory retirement was restricted only to the merits of his case. Mr. Kochar contended that the petitioner's service record was absolutely clean and no adverse remarks had ever been communicated to him. He pointed out that the quarterly memos issued by the High Court to the petitioner indicated that the petitioner's disposal of cases was, in several instances, "noteworthy", and on a few occasions, "satisfactory", which indicate that the petitioner was very good in his work. Mr. Kochar, therefore, submits that there was absolutely no ground for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in exercise of the powers under the said Rules. In he submission of Mr. Kochar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents really discloses any material worth the name on which the order of compulsory retirement could be based. It is further contended by Mr. Kochar, that there are a number of other judicial officers, whose integrity is seriously suspected, against whom strictures have been passed by this Court in its judgments and whose turnout of work is unsatisfactory, yet none of them has been compulsorily retired like the petitioner: thus, the petitioner has been subjected to grossly discriminatory actions, in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14 of the Constitution of India.