S.N. JOG Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner S.N. Jog was a member of the Judicial Service of this State and was officiating as a District and Sessions Judge, when he was retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56(3) as amended by the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Ad -hiwarshiki Ayu Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 976 This action was communicated to him by order No. 3/A/68/79/21 -B, dated 26 -11 -1979 (Annexure A) issued by the State Government. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing this order dated 26 -11 -1979 (Annexure A)

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of this petition may now be stated. The petitioner's date of birth is 24 -11 -1924 and he attained the age of 55 years on 23 -11 -1979. The petitioner was appointed a Munsiff -Magistrate in the erstwhile Part 'C' State of Bhopal in September 1953 and was absorbed in the new State of Madhaya Pradesh as a Civil Judge, Class II, on reorganisation of the States with effect from 1 -11 -1956. The petitioner was promoted as an officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge in April 1959 and his case was considered for confirmation as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Judges' meeting of the High Court on 2 -9 -1972, when he was not found fit for confirmation, while several other officiating Additional District and Sessions Judges were found fit and confirmed. The petitioner's case for confirmation was again considered in the Judges' meeting held on 27/28 July 1971, when he was again not found fit for confirmation. Later, on a representation made by the petitioner, the Grievances Committee, consisting of some High Court Judges, reconsidered his case and submitted its report recommending his confirmation only from 27th July 1974. In the next Judges' meeting held on 4/5 May 1975, this report of the Grievances Committee was accepted and the petitioner was confirmed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect from 27th July 1974 and not any earlier date The petitioner's case then came up for further promotion in the Judges' meeting held on 6/7 May 1978 and it was decided to promote him in his turn as an officiating District and Sessions Judge. An order to that effect was made on 6 -6 -78 and the petitioner took overcharge as an officiating District all Sessions Judge on 16 -8 -78 at Mandleshawar in district Khargone. Later, the petitioner, while continuing as an officiating District and Sessions Judge, was transferred to Shahdol, where he worked in that capacity upto 29 -11 -79, when in he was retired on attaining the age of 55 years in the manner aforesaid The ultimate order (Anneure A) dated 26 -11 -79, retiring the Petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years in the exercise of the aforesaid power, was issued by the State Government, accepting the recommendation made by the High. Court as a result of the decision reached in the Judges' meeting held on 11 -8 -1979, The facts so -far are not in controversy.

(3.) SEPARATE returns have been filed by the State of Madhaya Pradesh and the High Court, in which the stand taken is similar. In the return of the State Government, the allegation of non -application of mind by the State Government before passing the impugned order of compulsory retirment, is denied. It is contended that the State Government passed the order after considering the High Court's recommendation and accepting the same. It is also stated that the High Court's opinion in such a matter has to be accepted by the State Government inasmuch as the High Court knows best about the performance of the subordinate Judges and the 'control' over the subordinate Judges vests entirely in the High Court, whose opinion is required to be accepted and acted on by the State Government It is claimed that the opinion formed is bonafide opinion and not one based on no material, as claimed by the petitioner. The High Court, in its return, has stated facts to indicate that the petitioner's career as a subordinate Judge was not unblemished as he claims and that even his confirmation as an Additional District and Sessions Judge was deferred for some years, because he was not found fit for confirmation for a period of over 5 years since the date of his promotion to officiate as Additional District and Sessions Judge as against the ordinary period of about two years. It is stated that the decision to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 55 years 'in public interest', in exercise of the power available, was reached bonafide after considering the over -all performance of the petitioner in a Full Court meeting of the High Court Judges held on 11 -8 -1979. It is stated that the petitioner's reputation was also not satisfactory, while his work was at best only average. The decision was reached taking into account all the confidential reports of the petitioner, complaints' file and assessment chits given by the High Court assessing his judicial work from time to time, his judicial work as a whole and his general reputation. The cumulative impression formed in the Judges' meeting about the petitioner's judicial career led to the decision. It is also stated that while the petitioner was an officiating District and Sessions Judge at Mandleshwar near Khandwa, where his wife was living, complaints were received not only from his wife but some others about his frequent visits to Khandwa, where he was staying with a local businessman. After obtaining the petitioner's comments, on the complaint, he was transferred by the High Court to Shahdol, a place farther away from Khandwa. The confidential report for the period ending 31st March 1979 while the petitioner was officiating as a District and Sessions Judge, refers to his complaint and the opinion formed by the Chief Justice, after obtaining comments of the petitioner thereon.