ARUN KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7-12-2001 (Annexure P-14) of respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from Higher Judicial Service on the recommendation of the High Court on completion of 20 years of qualifying service under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and other enabling rules.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge, Class-II on 6-11-1981. He was confirmed and promoted in the hierarchy of judicial service from one tier to other though his case was deferred on each occasion once or twice. There were adverse entries in his annual confidential reports from the year 1995-96. He was graded 'e' (poor) for the year ending 31-3-1996 by the Portfolio Judge (Judge of the High Court) and Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the year 1996-97 the District Judge made adverse entry regarding the quality of his work and disposal. He was graded 'd' (average) in the ACR for the year ending 31-3-1998. He was advised to improve his disposal. The petitioner was, however, confirmed on the post of Additional District Judge by order dated 13-8-1998. In the confidential report for the year ending 31-3-1999 the remarks of the Portfolio Judge and Hon'ble the Chief Justice in respect of the petitioner are : "he is a liquor-addict and his conduct and integrity are not free from doubt. He deserves to be categorised in Grade 'e'. " These adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and his representation for expunging these remarks was rejected. In the report dated 9-7-2001 of the District Judge (Vigilance) there were adverse comments regarding the judicial work of the petitioner. That report is Annexure P-11. In the Full Court meeting held on 3-11-2001 it was resolved after considering the entire service record of the petitioner that he should be compulsorily retired and in pursuance of this recommendation the impugned order was passed by the State Government.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that the adverse entries in his confidential reports are vague and cryptic and do not disclose the material on which these are based and, therefore, these could not be relied upon for his compulsory retirement. The remarks regarding his judicial work are said to be of routine nature. The petitioner has denied that he is liquor addict. It is stated that after the confirmation of the petitioner by the order dated 13-8-1998 the earlier adverse remarks lost their sting and could not be looked into for his compulsory retirement. The remarks in the ACR of the year 1998-99 are said to be on account of "personal bias". The impugned order is said to be arbitrary and based on collateral grounds. It is further said that there was no definite material for the resolution of the High Court and there was no objective appraisal of his case. It is also said that it is really not in "public interest". It is also stated that the impugned order amounts to removal of the petitioner from service and it could not be passed without holding a departmental inquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is said to be violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.