NARAD PANDAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Narad Pandey, an officer in Judicial Service of the State of Bihar, against the Government Notification dated 16th December 2010 issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. Under the said Notification, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest. In lieu of notice, the petitioner was ordered to be paid three months' pay and allowances. The petitioner was appointed as a Munsif in Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in 1989 after due selection by the Bihar Public Service Commission. From 1989 till 2010, the petitioner continued to serve in the cadre of Munsif. The case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement in public interest was taken up by the High Court in 2009, the petitioner having crossed the age of 50 years and having reached the age of 53 years. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the High Court, the petitioner was retired from service in public interest.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Singh has taken us through the records. He has submitted that the petitioner did earn certain adverse entries. However, said entries were later on, on representation made by the petitioner, expunged. All throughout his service, barring a few remarks of being poor, the petitioner had earned good remarks. There was nothing adverse to the petitioner through the entire service period. In absence of any adverse entry against the petitioner and in the light of good service record, the High Court in its administrative capacity could not have retired the petitioner compulsorily in public interest. He has submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner had outlived his utility and that he could not have been continued in service any more. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the High Court being in capacity of guardian has a duty to protect its officers, the petitioner, therefore, could not have been compulsorily retired in public interest. He has next submitted that Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code requires a government servant to be retired compulsorily in public interest after giving three months' notice or on payment of three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Neither the petitioner was given three months' notice; nor he has been paid pay and allowances for three months in lieu of notice. The impugned Notification of compulsory retirement is, therefore, vitiated. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Anil Kumar and others Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors, 1996 2 PLJR 193; Rana Abhai Singh Vs. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors, 2006 3 PLJR 400; Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, 2014 1 PLJR(SC) 169 and Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2012 3 SCC 580.

(3.) Mr. Piyush Lall has appeared for the High Court. He has contested the petition. Mr. Lall has taken us through the service record of the petitioner and how the matter had been processed by the High Court from time to time. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through L.R.S. & Ors Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Ors, 2011 10 SCC 1; Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, 1975 AIR(SC) 1116; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Roy, 1986 AIR(SC) 737; Bachi Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1986 AIR(SC) 999 and of this Court in the matters of Vijoy Narain Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 1 PLJR 1016 of Krishna Mohan Srivastava Vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna & ors, 2003 4 PLJR 530.