GOURI SHANKER PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein who was a member of the Bihar Judicial Service bas impugned the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Governor of Bihar under Section 74 (kha) (11) of the Bihar Service Code. The aforesaid order was paned on 4th of September, 1996. It is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed on the recommendation of the High Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner joined tae Bihar Judicial Service and was appointed as Munsif on probation on 12.4.1975. On account of certain adverse comments in his confidential reports, the High Court on 23/24th March, 1982 decided not to confirm the petitioner as a Munsif. He was only later confirmed as a Munsif from a subsequent date vide decision of the court dated 31.3.1984. It appears from the record that on 30th April, 1937, the petitioner was promoted as Sub -Ordinate Judge, but by order dated 28.7.1988 he was again reverted to his substantive post of Munsif and posed as Additional Munsif. This was in view of the report of the Inspecting Judge who mace a detailed inquiry into certain allegations against the petitioner while he was posted at Naugachia. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we called for the original record from the registry of this Court, which has been placed before us and from which it appears that the Inspecting Judge examined several files and found that the petitioner's integrity was doubtful. The report of the Inspecting Judge is a detailed report and it can not be said that the conclusion reached by him was his mere ipse dixit. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he did not represent against the adverse comments made against him by the Inspecting Judge, but he has given his reasons for not doing so, as his father was murdered and he was busy in that connection. Be that as it may, when the question arose of the promotion of the petitioner as subordinate Judge on 30th March, 1990, he was superseded in view of the adverse Comments appearing in his service record, particularly the years 1984 -85 and 1987 -88. Two years later, in May, 1992, the petitioner was promoted as a Sub -ordinate Judge, but he has yet to be confirmed as a Sub -ordinate Judge. These facts would disclose that initially the petitioner was not confirmed in normal course and was subsequently confirmed from a subsequent date. In the matter of promotion, though he was promoted as Sub -Judge he was reverted on account of the adverse findings against him. He was superseded in the matter of promotion in May, 1990 and was subsequently promoted in May, 1992 to the post of Sub ordinate Judge, find was never confirmed as Sub -ordinate Judge.

(3.) THE service record of the petitioner is also not very satisfactory. In 1987 -88, 1992 -93 and 1995 -96, adverse comments were made about his reputation and integrity. There are some remarks about his low out turn as well and most of the entries in the service record would show that he was only considered an officer of average merit. Having regard to the service record of the petitioner, the High Court decided to compulsorily retire him. This decision was taken by the Standing Committee of the Court and was approved by the Full Court on 9.5.1996. Pursuant to the aforesaid commendation, the Governor of Bihar issued the impugned notification compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.