SURENDRA PRASAD THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has impugned the notification (annexure -8) issued in the name of Governor of Bihar under rule 74(b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code dated 4.9.1996 whereby the Governor of Bihar in exercise of his power under the aforesaid rule has retired the petitioner from service in public interest with effect from the forenoon of 16th September, 1996 or from the date on which the notice is served upon him, whichever be the earlier, and has further directed that the petitioner will be paid in lieu of three months notice an amount equal to three months pay and allowances payable to him. The petitioner was a member of the Bihar Judicial Service and on the relevant date was holding the rank of Subordinate Judge. According to the petitioner, he was appointed to the Bihar Judicial Service as a probationer, hf/ was appointed to the Bihar Judicial Service as a Probationary Munsif which post he joined on 16.4.1975. He was later confirmed as a Munsif with effect from 26.6.1977. He thereafter worked as Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate at Bhabhua. Later he was promoted as Subordinate Judge on 3.6.1987 with effect from 24.7.1987. He worked in that capacity at several stations tHt 22.1.1992. He ws thereafter posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro from 29.1.1992 to 22.1.1995. When he joined at Bokaro Sri S.I. Raja was the then District Judge who was succeeded by Sri G. S. Choubey (now an Hon 'ble Judge of this Court) in November 1992. On 18.10.1994 the petitioner received a copy of the adverse remarks recorded by the District Judge, Bokaro for the year 1993 -94 accompanied with a letter of High Court dated 26.9.94. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to Daltonganj in the district of Palamau. On 5.8.1995 the petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks of the District Judge, Bokaro recorded on 10.6.95 for the year 1994 -95. The petitioner was then posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj. It is the case of the petitioner that these two adverse remarks, no adverse remark was communicated fo him on any earlier occasion, though the petitioner had served as a Judicial Officer for 21 years. The petitioner represented to the High Court for expunction of the two adverse remarks communecated to him in which he stated that the remarks were actuated by malice in law and fact. Certain allegations were made against the then District Judge, who according to the petitioner acted in a malicious manner. In the writ petition, the petitioner was not made the aforesaid District Judge a party respondent. These two representations were made by the petitioner in November 1994 and in September 1995. In the representations filed by the petitioner detailed submissions were made explaining that the petitioner had acted in accordance with, law and the orders passed by him in the cases referred to in the adverse reports were passed in accordance with law.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY by issuance of notification (Annexure -5) dated . 14th March, 1996, the High Court of Patna divested him of the powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by issuance of another notification (Annexure -6) dated 8th April, 1996 the petitioner was also divested of the powers of Assistant Sessions Judge. Later under directions of the High Court the Registrar General by his letter dated 9th May, 1996 directed the District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj to relieve the" petitioner of all judicial work forthwith. The District and Sessions Judge, accordingly, relieved him of all judicial work under Memo No. 56/C dated 8th May, 1996. Thereafter, the impugned notification (An -nexure -8) was issued under the order of the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power under rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code retiring the petitioner from service. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner attained the age of fifty on 2nd March, 1995 his date of birth being 2.3.1945.

(3.) IN the rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner, the case as made out in the writ petition, has been reiterated. It has, however, been explained that the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Additional District Judge in September 1996, whereas the Full Court had already taken a decision on 4.5.1996 to compulsorily retire the petitioner. As regards his supersession in the matter of confirmation as Subordinate Judge, it is alleged by the petitioner that the entire material facts relevant to his case were not placed before the Standing Committee.