AJIT KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Saraikela at the relevant time and submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement, which was dated 1st August, 2006, with effect from 31st August, 2006. The petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was rejected on 11.8.2006 and thereafter the petitioner was compulsorily retired by order dated 24.8.2006 by invoking powers under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The petitioner, therefore, has challenged both the orders, i.e., order dated 11.8.2006 rejecting his prayer for voluntary retirement and the order dated 24.8.2006.

(2.) The only point canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of compulsory retirement dated 24th August, 2006. It is submitted that the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement was also rejected without giving any opportunity of hearing.

(3.) As per the counter affidavit filed by the High Court, it appears that petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement was rejected on 11th August, 2006 and before dealing with the application seeking voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner, petitioner in one of the departmental inquiries found guilty and order of censor was passed against him; thereafter some complaints were received, upon which petitioner's service record was considered and the impugned decision was taken to make the petitioner retire by invoking powers under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, on 28th July, 2006. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in a matter of proceeding for compulsory retirement, no personal hearing or even otherwise any hearing is required. It is further submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is not a stigma and therefore, also hearing is not required and law is settled on this point. The petitioner since was retired on 24.8.2006, the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement also otherwise could not have been allowed in view of the fact that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement from 31.8.2006; before that date, the petitioner was retired by lawful order.