RADHA BHATNAGAR Vs. JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the Notification contained in memo no. 6792 dated 29.05.2012 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said Notification on the ground that the materials on record do not warrant excercise of power under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The Rule 8(1)(ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 has also been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition and a declaration has been sought to the effect that the recommendation to retire a judicial officer compulsorily from service is required to be made by the Full Court of the High Court rather by its Standing Committee. A further prayer, for quashing communication dated 15.05.2012 whereby the representation of the petitioner for expunction of adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the year 2008-09 has been rejected, has also been made by the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Munsif and by Notification dated 30.11.1995 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was provisionally appointed on the post of Munsif and she was posted at Ara (Bhojpur). Vide Notification no. 1993 dated 24.02.1998 she was regularised in service. After the bifurcation and reorganisation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre and vide Notification dated 21.04.2001, the petitioner was posted as Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi where she joined on 08.05.2001. Subequently, the petitioner was confirmed in service by Notification dated 02.08.2005 and she was granted benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme by Notification dated 30.08.2006 whereby the first A.C.P. was granted w.e.f. 18.12.2000 and second A.C.P. w.e.f. 18.12.2005. The petitioner while serving on transfer as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar was communicated the adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the year 2008-09 issued vide letter no. 30 dated 20.10.2011 under the signature of the District Judge, Deohar. The petitioner therefore, submitted her representation dated 22.11.2011 for expunction of the said adverse entry in her A.C.R. However, it was kept pending and in the meantime, some judicial officer even junior to the petitioner were promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division vide Notification dated 20.03.2012 and therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 21.03.2012 making a request for placing her representation before the Hon'ble High Court so that her case for promotion in the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division can be considered. However, vide memo dated 15.05.2012 issued under the signature of the Registrar General-cum-Registrar (Vigilance) Incharge, High Court of Jharkhand, the petitioner was informed that her representation seeking expunction of adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the assessment year 2008-09 has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. Immediately thereafter, by Notification contained in memo no. 6792 dated 29.05.2012 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand the petitioner was made to retire from service compulsorily w.e.f. 30.05.2012 under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Challenging the decision to retire her compulsorily from service, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) The High Court of Jharkhand appeared and filed counter-affidavit stating that following the guidelines in the letter dated 14.10.2008 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, a list of judicial officers who had attained the required age, was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who had been pleased to refer the matter to the Screening Committee of the High Court. After considering the entire service records, overall performance and the vigilance report of all such judicial officers, the Screening Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 11.04.2012 resolved and recommended that the services of ten judicial officers including the present petitioner are not required to be continued and they were recommended to be compulsorily retired from service under the Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The recommendation of the Screening Committee was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of the High Court for its consideration. The Standing Committee of the High Court vide its Minutes dated 09.05.2012 resolved to accept the report of the Screening Committee and accordingly, a recommendation was sent to the State Government. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court of Jharkhand and consequently Notification dated 29.05.2012 was issued for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest. It is denied that the matter relating to compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is required to be placed before the Full Court rather, Standing Committee of the High Court enjoys the power to make recommendaton to the State Government for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in terms of Rule 8 (1) (ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. It is further stated that the petitioner failed on more than one occassion to secure satisfactory remarks in her A.C.R. besides, adverse entry for the assessment year, 2008-09. The allegation of bias and other allegations leveled against the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koderma have been denied as baseless.