RAJNATH RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the State Judicial Service as a Munsif at Buxar in the year 1975 and in due course, his services were confirmed with effect from 2nd February, 1980. He was duly promoted to the post of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, in the year 1980 and subsequently he was transferred as the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Pupari at Sitamarhi on 21st May, 1993. While posted at Sitamarhi as Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupari, he was served with an adverse Annual Confidential Remark relating to the year 1992 93 while he was posted at Chatra. According to the petitioner, on his representation, the said remarks were expunged by this Court. Subsequently, while the petitioner was posted at Sitamarhi, he was serviced with a notice dated 18th March, 1996 asking clarification from him regarding a provisional bail granted by the petitioner on 19th January, 1994, which was subsequently confirmed on 5th March, 1994. The petitioner filed his clarification on 27th March, 1996, but the same was not accepted by this Court and the petitioner was transferred to Rosera on 24th December, 1996 in his capacity as the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. While posted at Rosera, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 20th February, 1999, through the District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur, informing him that punishment of censure had been awarded to him, since his conduct amounted to grave judicial impropriety and such remark was also entered in his Annual Confidential Report. According to the petitioner, he was not given any opportunity of hearing before such an order of censure was passed and his application for supply of the particulars made to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court was also rejected by the Patna High Court. According to the petitioner, the order of punishment meted out to him was totally arbitrary and in contravention of the principles of natural justice and fair play, as secured under Articles 311 (2), 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A representation made against the adverse remarks against the writ petitioner was turned down by the High Court and the petitioner was rated as a below average officer.

(2.) ON 19th May, 2000, the petitioner was transferred to Jamui and while continuing at Jamui, the State of Bihar was bifurcated and the petitioner was provisionally allotted to the State of Jharkhand and was transferred to Hazaribagh as the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. While serving in the said capacity, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 17th July, 2001 through the District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, informing him that a decision had been taken to compulsorily retire him from service.

(3.) APPEARING for the High Court, Mr. Majumdar, however, submitted that no injustice had been caused to the writ petitioner in invoking the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the facts and circumstances of the case.