The Patna High Court, while dismissing a petition filed for quashing the action of the Department of the General Administration, Government of Bihar, by which he was compulsorily retired from Bihar Judicial Service in the public interest under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, held that the real test for examination whether the order of compulsory retirement is a penalty or a dismissal under that garb, “is to see whether the order of compulsory retirement is occasioned by the concern of unsuitability or as a punishment for misconduct.”
Brief Facts:
While the petitioner was posted as Munsif in the judgeship of Gopalganj, certain allegation petition was received in the Patna High Court, whereupon a report was called for from the concerned District and Sessions Judge and the matter was placed before the learned Inspecting Judge of the judgeship along with the report. On being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the Presiding Officer concerned, the matter was placed before the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee of the Patna High Court, resolved to recommend that in the exercise of the power conferred under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, he be retired from his service in public interest and be paid three months salary and other allowances in lieu of notice.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to supply a copy of the letter dated 07.12.2013 issued by the Patna High Court through the Registrar General to the petitioner, whereby he had been relieved from all the judicial works forthwith. The petitioner was entitled to know the ground and the charges on the basis of which he was precluded from discharging judicial works, which led to the passing of an order of compulsory retirement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that principles of natural justice are not applicable while taking a decision to retire a government servant in public interest, as it is neither penal in nature nor causes any adverse consequences. He thus submitted that in the present case, before taking decision to retire the petitioner in public interest on the basis of his entire service records under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, no show-cause or notice affording an opportunity was required to be issued to him by the High Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the real test for examination whether the order of compulsory retirement is a penalty or a dismissal under that garb, “is to see whether the order of compulsory retirement is occasioned by the concern of unsuitability or as a punishment for misconduct.”
The Court observed that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement though based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, which satisfaction, all the same, should be based on valid material. The Court said that the scope for judicial review of an order for compulsory retirement based on subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely limited unless it is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide, overlooking or ignoring relevant material, etc.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the impugned decision is neither punitive nor casts a stigma on the petitioner, and thus the claim of the petitioner of the principles of natural justice having been violated is not at all sustainable.
Case Title: Satish Chandra Srivastava v The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Justice Harish Kumar
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2801 of 2014
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mrs. Smriti Singh (Amicus Curiae)
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. U.S.S. Singh and Mr. Uday Bhan Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
