Pradeep Kumar Shukla Son Of Shri Krishna ... vs The State Government Through The Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1495 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Son Of Shri Krishna ... vs The State Government Through The Chief ... on 4 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                  2025:JHHC:21559-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             W.P. (S) No. 5088 of 2014
Pradeep Kumar Shukla son of Shri Krishna Kumar Shukla, resident of
307, Baghambari housing Scheme, Allahpur, Allahabad, PO & PS-
Allahpur, District-Allahabad (U.P).           ...   ...  Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State Government through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO
& PS-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
3. The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO
& PS-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
4. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, PO & PS -
Doranda, District-Ranchi.
5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO
& PS-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.                   ... Respondents
                          ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                          ---------
For the Petitioner        : Mrs. Vaani Kumari, Advocate.
For the State             : Mr. Rituraj, A.C. to S.C.-VI
                             Mr. Piyush Anand, A.C. to S.C.-VI
For the Resp. No.4        : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate.

                           ---------
C.A.V. On: 31.07.2025                   Pronounced On: 04.08.2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service and

relieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition for grant of the

following substantive reliefs:-

"1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to quash the Notification as contained in Memo no.13/Judicial Misc.-06/2014 Personnel 4496/Ranchi dated 21.5.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby notification has been issued with respect to recommendation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 74 (kha) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code as the petitioner has completed the age of 50 years, without

-1 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

whispering anything about the petitioner, although Annual Confidence Report of the petitioner never speaks about the fact that petitioner was inefficient, dead wood, corrupt or dishonest, nor the order has been issued under public interest and without taking totality of the fact and the entire service record as well as character roll, the petitioner has been forced to superannuate at the age of 50 years when proper fruits of his service career was essential for carrying out the entire family liability of the petitioner and as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement is fit to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits, including full salary till the date of superannuation."

3. It is averred that the petitioner was inducted in the judicial

service in the erstwhile State of Bihar, where he served till the

bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and was thereafter allotted

Jharkhand cadre and worked up till the service of the impugned order

dated 21st May, 2014.

4. According to the Writ petitioner, he has an unblemished service

record, which would be evident from the fact that he has been promoted

to the rank of Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 2009 and

thereafter posted as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Sahebganj, where he joined on 25.03.2010. Not only this, the petitioner

had been posted as an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year

2012 and was continuing on the same post till the date of the impugned

notification. It is further alleged that the petitioner has served the

judiciary for about 25 years in different capacity and performed his role

honestly with full devotion and dedication.

5. In the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.), nothing

adverse has been found against the petitioner so as to compulsorily

retire him from service. It is specifically contended that the confidential

report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, as assessed by the

learned District Judge, Sitamarhi (Bihar) was communicated to the

-2 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

petitioner and the petitioner filed a representation against said ACR on

25.09.2001 but the High Court rejected the representation. Thereafter,

the petitioner's ACR for the year 2008-09, as assessed by the then

District & Sessions Judge, Koderma was communicated to petitioner

and has since been expunged by the High Court. As regards the

petitioner's Annual Confidential Report for the year 2011-2012 as

assessed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Sahebganj, the same was communicated to the petitioner only because

of the fact that the Principal District Judge, Sahebganj had uttered

some unparliamentary remark against the petitioner on 01.09.2011 and

the petitioner had informed the matter to the High Court and

subsequently the Principal District Judge had sent a special report

against the petitioner on 03.09.2011 and because of that biasness, he

entered adverse remarks for the year 2011-2012, which was

communicated to the petitioner on 18.07.2013. The petitioner made a

representation against the remark but the same was rejected by the

High Court. The petitioner vide letter dated 22.02.2012 had requested

the High Court to transfer him from Sahebganj showing apprehension

that his career could be spoiled by the Principal District Judge, posted

there and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Garhwa, as Civil

Judge, Senior Division. Lastly, it has been averred that while issuing the

impugned notification on the basis of recommendation made by the

Standing Committee of the High Court, the petitioner has never been

considered to be inefficient, dead wood, dishonest or corrupt, nor the

petitioner has been found to be inefficient for service and therefore,

without forming a requisite opinion to this fact, on the basis of the

-3 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

materials on record, no occasion for compulsory retirement has been

made out and therefore, the order deserves to be quashed.

6. The reply filed on behalf of the State-authorities hardly of any

avail, as admittedly the authorities have acted upon the

recommendation made by the High Court under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the

Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 for the compulsory retirement,

recommending the compulsory retirement of several judicial officers

including the petitioner.

7. By adverting to the reply filed on behalf of the High Court, It is

stated therein, that a letter dated 14.10.2008 from the Chief Justice of

India was received in this Court with regard to evaluation of

performance of judicial officers on the basis of their service record,

quality of judgment and also in matters regarding retirement of those

officers, who were found unfit, ineffective, incompetent or having

doubtful integrity on attaining the age of 50 and 55-58 years. In the light

of the directions contained in this letter, the process of evaluation of

judicial officers including the petitioner who had attained the requisite

age, as aforesaid, was commenced. The service records and other

relevant records of the judicial officers were placed before the Chief

Justice of this Court, who, in turn, referred the matter to the Screening

Committee. The Screening Committee considered the service records,

vigilance files and entries made in the A.C.R. in respect of the petitioner

and thereafter recommended that the services of some of the judicial

officers including the petitioner were not required to be continued and

thus recommended that they may be retired from service compulsorily

under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The

-4 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

aforesaid recommendation, dated 22.04.2014 of the Screening

Committee was placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court, who,

in turn was pleased to refer the matter to the Standing Committee for its

consideration. The Standing Committee having examined the said

report of the Screening Committee as also the service records,

vigilance files and the entries made in the A.C.Rs. of the officers, whose

names have been recommended by the Screening Committee of the

High Court for compulsory retirement, as well as totality of the materials

appearing against such officers, on 29.04.2014, resolved to accept the

report of the Screening Committee in the interest of justice for

dispensing with the services of four such officers including the Writ

petitioner by subjecting them to compulsory retirement under the

aforesaid Code. Thereafter, the above resolution of the Standing

Committee was finally placed before the Full Court, whereupon the Full

Court by its resolution dated 05.05.2014 approved the said

resolution/recommendation dated 29.04.2014 of the Standing

Committee of the Court. Accordingly, recommendations of the Court, as

aforesaid were forwarded to the Department of Personnel,

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand,

who thereafter issued the impugned Notification.

8. It has been vehemently argued by Mrs. Vaani Kumari, Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the compulsory

retirement being totally unreasoned order is not sustainable in the eye

of law. She would further argue that in absence of being any material to

show that the petitioner was inefficient, dead wood, dishonest or

corrupt, he could not have been compulsorily retired.

-5 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the High Court, Mr. Anoop

Kumar Mehta contends that by the materials placed on record, it was

after taking into consideration, the entire records pertaining to the

petitioner, as mentioned in the reply, that the petitioner has been

ordered to be compulsorily retired, which order essentially need not be

speaking one.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the materials placed on record.

11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now been

crystallized into definite principles which can be summarized as under:-

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer

useful to the general administration, the officer can be

compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be

treated as a punishment, under Article 311 of the Constitution.

(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-

wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after

having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.

(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall

be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such

order.

(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record

can also be taken into consideration.

(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as

a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry and when such course

is more desirable.

-6 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries

made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the

officer.

(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive

measure.

12. Adverting to the scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory

retirement of judicial officers, in Rajendra Singh Verma-Vs.-Lt.

Governor (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court while dealing with the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer

from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, held that if the authority bona

fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful

and it is in public interest to retire such judicial officer, judicial review of

such order should be made with great care and circumspection. It is

specifically observed that when an order of compulsory retirement is

passed, the authority concerned has to take into consideration the

whole service record of the concerned officer which could include no

communicated adverse remarks also. It would be apposite to refer to

the relevant observations as contained in paras 218-219.

"218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of this Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things, it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some real injustice, which ought not to have taken place, has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some

-7 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court.

219. Viewed thus, and considered in the background of the factual details and materials on record, there is absolutely no need or justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the three appeals fail and are dismissed. Having regard to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

13. It is otherwise settled law that compulsory retirement in service

jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary Rules,

compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent

government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded

in disciplinary proceedings, because such penalty involves stigma and

cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the

relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the

field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such

compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also

withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution.

14. Then there are service rules, such as 56(j) of Fundamental Rules,

which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an

absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his

attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number

of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is

necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. So long as the

opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public

interest, is found bona fide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered

with, by the judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial

review on very limited grounds such as the order being mala fide based

on no materials or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an

-8 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

authority not competent to do so. (M.S. Bindra-Vs.-Union of India &

Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310).

15. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be noticed that

even as per the petitioner himself right from the year 2001 to 2010 i.e.

for 10 years (one decade) that the petitioner did not decide a single civil

case, whereas, in the year 2011 he decided two cases, in 2012; 59

cases, in 2013; 129 cases and in the year 2014; 71 cases. He only

decided criminal cases. This by itself clearly reflects, how inefficient the

petitioner had been, while in service.

16. Even otherwise, the mere fact that some benevolence has been

extended to him by still promoting him, does not carry his case any

further.

17. As regards the order of compulsory retirement, being bereft of

any reason, it was more than necessary that whether the authorities

can make an order of compulsory retirement for any reason and no

reason has been mentioned in the order, it cannot be predicated that

the order of compulsory retirement has an indent stigma in the order.

18. This Writ petition proceeds on the premise that the petitioner

having compulsorily retired and therefore, such a retirement is

stigmatic, whereas, it is more than settled that once the order is

innocuous and does not contain any note, from which, anything could

be inferred, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement

amounted to an order of removal from service and by itself is a punitive

and therefore, stigmatic.

"12. An order of compulsory retirement on one hand causes no prejudice to the government servant who is made to lead a restful life enjoying full pensionary and other benefits and on the other

-9 of 10- 2025:JHHC:21559-DB

gives a new animation and equanimity to the Services. The employees should try to understand the true spirit behind the rule a which is not to penalize them but amounts just to a fruitful incident of the Service made in the larger interest of the country. Even if the employee feels that he has suffered, he should derive sufficient solace and consolation from the fact that Item No.20/C-1 this his small contribution to his country, for every good cause claims its martyr." (Union of India-Vs.-M.E.Reddy, (1980) 2 SCC 15).

19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated

above, we find no merit in this Writ petition. The same is accordingly,

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) APK

A.F.R.

-10 of 10-