Patna High Court
Sudhir Kumar Sinha vs The High Court Of Judicature At Patna ... on 4 February, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Partha Sarthy, Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16762 of 2022
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Bageshwari Prasad, resident of village -
Tilak Nagar, Katira, Arrah, Bhojpur, P.O. and P.S. - Nawada, District -
Bhojpur, Bihar - 802301.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General, Patna
High Court, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna, Bihar.
3. The District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Law Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
Date : 04-02-2025
On the recommendation made by the Patna
High Court vide Letter No. 14571, dated 09.03.2022, His
Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, issued a notification
dated 16.03.2022, compulsorily retiring the petitioner
from his service by invoking Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar
Service Code (in short the Code).
2. The afore-noted order of compulsory
retirement is under challenge in the present petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/Judicial Officer
and Mr. Piyush Lall, the learned counsel for the Patna
High Court. The State is represented by Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Ghosarvey, the learned AC to AAG-3.
4. The issues raised in the present petition are
as follows :
(i) There were no sufficient material
evidences available before the High Court
against the petitioner to form any bonafide
opinion that he has become a dead wood and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
that his services were not needed in public
interest.
(ii) The recommendation of the High
Court and the decision of the Government
suffers from the vice of malafide' and
unreasonableness.
(iii) The appointing authority was
required to subjectively test the
recommendations made by the Patna High
Court on the anvil of public interest before
taking a decision to compulsorily retire the
petitioner/Judicial Officer.
(iv) The petitioner had been a
diligent Judicial Officer, who has suffered the
ignominy of having been shown the door
much before his date of superannuation.
5. Section 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code
reads as hereunder :-
"The appointing authority concerned
may after giving a Government servant at
least three month's previous notice in writing,
or an amount equal to three month's pay and
allowance in lieu of such notice, require him
in public interest, to retire from service on the
date on which such a Government servant
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
completes thirty years of qualifying service or
attains fifty years of age or on any date
thereafter to be specified in the notice."
6. A quick look at the law, which has
developed with respect to compulsory retirement of an
employee/Judicial Officer, would only serve the requisite
purpose of testing the case of the petitioner.
7. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.
J.N. Sinha : (1970) 2 SCC 458 had held that
compulsory retirement does not involve civil
consequences. The appropriate authority has the
absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right
conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one,
which power can be exercised, subject to conditions
mentioned in the Rule, one of which is that the authority
concerned must be of the opinion that it is in public
interest to do so. If that authority bonafide forms that
opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
challenged before the Courts. It is open to an aggrieved
party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been
formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or
that it is an arbitrary decision. This judgment was
followed in State of Gujarat Vs. Suryakant Chunulal
Shah : (1999) 1 SCC 529.
8. Later, in Baikuntha Nath Das Vs. District
Medical Officer : (1992) 2 SCC 299 , a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court laid down that :
(i) An order of compulsory
retirement is not a punishment. It implies no
stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the
Government on forming the opinion that it is
in public interest to retire a Government
servant compulsorily. The order is passed
on the subjective satisfaction of the
Government.
(iii) The principles of natural justice
have no place in the test of the order of
compulsory retirement; which does not
mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded
altogether. While the High Court or the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
Supreme Court would not examine the
matter as an appellate Court, but the order
of compulsory retirement could be
interfered, if the Courts are satisfied that the
order passed is malafide or is based on no
evidence or that it is arbitrary in the sense
that no reasonable person would form the
requisite opinion on the given material or
that the order is found to be perverse.
(iv) For coming to such a conclusion,
the entire records of the service is to be
considered, but, of course, attaching more
importance to record of and performance
during the later years, which would include
the entries in the confidential
records/character rolls, both favourable and
adverse.
9. In Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. : (2010) 10 SCC 693, dealing with a
case of Judicial Officers, the Supreme Court in relation to
the powers under the same Rule, after referring to a
number of judgments, summarized the law on the point
as follows :
"Thus, the law on the point can be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
summarized to the effect that an order of
compulsory retirement is not a punishment
and it does not imply stigma unless such
order is passed to impose a punishment for
a proved misconduct. The authority must
consider and examine the overall effect of
the entries of the Officer concerned and not
an isolated entry as it may well be in some
cases that in spite of satisfactory
performance, the authority may desire to
compulsorily retire an employee in public
interest, as in the opinion of the said
authority, the post has to be manned by a
more efficient and dynamic person and
there is sufficient material on record to show
that the employee "referred himself a
liability to the institution". There is no
occasion for the Court to interfere in the
exercise of its limited power of judicial
review."
10. In R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court of M.P. :
(2012) 8 SCC 58, the Court had taken note of the fact
that judicial service is not an ordinary Government
service. They hold the public office and their function is
one of the essential functions of the State. The standard
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an
ordinary man. The credibility of the judicial system is
dependent upon Judges who man it. For a democracy to
thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and
the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge
must discharge his judicial functions with integrity,
impartiality and intellectual honesty.
11. The records reveal that the petitioner was
appointed on probation in Bihar Judicial Service by way of
direct recruitment on the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
on 07.11.2001, on which post, he joined on 01.12.2001.
He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)
in the year 2016 and was also confirmed on the said post
in the year 2019.
12. For taking a decision under Rule 74(b)(ii)
of the Code, the Standing Committee of the Patna High
Court, way-back on 19.01.2018, had adopted the
yardstick to be applied for consideration of cases of
Judicial Officers for their compulsory retirement to be :
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
(i) ACRs. of the Judicial Officer;
(ii) Assessment of disposal of the last
10 years;
(iii) Vigilance complaints;
(iv) Departmental enquiry, and
(v) Administrative complaints.
And, apart from these, the entire service
record of the concerned Judicial Officer.
13. In the present case, after carrying out the
aforesaid exercise, on a due consideration of the entire
service records of certain Judicial Officers on the afore-
noted parameters, a Sub-Committee of the Patna High
Court submitted an interim report relating to 16 Judicial
Officers including the petitioner on 04.02.2022.
14. The integrity of the petitioner was found
to be doubtful.
15. The Standing Committee, thereafter,
resolved to accept the report of the Sub-Committee and
recommended for compulsory retirement of 16 Judicial
Officers named in the report including the petitioner. But,
later, the recommendations with respect to two of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
Judicial Officers were withdrawn on finding that one of
them was required to be subjected to departmental
proceeding and the other Officer was about to
superannuate. Thus, in all, 14 Judicial Officers were
recommended for being compulsorily retired and they be
paid three months' salary and other allowances.
16. We have also examined the service
records of the petitioner, which reflects that for the period
between 2002 to 2010, the petitioner had served well,
but his performance black-sided since 2010. He was
found to be an average Officer with doubtful integrity and
did not evince the behaviour required of a Judge. The
representations of the petitioner for expunction of such
adverse remarks were disallowed several times.
17. The service record of the petitioner further
revealed that the Inspecting Judge of East Champaran at
Motihari was apprised by the District & Sessions Judge of
East Champaran, Motihari regarding the allegation
against the petitioner of granting bail to an accused in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
case without awaiting the report of the Medical Board
regarding the injuries sustained by the informant, which
he had himself called for, for taking a final decision in the
case. However, no action was taken on this.
18. In his service record, there were
altogether 18 allegation petitions received against him,
out of which, 15 were disposed off, but three were
pending.
19. A below par Judicial Officer, whose
performance was continuously on decline and the declivity
was getting sharper by the day, with the assessment of
his being a person of doubtful integrity, could not have
been allowed to remain in service; notwithstanding the
fact that he had only few years to superannuate as it
would have been against the public interest.
20. It would not be necessary, as questioned
by the petitioner, that the order impugned should clearly
state that it was in public interest. Not saying so in so
many words would not render the order invalid. The law
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
is well settled that in cases where the exercise of
statutory power is subject to the fulfilment of a condition,
then the recital about the said condition having been
fulfilled in the order raises a presumption regarding the
fulfilment of the said condition. The validity of the order
does not depend upon the recital of the formation of the
opinion in the order, but upon the actual formation of the
opinion and the making of the order in consequence
[refer to Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of
U.P : (1962) 1 SCR 422].
21. The records clearly reveal that because of
the dishonest ways of the Judicial Officer and his below
par performance, his services were no longer required.
22. The two citations canvassed by the
petitioner, viz., Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. : (1999) 3 SCC 396 and Rana Abhai
Singh Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Patna & Ors. : (2006) SCC OnLine Pat 145 , do not help
the case of the petitioner/Judicial Officer in any ways.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
23. In Madan Mohan Choudhary (supra), the
adverse remarks for three years were not recorded in the
normal course, but were recorded at one go and that too
when the Standing Committee of the High Court had
already formed an opinion to compulsorily retire the
Judicial Officer from service. Even his representations
were not dealt with promptitude, but were disposed off
after one year. While dealing with the case, the Supreme
Court had found that only one single act of granting
anticipatory bail by him in a criminal case formed the
basis for retiring him compulsorily.
24. In Rana Abhai Singh (supra), the order
of compulsory retirement was in violation of Rule 74(b)
(ii) of the Code for want of compliance of the provisions
referable to the statutory notice or, in lieu thereof, salary
after the statutory extended period of superannuation
from 58 years to 60 as well as for it to be factually
irrational, unreasonable and unjust and, therefore, it was
set aside.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
25. As noted above, the citations, referred to
above, are of no help to the case of the petitioner/Judicial
Officer.
26. It would also be relevant to note that one
of those 14 Judicial Officers who was compulsorily retired,
namely, Sanjeev Kumar Chandriyavi had also challenged
his compulsory retirement on other grounds, viz., that
with such compulsory retirement, he would be deprived of
pension since he had not completed the minimum
qualifying service and that the decision was stigmatic and
punitive and not for the purposes of weeding out of dead
wood, especially, when he was found eligible for
promotion just prior to his suspension. In his case,
finding that there was no allegation of mala fide and there
could be no ground of non-application of mind either, the
challenge was repudiated.
27. The compulsory retirement of the
petitioner/Judicial Officer, however, is neither stigmatic
nor can it be said to be punishment. The statement of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16762 of 2022 dt.04-02-2025
public interest though not explicit is evident from the
reference to Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Code.
28. We are satisfied that no good ground is
available for making any interference with the decision to
retire the petitioner/Judicial Officer compulsorily.
29. The writ petition stands dismissed.
30. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
also stands disposed off.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 29.01.2025
Uploading Date 04.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
