Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRS Vs. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi & ANR.
2011 Latest Caselaw 693 SC

Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through LRS Vs. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi & ANR.

J U D G M E N T

1.     Leave granted in each of the special leave petition.

2.     These appeals, by the grant of special leave, are directed against common judgment dated May 2, 2008 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2157 of 2002, C.W.P. No.1965 of 2002 and C.W.P. No.2362 of 2002. The appellants were the Members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (`D.H.J.S.', for short). Mr. M.S.Rohilla and Mr. P.D.Gupta were compulsorily retired from service under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules, read with Rule 33 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970, whereas deceased Mr. R.S.Verma was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 16(3) of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970, on different dates.

They had challenged orders of their compulsory retirement from service by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226. Though the result of each appeal would depend on its own facts, having regard to the commonality of submissions on legal aspects, this Court had tagged these cases together and heard them one after the other. This Court proposes to dispose of the three appeals, by this common Judgment for the sake of avoiding repetitiveness of legal principles.

However, the Court proposes to consider each case on its own merits. With these observations, the Court proposes to deal with appeal arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27028 of 2008, filed by Mr. Rajendra Singh Verma against decision in C.W.P. No.2157 of 2002. Mr. Verma was born on April 13, 1950. After enrolling himself as an advocate, he had started legal practice in the year 1980. In the year 1994 applications were invited from practicing advocates for direct recruitment to the D.H.J.S.

Mr. Verma had also applied pursuant to the said advertisement and after interview he was selected and was offered appointment to D.H.J.S. He joined the service on 9.3.1995 and was aged about 45 years on the date of joining service. He worked as Additional District Judge at Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. For the year 1995-1996 he was given a `B' remark in the A.C.R., which means his performance was average. From April 1, 1999 to December 7, 2000, he functioned as Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

3.     By the year 2000 he had rendered service of five years. It may be mentioned that a Screening Committee consisting of two Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court was constituted for screening the cases of those officers of the D.H.J.S. and Delhi Judicial Service, who had either completed thirty years of service or had attained the age of 50/55 years and for considering the question whether those Judicial Officers should be continued in service or should be prematurely retired in public interest. The Screening Committee considered the cases of several officers including that of Mr. Verma under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules.

The learned members of Screening Committee perused service record including the ACR dossiers of the Judicial Officers but did not find, for the time being, any Officer who could be retired prematurely in public interest as on July 17, 2000. A copy of the abstracts from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Full Court of Delhi High Court held on July 22, 2000 indicates that the Full Court had accepted the report of the Screening Committee. However, by an order dated December 7, 2000 which was served upon Mr. Verma on December 8, 2000, judicial work entrusted to him was withdrawn with immediate effect.

He was made in-charge of all the record rooms in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. ACRs of four years i.e. from the year 1997 to the year 2000 were not communicated to him on due dates. From the record it is evident that ACRs of Mr. Verma for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were written in one go and he was awarded `C` remark, which means below average. The ACRs for above mentioned three years were communicated to him on January 8, 2001 whereupon he had made representation against the same on February 16, 2001.

4.     In the A.C.R. for the year 2000, he was given `C-' remark, which means his integrity was doubtful. While communicating the ACR for the year 2000, he was given a time of six weeks to make representation against the same. Such communication was received by him on September 25, 2001. On September 21, 2001 the Screening Committee of the High Court decided to retire Mr. Verma compulsorily from service.

The Full Court of the Delhi High Court accepted the recommendation made by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on September 22, 2001. After acceptance of recommendation of the Screening Committee by the Full Court, entire work entrusted to him was withdrawn by a letter dated September 24, 2001. He made representation dated September 25, 2001 against the proposed order retiring him compulsorily from service. He was thereafter served with order dated September 27, 2001 retiring him compulsorily from service with effect from September 28, 2001.

The record shows that the representation dated 16.2.2001 made by Mr. Verma against ACRs for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 was rejected on October 5, 2001. Against the A.C.R. for the year 2000, Mr. Verma had made a representation dated October 13, 2001, which was received by the High Court on September 25, 2001. This was rejected by the High Court vide order dated November 25, 2001.

5.     Thereupon Mr. Verma had filed C.W.P. No. 2157 of 2002 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated September 27, 2001. The reliefs claimed in the petition filed by him are enumerated in detail in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and, therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the same in this judgment. The prayers made by Mr. Verma in his Writ Petition were essentially based on the following grounds, namely,

a.     ACRs for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were not recorded as and when they fell due and, therefore, he had reason to believe that nothing adverse was found against his judicial work and/or conduct whereas recording of ACRs for the three years at the same time on January 3, 2001, was illegal.

b.    There was no inspection by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge for the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 as a result of which the decision to retire him prematurely from service on the basis that his performance was below average and his integrity was doubtful, was bad in law.

c.     In July, 2000 when the Screening Committee had reviewed the cases of various Officers of D.H.J.S. for premature retirement in public interest, no recommendation was made to retire anyone including him, compulsorily from service and thus review of his case on September 21, 2001 by the Screening Committee, on the same material, was impermissible.

d.    Adverse entry for the year 2000 was served upon him on September 25, 2001 vide a letter dated September 21, 2001 from the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court whereas the recommendation made by the Screening Committee on September 21, 2001 to retire him compulsorily from service was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on September 22, 2001, on the basis of which the Lt. Governor of Delhi passed the order of compulsory retirement on September 27, 2001 which was communicated to him on September 28, 2001 and as he was deprived of right to make meaningful representation against ACR of the year 2000, the order retiring him compulsorily from service was liable to be set aside.

e.     His representation against the entries for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 was rejected vide letter dated October 5, 2001, which was received by him on October 8, 2001 whereas his representation dated October 13, 2001 against the entry for the year 2000 was dismissed by order dated April 5, 2002, before which order of compulsory retirement from service was passed against him on September 28, 2001 and thus non-consideration of representation before passing order of compulsory retirement had vitiated order of his compulsory retirement.

f.     Before taking decision to retire him prematurely from service opportunity of being heard was not given to him.

g.    The circumstances of the case indicated that the Order of compulsorily retirement passed against him was punitive, arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6.     In support of these submissions, Mr. Verma had relied upon decisions in (a) Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299; (b) Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 3 SCC 396; (c) High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. I.C. Jain (1999) 4 SCC 579; (d) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Sarnam Singh & Another (2000) 2 SCC 339; (e) Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 305; (f) State of U.P. Vs Yamuna Shanker Mishra (1997) 4 SCC 7; (g) Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah (1988) 3 SCC 211; (h) M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Others (1998) 7 SCC 310; (i) Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Another (1990) 3 SCC 504; (j) Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Govt. of India (1984) 2 SCC 10 369; and (k) Padam Singh Vs. Union of India & Others, 2000 (III) AD (Delhi) 430 (D.B.).

7.     On Service of notice, the respondent No.1, namely, the Lt. Governor, Administrator (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) and the respondent No.2, i.e., the High Court of Delhi had filed their separate counter affidavits opposing the Writ Petition. The High Court, in its reply, amongst other things had explained that the date of birth of Mr. Verma was April 13, 1950 and, therefore, review of his case on September 21, 2001 when he had completed fifty one years of age was perfectly legal. According to the High Court, his case was reviewed by the Screening Committee on September 21, 2001 and the Committee had recommended that he should be compulsorily retired from service keeping in view his overall service record, ACRs and performance. The High Court mentioned in its reply that the recommendation made by the Screening Committee was accepted by the Full Court on September 22, 2001. What was asserted by the High Court was that the decision of the Full Court was just and reasonable having regard to the ACRs of Mr. Verma.

8.     The Division Bench hearing the petition filed by Mr. Verma had summoned the entire service record relating to his case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on the record, the High Court observed that a mere glance at the ACRs of Mr. Verma and other records was enough to conclude that the decision to retire him compulsorily from service was well founded.

The High Court discussed principles laid down by this Court in the case of Baikunth Nath Das (supra) with regard to compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, and also took into consideration the principles of law as to when interference by a writ Court with the decision of compulsory retirement would be justified. Having noticed the law, the High Court held that principles of natural justice were not attracted in case of compulsory retirement. The High Court observed that in this case the ACRs for three years were recorded at the same time which according to High Court was not proper, but held that there is no absolute proposition of law that recording of ACRs at once would be perse illegal.

The High Court expressed the view that if good reasons were noted for which the ACRs could not be recorded by stipulated dates and the matter of recording of ACRs had to be deferred, the recording of ACRs of few years at one point of time would not render the same illegal. The High Court noticed the reasons as to why ACRs for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were recorded in one go, and thereafter held that there was sufficient explanation for recording the ACRs of three years at one time. The argument that there was no material justifying recording such ACRs was considered to be misconceived in view of settled legal position.

According to the High Court the entire service record of Mr. Verma from 1995 to 2000 revealed that even for one year he had not earned "Above Average" remark and his performance and conduct as a judicial officer in fact had kept on deteriorating and shown a downward trend. After taking into consideration the law on the point, the High Court concluded that action under Fundamental Rule 56(j) need not await the disposal of the representation made against the ACRs and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement passed against him after taking into consideration the ACR for the year 2000 was not bad in law.

9.     In view of the above conclusions the High Court dismissed the petition which has given rise to the above numbered appeal.

10.  It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the SLP the original petitioner that is Mr. Rajendra Singh Verma expired in October, 2009. Therefore, 14 the appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives.

11.  The facts giving rise to the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 314 of 2009, are as under: The appellant Mr. Purshottam Das Gupta was born on 24.12.1949. He joined Delhi Judicial Service on 28.01.1978. He was granted selection grade on 03.06.1993 retrospectively with effect from 31.05.1991. He joined as Additional Senior Civil Judge Delhi on 06.01.1996. According to him his work and conduct from 1978 to 1992 was graded as "B", which means his performance was average. In the year 1995 the Inspecting Judge reported that "I have not inspected his Court, but I have heard complaints about integrity", and left column nos. 6 and 7 to be filled up by Full Court. On 18.05.1996 the Full Court recorded ACR for the years 1994-95 as "C-Integrity Doubtful" and on the basis of the same denied promotion to him to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Mr. Gupta filed a representation against adverse ACR for the year 1994-95 on 10.07.1996.

The High Court rejected the same by an 15 order dated 05.09.1997. On 26.09.1997 the Full Court recorded his ACR for the year 1996 as "B". He filed W.P.(C) No. 4334 of 1997 against his non-promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Services and also prayed to expunge adverse remark for the year 1994-95. Pending the said petition, the Full Court on 22.05.1998 recorded his ACR for the year 1997 as "B". W.P.(C) No. 4334 of 1997 filed by Mr. Gupta was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court vide Judgment dated 28.05.1999 and the adverse remark for the year 1994-95 was quashed. Thereupon, he was granted deemed promotion with seniority.

The High Court on its administrative side filed LPA No. 329 of 1999 against Judgment dated 28.05.1999. On 24.12.1999 he attained the age of 50 years. In July 2000 the Screening Committee had reviewed the cases of various officers of DHJS including that of Mr. Gupta for premature retirement in public interest.

The Screening Committee gave report dated July 17, 2000. In the report it was mentioned that the Members of the Screening Committee had gone through the service record including the ACR dossiers of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service who were within the zone of consideration for being considered for premature retirement in public interest at the age of 50/55 years, but they did not find, for the time being, any Officer who could be retired prematurely in public interest. The Full Court considered the report of Screening Committee in its meeting held on 22.07.2000 and accepted the report. However, on 29.07.2000 the Full Court recorded ACR of the appellant for the year 1999 as "C". On ACR being communicated, to him, he filed representation dated 08.09.2000.

12.  The LPA No. 329 of 1997 filed by the High Court against Judgment dated 28.05.1999 rendered by a Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4334 of 1997 which was filed by the appellant, was accepted by the Division Bench vide Judgment dated 09.02.2001. The record does not indicate that the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench in LPA No. 329 of 1997 was subjected to challenge by Mr. Gupta 17 before higher forum. It may be mentioned that Mr. Justice M.S.A. Siddiqui was nominated as Inspecting Judge of the court of Mr. Gupta for the year 2000. The case of Mr. Gupta is that he had sent one copy each of his five Judgments delivered by him during the year 2001, on 18.05.2001 as was requisitioned by the learned Inspecting Judge.

The learned Inspecting Judge retired on 29.05.2001 without giving his report in respect of Mr. Gupta for the year 2000. The representation made against adverse ACR for the year 1999 was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 01.06.2001. The record does not show that the said decision was challenged by Mr. Gupta before higher authority or in court of law. Thus the ACR for the year 1999 had attained finality. According to Mr. Gupta, Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta who was not his inspecting Judge for any year visited his Court on 07.09.2001 and directed him to send copies of three Judgments delivered by him during 2000, which requisition 18 was complied with by him.

The record would indicate that Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta submitted his inspection report for the year 2000 on 11.09.2001 for consideration of the Full Court. On 21.09.2001, the Full Court recorded ACR of Mr. Gupta for the year 2000 as "C (Integrity Doubtful)". On 21.09.2001 the Screening Committee of the High Court submitted its report recommending his premature retirement from service. The Full Court in its Meeting dated 22.09.2001 recommended premature retirement of Mr. Gupta to the Lt. Governor of Delhi (The Administrator). On 21.09.2001 he was communicated ACR for the year 2000 and he was granted six weeks time to file representation against the same. Meanwhile the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi) passed an order dated 27.09.2001, prematurely retiring him from service, under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 33 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970.

The appellant made a 19 representation against adverse entry in the ACR for the year 2000, on 29.10.2001 i.e. after the appellant was retired compulsorily from service. The appellant also addressed a representation dated 16.11.2001 to the Administrator against the order retiring him compulsorily from the service. It was forwarded by the Administrator, to the High Court for necessary action. The High Court by order dated 12.02.2002 rejected the representation made by the appellant on 16.11.2001 which was addressed to Lt. Governor. The representation of the appellant against adverse ACR for the year 2000 was also rejected by the High Court vide order dated 16.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order retiring him compulsorily from service the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 2362 of 2002 in the High Court and also prayed to expunge adverse remarks in his ACR for the years 1999 and 2000.

13.  On service of notice the High Court filed reply affidavit controverting the averments made in the petition. It was explained in the reply that the Screening Committee of the two learned Judges had considered the overall service record of the appellant and found that his performance and conduct were recorded as average for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1999, 1997 and 1998. The High Court mentioned in the reply that in the report for the year 1995, the Inspecting Judge had recorded that he had heard complaints about the integrity of the appellant. According to the High Court, again in the inspection report for the year 1999-2000 the Inspecting Judge, in respect of judicial reputation of the appellant and in respect of his impartiality and integrity, had recorded that the appellant did not enjoy good reputation.

As per the reply, the case of the appellant was considered for promotion on18.05.1996 but he was not found fit at that time and even in the subsequent selections as a result of 21 which he was not promoted. What was highlighted in the reply was that for the year 1994-95 the appellant was granted "C-Integrity Doubtful" whereas for the year 1999 he was granted "C (Below Average)" and for the year 2000 he was granted "C-Integrity Doubtful", and keeping in view the over all assessment of service record, the Screening Committee had recommended that the appellant be prematurely retired from service in public interest forthwith.

It was explained in the reply that the report of the Screening Committee with respect to number of Judicial Officers was placed before the Full Court of the High Court and the Full Court after considering the report of the Screening Committee and the work and conduct as reflected in service record and general reputation of the appellant as well as of other officers, had resolved that it be recommended to the Administrator, Government of NCT of Delhi to retire the appellant and others forthwith in public interest. The High Court mentioned in the reply that the Lt. Governor had accepted the recommendations of the High Court and vide order dated 27.09.2001, the appellant was compulsorily retired in public interest.

It was further stated in the reply that the appellant had preferred a representation before the Lt. Governor who after going through his service record including assessments made by the Inspecting Judge along with the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the resolution of the Full Court of the High Court had concluded that the appellant was not fit to be continued in service and his representation was rejected by order dated 13.09.2001 which was communicated to him vide order dated 27.09.2002.

14.  The High Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties concluded that so far as ACR for the year 1999-2000 was concerned, there was hardly any reason to interfere with the same. The High 23 Court noted that the ACR for the year 1994-95 recording "C-Integrity Doubtful" was upheld by the High Court, on judicial side, on the ground that there was sufficient material to record the said ACR. According to the High Court the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. was upheld by the Supreme Court which operated as res-judicata so far as the appellant was concerned.

The High Court, on the basis of said fact, came to the conclusion that the action of the High Court on its administrative side, to compulsorily retire the appellant from service would be sustainable as easing out a person with integrity doubtful. The High Court noticed that so far as the ACR for the year 1999 was concerned the appellant was given "C" grading i.e. below average and representation made by him was rejected by the Full Court in its Meeting held on 19.05.2001. High Court after looking into the over all career profile of the appellant held that it was totally untenable to 24 allege that there was any bias or mala fide against him.

15.  In view of the above mentioned conclusions the High Court rejected the petition.

16.  Thereupon, the petitioner filed Review Petition before the High Court. However, the same was withdrawn with a view to filing SLP against Judgment delivered by High Court in W.P.(C) No. 2362 of 2002. After withdrawing the review application, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition no. 314 of 2009 which on leave being granted is treated as an appeal.

17.  The facts of the appeal arising out of Special Leave to Appeal No.27200 of 2008 are as under :- The appellant, i.e., Mr. M.S. Rohilla was appointed as Civil/Sub. Judge, in the Subordinate Judicial Services under the Government of Delhi on May 05, 1972. On June 17, 1975 he was confirmed as an officer in the Delhi Judicial Services. 25 He was granted benefit of Selection Grade on June 3, 1980 and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Services as Additional District & Sessions Judge on November 1, 1989. One anonymous complaint was received against him and, after looking into the same, he was reverted to Subordinate Judicial Services, as Civil/Sub. Judge by order dated February 15, 1995. Feeling aggrieved, he had preferred W.P. No. 4589 of 1995, challenging his reversion. Meanwhile, he was served with a communication from the High Court of Delhi dated October 23, 1997 wherein his A.C.R. for the year 1996 was graded as `C'. Thereupon he made a representation dated December 3, 1997 against the said grading. The representation made by him was rejected on December 2, 1998. The record does not show that any steps were taken by him to challenge order dated December 2, 1998 by which his representation against ACR for the year 1996 was rejected.

18.  Thereafter he received a communication from the High Court in the year 1999 whereby he was informed that in his A.C.R. for the year 1997, he 26 was awarded `B' remark. Again by a communication dated February 9, 2000 forwarded by the High Court he was informed that in his ACR for the year 1998 he was graded `B'. He made a representation against his ACR for the year 1998 in the year 2000. In July, 2000 the Screening Committee consisting of Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Delhi reviewed the case of the appellant with that of several other judicial officers. As observed earlier, the deliberations made by the Screening Committee indicate that it did not find, for the time being, any officer who could be retired prematurely in public interest as on July 17, 2000.

A copy of the abstracts from the Minutes of the meeting of the Full Court of High Court of Delhi held on July 22, 2000 produced on the record of the case, indicates that Full Court had accepted the report of the Screening Committee. In July, 2000 he received a communication from the High Court mentioning that his ACR for the year 1999 was 27 graded as `B'. On 21.9.2001 he received a communication from the High Court with reference to the ACR for the year 2000 whereby he was informed that he was given Grade `C'. It was further mentioned therein that his integrity was found doubtful.

By the said communication, he was given six weeks time to make a representation against the said grading. According to Mr. Rohilla, when he was awaiting the response to his previous representations made with reference to the ACRs for the years 1998 and 1999 and when he was yet to respond to the ACR for the year 2000, he received communication dated September 27, 2001 from the High Court prematurely retiring him from service under rule 56(j) of the fundamental Rules read with Rule 33 of the Delhi Subordinate Judicial Services.

According to him he made a representation requesting the respondents to supply the material upon which decision was taken to prematurely retire him from service. As he was called upon to 28 make a representation against the ACR for the year 2000 within six weeks from the date of communication dated 21.9.2001, he filed representation dated November 3, 2001 against the same but of no avail. Ultimately, in the month of March 2002 he filed W.P. No. 1965 of 2002 challenging order of his compulsory retirement from service. Pending the said Writ Petition, the Full Bench of the High Court hearing W.P. No. 4589 of 1995 which was directed against the order of his reversion dated February 15, 1995, allowed the same by judgment dated May 29, 2006. The result was that he stood reinstated to his post of Additional District Judge under Higher Judicial Services.

19.  As is evident from the memorandum of the writ petition, the order retiring him compulsorily from service was challenged on several grounds. On notice being served the respondents namely the 29 Lieutenant Governor as well Delhi High Court had filed their separate counter affidavits controverting the claims advanced by Mr. Rohilla in his writ petition. It was emphasized in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court that the petition filed by Mr. Rohilla proceeded on a mistaken assumption and incorrect presumption that he was retired compulsorily from service only upon consideration of adverse remark `C-' recorded indicating that his integrity was doubtful for the year 2000.

It was mentioned in the reply that the Full Court as also the Screening Committee consisting of the two learned Judges of the Delhi High Court, had considered his entire service record which revealed that his performance as a judicial officer was either average or below average and his integrity was found doubtful and despite the passage of time, nothing was done by him to improve his performance/image. The reply affidavit proceeded to mention that in so far as the case of 30 Mr. Rohilla was concerned, in its report dated September 21, 2001 the Screening Committee had inter alia recorded as under : "The officer has earned throughout his career `B' (Average) or C (Below Average) or `C' (Below Average-Integrity doubtful) reports except for three years i.e. 1979-80, 1981-82 and 1988 when he could earn only B+ (Good) and for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 when he could earn `B' reports. In the inspection note dated 29th March 1973, the concerned Hon'ble Inspecting Judge observed that he needed to be watched so far as his efficiency as a Judicial Officer was concerned.

The District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, in his report dated 31.5.1973 for the year 1972-73, mentioned that "a complaint was pending against him in the High Court about the return of ornaments in a theft case to a party which was not entitled". Further, as directed by a Single Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.7.1973 passed in Criminal Revision No. 428/72 in re: Ramavtar Vs. State, the findings of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, regarding the conduct of Mr. M.S. Rohilla, then working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, were placed on his personal file. It had been noted in the aforesaid findings of the District & Sessions Judge, that Mr. M.S. Rohilla should not have shown so much indecent haste in passing the order for handing over the ornaments to Jawahar Lal Gupta.

Though, the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, did not find any malafide on the part of Mr. M.S. Rohilla, still according to him, he acted in a most 31 injudicious manner due to his inexperience and suppression of the material facts by the S.H.O. while sending the report in the above noted case. The Full Court recorded `C' (Below Average) remarks for the year 1972-73). In the Inspection Report dated 29.4.1978 for the year 1977-78, the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, observed regarding the reputation for honesty and impartiality of the officer that there were complaints of which the High Court was seized then.

In the Inspection Report dated 7.12.1985, for the year 1983-84, his efficiency as Judicial Officer was termed as a mediocre. As regards his reputation for honesty and impartiality, the District & Sessions Judge observed that he must improve his reputation which suffered a set back when he was Additional Rent Controller. In Inspection Report for the same year, the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, reported that he did not enjoy good reputation for honesty among lawyers and general public and that he was in the habit of drinking and gambling almost daily.

In the Inspection Report dated 7.12.1985 for the year 1984-85, the concerned Hon'ble Inspecting Judge had observed that his reputation was under cloud although no specific instance of corruption had come to his notice, but watch was called for. Following adverse remarks were recorded on the work and conduct of Sh. M.S. Rohilla for the years mentioned against each :- Years Adverse Remarks1972-73 `C' (Below Average)1993 `C' (Below Average) (Integrity doubtful) 32 1994 `C' (Below Average) (Integrity doubtful) 1994 `C' (Below Average) (Integrity doubtful) 1995 `C' (Below Average) 1996 `C' (Below Average) 2000 (Integrity doubtful) Keeping in view the over all record of the officer, we recommend that Mr. M.S. Rohilla be prematurely retired in public interest forthwith."

20.  According to the High Court it was on this basis that the case of Mr. Rohilla was recommended for premature retirement in public interest which recommendation was accepted by the Full Court.

21.  It may be stated that the entire service record of Mr. Rohilla was called for by the Division Bench. After taking holistic view of the matter and the facts projected in the counter affidavit of the High Court, the Division Bench of the High Court expressed irresistible opinion that Mr. Rohilla was rightly retired compulsorily from service under FR 56 (j) of Fundamental Rules. According to the High Court, it was totally misconceived and untenable on the part 33 of Mr. Rohilla to argue that the so-called material relied upon was only one sided view or it was not known what was the material placed before the High Court before decision to retire him compulsorily from service was taken. The High Court found that there was no force in the contention that his case could have been considered for the purpose of compulsory retirement only in the year 2001 when he was about to attain the age of 55 years in the year 2002.

The High Court further concluded that it was also a wrong premise adopted by Mr. Rohilla that the High Court had based its decision solely on the basis of his ACR for the year 2000 wherein it was recorded that his integrity was doubtful. What was concluded by the High Court was that the exercise undertaken clearly revealed that his entire service record was taken into consideration. In view of the above-mentioned conclusions as well as other findings, the High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by Mr. 34 Rohilla giving rise to the appeal by him.

22.  It is relevant to notice that though each appeal will have to be decided on its own facts, certain common points were raised in three appeals by the learned counsel for the appellants for consideration of this Court. Therefore this Court proposes to deal with those common points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for consideration.

23.  Normally, an aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds, namely, (a) that the requisite opinion has not been formed, or (b) that the decision is based on collateral grounds, or (c) that it is an arbitrary decision. If the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from any of the above infirmities, the court has jurisdiction to quash the same. In the light of the above stated position of law, the present appeals will have to be considered.

24.  The first point which was argued was that once a review was conducted by the Screening Committee of the High Court on 17.7.2000 on the appellants' reaching the age of 50 years, which was accepted by the Full Court, no second review on the same material was permissible and the service record of the appellants for compulsory retirement, could have been reviewed only upon their reaching the age of 55 years and not before reaching the said age. What was maintained was that the Screening Committee as well as the Full Court had considered the entire service record of the appellants and found that there was no material to recommend compulsory retirement of any of them as a result of which the previous record of each appellant before July, 2000 could not have been again considered for compulsory retirement.

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the effect of decision of the Full Court of the High Court dated July, 22, 2000 reflected in its resolution, passed on the 36 recommendation of the report of the Screening Committee dated July 17, 2000, which was submitted after considering the entire service records and ACR Dossiers of each of the appellant, not to retire any of them prematurely, was that there was a bar to consider again the case of the appellants for premature retirement and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement was liable to be set aside. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Others (1977) 4 SCC 345.

25.  In reply to the above mentioned argument, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the High Court that the decision of the Committee dated July 17, 2000 was purely tentative in nature and was not a final decision. According to the learned counsel for the High Court, the use of the expression "for the time being" in the Minutes of the Committee 37 would show that it was not a final decision meaning thereby the matters were to be considered in detail on a later date and final decision was to be taken later on.

What was maintained was that the decision of the Committee dated July 17, 2000 was not a decision dealing each officer separately but general in nature and, therefore the phrase "for the time being" should be construed to mean that it was not a final decision and the cases of the appellants were deferred for being considered in future. Elaborating this contention, it was submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has considered the question as to whether it was consideration on merits or a case of deferment and rightly held that the exercise done in July 2000 was not final and the cases of the appellants were deferred.

According to the learned counsel, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, was perfectly justified in holding that there was no consideration on merits of the cases of the appellants before 21.9.2001, and, therefore, the orders passed in cases of the appellants retiring them compulsorily from service were not bad in law. Without prejudice to above mentioned contention, it was argued that even if it was assumed for the sake of argument that there was consideration of the cases of the appellants in July, 2000, even then there was no legal bar in again considering their cases in next year particularly when it had come to the notice of the High Court that their integrity was doubtful.

The learned counsel for the High Court emphasized that in State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others (Supra) there was consideration of cases of the respondents therein for compulsory retirement at the age of 50 years and next consideration could have been only at the age of 55 years but in the said case an exception to this rule is carved out, namely, if material in regard to doubtful integrity of the officer comes to light, the authority need not wait till the officer attains the 39 age of 55 years and action can be taken immediately. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Government of T.N. Vs. P.A. Manickam (1996) 8 SCC 519, it was argued that the consideration of an employee for compulsory retirement at the age of 50 years is only the starting point and not the end point, and, therefore, after 50 years at any time case of an officer can be considered for compulsory retirement.

The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the observations made in Nawal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2003) 8 SCC 117 to the effect that "the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility" and argued that it was always open to the High Court to consider the case of the appellants at any point of time though earlier a decision was taken not to retire any of the appellants compulsorily from service in the public interest. 40 According to the learned counsel for the High Court the consideration of the cases of the appellants in September, 2001 was in fact not a review of the earlier decision taken by the Screening Committee in July 2000 but it was a fresh consideration and on review of record of service of the appellants the High Court was justified in retiring the appellants compulsorily from service.

Placing reliance on the decision in Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. K.C. Gambhir (1997) 7 SCC 85, it was pointed out that therein the case of the officer was considered at the age of 50 years and he was permitted to continue in service and again his case was considered at the age of 55 years and he was permitted to continue in service but he was compulsorily retired at the age of 57 years and such a decision was upheld by this Court by rejecting the plea that his case could have been considered only again at the age of 60 years.

26.  This Court has considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the cases of the appellants for compulsory retirement, could have been considered again before they had reached the age of 55 years, when the Screening Committee had already considered their cases for compulsory retirement on their attaining the age of 50 years on July 17, 2000, and had not recommended their compulsory retirement which recommendation was accepted by the Full Court of the High Court.

27.  In this connection it is relevant to notice certain facts emerging from the record of the case. Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 provides that in respect of matters regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in those rules, the rules, directions or orders for the time being in force, and applicable to the officers of comparable 42 status in the Indian Administrative Service and serving in connection with the affairs of the Union of India, shall regulate the conditions of such service.

Thus Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death- cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (`the Rules of 1958' for short) would be applicable to the officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Clause (3) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was substituted in 1972 specifying the age of premature retirement to be 50. Rule 16(3), after its substitution, reads as under: - "16 (3) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned and after giving a member of the Service at least three months, previous notice in writing, or three months pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require that member to retire in public interest from service on the date on which such member completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice."

Therefore, the matter regarding pre-mature retirement of officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service who have completed 30 years of qualifying service or attained 50 years of age, has to be reviewed in the light of Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958 quoted above.

28.  Similarly, in case of officer of Delhi Judicial Service, Rule 33 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 provides that in respect of all such matters regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the Rules, the Rules or orders for the time being in force, and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts in connection with the affairs of the Union of India, shall regulate the conditions of such service.

29.  In Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, no provision for compulsory retirement has been made. Therefore, Fundamental Rule 56(j), which is, for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts envisaged under the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, shall regulate the matter of compulsory retirement of 44 officers of Delhi Judicial Service. Fundamental Rule 56(j), which is applicable to officers of Delhi Judicial Service, reads as under:-

"(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice: (i) if he is in Group `A' or Group `B' service or post in a substantive, quasi permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years; (ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in clause (e), who entered Government service on or before the 23rd July, 1966." It would be seen that FR 56(j) gives absolute rights to the appropriate authority to retire any government servant who entered the service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years.

30.  The cases of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service were laid before the Screening Committee constituted by the Administrative Committee vide its resolution dated December 15, 1992 and also for laying down the guidelines before reviewing the cases of direct recruits. The Screening Committee decided as under :- "Government Rules be applied."

31.  It may be stated that after reviewing the cases of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service upto 31.12.1994, the Full Court in its meeting held on February 7, 1996 had taken the following decision :- "It was decided that for screening of the cases of the officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Services, now falling within the zone of consideration for retirement in public interest, a Screening Committee consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jaspal Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra be constituted and the report of the Committee be laid before the Full Court for consideration." Consequent upon the retirement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, it was decided to reconstitute the composition of the Screening Committee by Full Court in its meeting held on January 17, 1998.

The aforesaid reconstituted Screening Committee reviewed the cases of several judicial officers in its meeting held on July 17, 2000 and gave its report which reads as under: - "We have gone through the service record including the ACR dossiers of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service who are within the zone of consideration for being considered for premature retirement in public interest at the age of 50/55 years. We do not find, for the time being, any officer who can be retired prematurely in public interest."

32.  As ordered by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, the report of the Screening Committee was to be laid before the Full Court for consideration and orders.

33.  In the meeting of the Full Court held on July 22, 2000 the report of the Screening Committee was considered. The true copy of extracts from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Full Court held on Saturday, the July 22, 2000 at 11.00 A.M. in the Judge Court reads as under :- "Agenda : 6. To review the case of the officers of DHJS and DJS who are within the zone of consideration for being considered for premature retirement in public interest - Report dated 17.7.2000 of the Screening Committee consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Mahajan constituted pursuant to Full Court decision dated 17.01.1998. Minutes : "The report of the Committee was accepted."

34.  On a fair reading of the report of the Screening Committee quoted above read with the resolution adopted by the Full Court in its meeting dated July 22, 2000, it becomes evident that the cases of the appellants alone for premature retirement were not considered but cases of all the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service as well as that of officers 48 belonging to Delhi Judicial Service who were within the zone of consideration for being considered for premature retirement in public interest at the age of 50/55 years were also considered.

The record of the case would indicate that cases of number of officers belonging to Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service were considered on one day, and that too, in the Meeting of the Screening Committee held on July 17, 2000. The record indicates that case of each officer was not considered individually. No reasons could be recorded by the Screening Committee as to how earlier entries adversely reflecting on the integrity of the appellants, were dealt with or viewed. Under the circumstances, the observation that "We do not find, for the time being, any officer who can be retired prematurely in public interest" will have to be regarded as tentative and not final in nature.

When the Screening Committee stated that it did not find for the time being any officer who could be 49 retired prematurely in public interest, it meant that the cases of all the officers were deferred to be considered in near future. It would be seen that FR 56(j) gives absolute right to the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant who has entered the service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years and in other cases after he has attained the age of 55 years. There is no rule prohibiting consideration of case of an officer for compulsory retirement before he attains the age of 55 years, even if his case is earlier considered at the age of 50 years.

There is nothing in the Delhi Judicial Service Rules or Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules or the Indian Administrative Service Rules laying down a prohibition that if the case of an officer for compulsory retirement is considered at the age of 50 years, his case cannot be reconsidered till he attains the age of 55 years. As held by this Court in Government of T.N. (Supra), 50 years is only the 50 starting point and not the end point which means that after 50 years at any time case of an officer can be considered for compulsory retirement.

35.  In State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Others (1977) 4 SCC 345, the facts were that the respondent, i.e., Mr. Chandra Mohan Nigam was recruited in the Indian Administrative Service in Uttar Pradesh Cadre. He joined service on March 23, 1947. He was appointed as Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue in 1969 and had attained the age of 50 years on December 29, 1967. By an order dated August 22, 1970 the President of India, in consultation with the Government of Uttar Pradesh, in pursuance of the power conferred by sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 had passed the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent in the public interest on the expiry of three months from the date of service of the order.

That was 51 challenged by Mr. Chandra Mohan Nigam by a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge had allowed the same on the grounds of contravention of the justiciable and binding rules and because the order was based on consideration of irrelevant matters and was also vitiated by bias. Feeling aggrieved both the Union of India and the State of U.P. had appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated April 13, 1973, dismissed both the appeals by a common judgment. The Division Bench had not agreed with all the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and had quashed the order of compulsory retirement holding that the decision of the Central Government to retire Mr. Nigam was passed on collateral facts and was, therefore, invalid.

36.  In appeals by certificates, this Court had noticed the service career of the respondent. It was noticed that the respondent during his service career, had 52 the following adverse entries in his character role - (1) A warning was administered to him on December 6, 1953, for taking undue interest in the ejectment of tenants from a house owned by him at Lucknow, (2) another warning was issued to him on August 31, 1962, for having acquired a car from Varanasi Corporation while working as the Administrator of the said Corporation, (3) he was once warned for not observing proper rules and procedure for utilizing the fund earmarked for lower-income group housing scheme towards the construction of a market (1956- 1957) and (4) he was placed under suspension in 1964 in connection with some strictures passed on him by the Election Tribunal in a case relating to the Gorakhpur Parliamentary Constituency elections.

37.  With regard to the last entry, he had filed appeal before High Court and the strictures were expunged upon which the order of suspension was set aside and he was reinstated in service. However, the aforesaid entry continued to be part of his character roll at least till December 20, 1969. In pursuance of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16 and in consonance with the certain instructions, the State Government of U.P. in October 1969 had constituted a Review Committee to review the records of the members of the Service who were to attain or had attained the age of 50 years. The list of officers considered by this Committee had included the respondent Mr. Nigam.

The Committee had not recommended any of the Officers including Mr. Nigam for premature retirement and, on the other hand, had recommended that they should be continued in service. The State Government had accepted the report of the Review Committee and communicated its decision to the Central Government. On December 20, 1969, the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs of the Central Government had addressed a letter wherein a reference was made to 54 the adverse remarks in the character roll of Mr. Nigam including suspension of Mr. Nigam which was set aside on strictures being expunged by the High Court, and a view was expressed that his was a fit case in which proposal for his premature retirement under Rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 should have been considered.

After noticing the fact that the State Government had not recommended the compulsory retirement the letter proceeded to mention that the Central Government was not knowing if there were any particular reasons for taking a different view or whether it was a case o