Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha in the case titled as Ram Murti Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh and another have held that, “it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will make a judicial officer culpable. But a conduct which creates a perception beyond the ordinary cannot be countenanced.”
In present case, appellant was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate; in case of State v Mohd. Ayub in 2007, appellant acquitted the accused who was charged under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was then lodged against him and vigilance enquiry was held by the OSD, Enquiry, High Court of Allahabad.
A committee of three honorable judges recommended the compulsory retirement of the appellant; subsequently, challenge before High Court by appellant was unsuccessful.
The order of compulsory retirement in this case was based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and thus, supreme court observed that scope for judicial review of such order is extremely narrow and restricted. However, if the order is based on arbitrary grounds, vitiated by mala-fides, and some relevant material has been overlooked then there could be limited scope for interference.
The appellant submitted before Apex Court his performance chart from 1996-97 till 2014-15; his assessment sheet showed him being rated as “fair” or “good officer” and even “very good” in the year 2011-12.
Supreme court further observed that, a person who enters a judicial service also has career aspirations and order of compulsory retirement affects such aspirations directly. At the same the reports of the committee of three honorable Judges concluded that it was in public interest to compulsory retire the appellant. Supreme court dismissed the appeal and held that order of compulsory retirement of appellant calls for no interference.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
