P&H High Court Dismisses Ex-Judicial Officer's Plea Challenging Full Court Decision To Compulsorily Retire Him, Flags Adverse Remarks In ACR

The Punjab & Haryana High Court today (June 20) dismissed a former Additional Session Judge's plea challenging the full court's decision to compulsorily retire him in 2000 in "public interest."

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that "the phrase 'Public Interest' is inherently broad and falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority, whose subjective satisfaction in this regard is not ordinarily subject to judicial review."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Goel noted that the service record of the petitioner, thus, reflects that there have been multiple adverse remarks against him during the course of his service tenure. "The said remarks are not only spread over different years of his service tenure but also have been recorded by different Administrative Judges."

The Court added that the mere fact of the petitioner having been charge-sheeted and the same having dropped but with a recordable warning to the petitioner to remain careful in future, "does not ipso facto absolve the petitioner from delinquency thereof."

It further said that the adverse remarks or advisory or recordable warning made against the petitioner cannot wash off such lapses so as to render them otiose for consideration of the petitioner for retention in service beyond the age of 55 years.

The bench opined that the presence of adverse remarks in ACRs negates any presumption that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was exercised in an arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide manner.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking the quashing of a recommendation passed in 2000 by the Full Court directing withdrawal Judicial work from Mehar Singh Rattu, then Additional Session Judge serving in Punjab and a consequential order was issued whereby he was prematurely retired from service.

Facts In Brief

In 1997, the concerned Administrative Judge, during the course of inspection of Sessions Division at Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab), rendered adverse observations relating to the petitioner's judicial efficacy, professional competence and integrity, which were subsequently added into the inspection report.

Rattu made made representation against the unfavourable remark,s and the same was declined by the Administrative Judge.

A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, but the said charges came to be dropped later on by the Full Court.

In the inspection report for the year 1997-98, the adverse remarks were again recorded against the petitioner's judicial functioning. However, upon consideration of the representation made by the petitioner regarding the same, the said remarks were subsequently classified as “Advisory”. The petitioner's ACR for the year 1997-98 came to be recorded as “Average”.

The High Court recommended the issuance of a charge-sheet against the petitioner for imposition of a major penalty, but the same was later dropped by the Full Court by issuance of a recordable warning to the petitioner, thereby advising him of greater caution in future, by communication dated 06.04.2000.

The matter pertaining to the retention of the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years was placed before the Full Court, and it recommended the premature retirement.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, D.S. Patwalia, contended that the impugned order whereby the petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired is illegal and unsustainable since the petitioner stood exonerated of the allegations made against him regarding his judicial functioning.

After examining the submissions and material available on record, the Court referred to Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2020 wherein the Apex Court held that while considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage.

The bench said that the nature of the delinquency and whether it is of such a degree so as to require compulsory retirement of the employee is primarily to be looked into by the concerned competent authority.

It added that the judicial review of an order imposing premature/compulsory retirement is permissible only if such order is arbitrary or mala fide or it is based on no material whatsoever.

In light of the above, the Court said that from the material brought forth before this Court, it cannot be said that the recommendation made by the Full Court and resultant order(s) passed in pursuance thereof can be said to be arbitrary or laced with any mala fide. On the contrary, it emerges that the Full Court, having duly considered the petitioner's service record in its entirety, has exercised its discretion within the bounds of law.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate with Mr. Prabhsher Singh Walia, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.3.

Title: Mehar Singh Rattu v. The Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Chandigarh and another

Click here to read/download the order