'If We Direct Enquiry, You'll Be Finished' : Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of UP Judicial Officer Over Adverse Service Record

The Supreme Court today upheld the compulsory retirement of an Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officer based on adverse service record entries against him.

Notably, allegations against the judicial officer included that of passing bail orders for extraneous considerations.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with the petitioner-judicial officer's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order of April, whereby his compulsory retirement was upheld.

"The ordinary litigant must have complete faith in the judicial system and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even remotely create perception against the justice delivery system", the impugned order noted.

During today's hearing, Justice Sundresh noted that a Full Bench of the High Court had arrived at the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner and there were service records to support the decision. "Where is the question of conducting enquiry?" the judge asked Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was appearing for the petitioner.

"Normally we do...we would like to avoid embarrassment to the officer by giving a [golden handshake] and say alright...otherwise, if you want, we will ask them to frame charges and conduct enquiry...you will be finished. That is why, we normally dispense with this", Justice Sundresh added.

Pracha argued that there was no evidence against the petitioner whatsoever and he had an impeccable record, including getting an appraisal at the age of 50. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner was promoted after the service entries, based on which he was compulsorily retired, were made. "I have been exonerated on all counts...", Pracha submitted.

Unconvinced, Justice Sundresh commented, "there's no question of washing off in these matters...please give some credence to the wisdom of the full court".

The judge also expressed that the Court takes strict view against judicial officers only sparingly. "Take it from us, we have sufficient experience of these matters, [...] is as a last resort only...initial stage, stage 1 stage 2 - we tend to ignore, giving the benefit of doubt to the officers. Then we call them, warn them. If somebody is in adverse [...] repeatedly, in only one out of ten, we take action", said Justice Sundresh.

"And only to ensure that the system is not burdened", added Justice Chandran.

Insofar as Pracha tried to assail the Full Bench's view against the petitioner by saying that some powerful people were involved, the bench retorted, "this story we don't appreciate". Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

Background

Petitioner was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and was granted further promotion to the Higher Judicial Service under rule 22(1) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.

As per his date of birth, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2026. However, vide order dated 29.11.2021, he was compulsorily retired from service by resorting to powers under the Financial Hand Book (Vol. II, Part II to IV) read with amended fundamental rule 56(C).

At the time of passing of the order, he was posted as Special Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) at Kaushambi. Petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the High Court on grounds that the material which showed his merit and continuous satisfactory work had been omitted and not considered by the Screening Committee while recommending his compulsory retirement.

In April, 2025, upholding the petitioner's compulsory retirement, the High Court observed that the advisory issued to him to be careful in future was not challenged by him and censure entry made against him had attained finality. Further, the adverse remarks for the year 2018-19 by the District Judge, Chandauli in the confidential roll had also not been interfered by the High Court.

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR YADAV Versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 17129/2025