| CITATION | 2019 (17) SCALE639 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 10 December 2019 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Ram Murti Yadav |
| RESPONDENT | State of Uttar Pradesh |
| BENCH | Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Justice Navin Sinha |
INTRODUCTION
In this case the Appellant who was an Additional District and Sessions Judge challenge his compulsory retirement under the U.P. Fundamental Rules. This retirement was on the basis of a vigilance enquiry held in 2009 because of a complaint which was made against him in which he granted acquittal order in a Criminal Case in 2007. A Screening Committee of three judges scrutinized and assessed the case and made a report which was then submitted before the Full Court on 14th April, 2016. The order of the committee was challenged before the High Court which was unsuccessful therefore the appeal was brought before the Apex Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenges his compulsory retirement under Rule 56(C) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. This retirement was based on the acquittal of a defendant whom he granted acquittal in a Criminal Case in 2007. A complaint was lodged against the Appellant with regard to the acquittal, followed by a vigilance enquiry in 2009. The Appellant was informed that on basis of the enquiry, a censure entry had been recorded in his character roll. The adverse order of punishment was accepted by the Appellant without any challenge. A committee of three Judges constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsory retirement under the Rules recommended the compulsory retirement of the Appellant in 2016, which was upheld by the Full Court. The Appellant’s appeal against the decision was unsuccessful in the High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
The key issues before the Hon’ble SC were:
1. Whether the court can interfere in an order of compulsory retirement through Judicial Review?
2. Whether the decision of the screening committee was based on any arbitrary ground?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The Appellant’s Senior Counsel argues that his integrity as a Civil Judge (Jr. Division) was certified in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) until 2014-15, and any errors in judgment do not imply dishonesty. The punishment of censure which may have been accepted without any challenge that should not be relevant to compulsory retirement. The conclusion that the appellant had lost his utility and efficiency as a judicial officer was unsustainable without adequate consideration of his ACRs in the recent past years before retirement, at least from 2012 to 2015.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
The Respondent’s Counsel counters that adverse remarks against the appellant were not expunged, also his disposal was found inadequate in subsequent years, and the appellant’s service record was thoroughly considered before the decision of compulsory retirement. The fact that the appellant may have been promoted subsequently is irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of compulsory retirement.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble SC, with respect to the first issue held that the scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement is narrow and restricted, with interference only possible if the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or vitiated by malafides. Judicial review of a judicial officer’s conduct, approved by a Full Court, is limited in scope. The process must be observed correctly, but the decision itself is not subject to critical or independent analysis. The Principles of natural justice do not apply in cases of compulsory retirement. The Screening Committee and Full Court recommended compulsory retirement based on an overall assessment of the appellant’s service record, which was deemed to be in the public interest. The appellant had never challenged the punishment of censure imposed on him thereby weakening his argument against its consideration.
The Hon’ble SC, with respect to the second issue held that a single adverse entry regarding integrity, even in the remote past, can warrant compulsory retirement relying upon the judgement in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and ors. The judicial officer’s case is examined by the Screening Committee, which involves a committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by the Chief Justice of that High Court and then the report from the committee is placed before the Full Court, thereby minimizing the chance of non-application of mind or mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi
The judicial service is held to exceptionally high standards of integrity and conduct due to its role in dispensing justice as a public trust. Judges must maintain impeccable integrity and independence, as they are pillars of the justice system. The ordinary litigant’s faith in the justice delivery system, especially at the subordinate judiciary level, is crucial. Any perception of misconduct can have serious repercussions, necessitating strict standards for judging judicial officers’ conduct. While bona fide errors may require correction and counselling, conduct that creates perceptions beyond the ordinary cannot be tolerated. Judicial officers must uphold the highest standards of integrity, and State Judicial Academies play a pivotal role in this regard.
ANALYSIS
The appellant was provided with opportunities for defense throughout the enquiry process. The Division Bench of the High Court reviewed the appellant’s service records and found that certain adverse remarks, including a censure entry, had not been expunged. The appellant had not challenged the censure entry, weakening his argument against its consideration.
The Screening Committee and Full Court recommended compulsory retirement based on an overall assessment of the appellant’s service record, which was deemed to be in the public interest. The appellant had never challenged the punishment of censure imposed on him.
Since the judicial officer’s case was examined by the Screening Committee, which involves a committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by the Chief Justice of that High Court and then the report from the committee was placed before the Full Court, therefore there was no chance of non-application of mind or mala fides.
The SC concluded and subsequently the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The case involved that the court’s power to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement in the form of judicial review is restricted and interference is only possible if the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or vitiated by malafides. Hence the judicial review of a judicial officer’s conduct, approved by a Full Court, is of limited scope.
Also, a single adverse entry regarding integrity, even in the remote past, can warrant compulsory retirement. Judges must maintain impeccable integrity and independence, as they are pillars of the justice system. The ordinary litigant’s faith in the justice delivery system, especially at the subordinate judiciary level, is crucial. Any perception of misconduct can have serious repercussions, necessitating strict standards for judging judicial officers’ conduct.
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198507050/
- https://lawtimesjournal.in/ram-murti-yadav-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh/
- https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?s_acts=Uttar%20Pradesh%20Fundamental%20Rules§ion_art=rule&s_article_val=56(c)
This Article is written by Dhiman Saren, student of Dept. of Law, Calcutta University (DLCU), Kolkata; Intern at Legal Vidhiya, for the month of April.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments