- (1.) The appellant is the High Court of Patna. The first respondent is a judicial officer of Bihar Higher Judicial Service who was compulsorily retired on the ground that he was no more of any utility for the Bihar Higher Judicial Service. The respondent successfully challenged the said order. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the High Court opined that the compulsory retirement order impugned before it was not sustainable. Hence the appeal.
(2.) During the pendency of the matter, on two earlier occasions, this Court passed two orders dated 1.12.2016 and 8.12.2016. The substance of the said orders is that the appellant submitted before this Court that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the first respondent, therefore, the continuation of the respondent's service will not be in the larger public interest and the judiciary. In the context of the submissions made by the appellant, this Court by the above mentioned orders called upon the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the statements made at the bar. Such affidavit along with huge volume of the material in support of the affidavit is filed.
(3.) It all boils down to this that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the first respondent. If that is the case, the appellant is always at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent which action according to us, the High Court is duty bound to take. If the officer whose conduct is questionable warranting his removal or compulsory retirement from the service, such an officer cannot simply be sent home with all the retiral benefits. But at the same time, if an officer is to be retired on the ground that his conduct is unwholesome, he is entitled to claim that the due process of law be followed.;