S.SAGHIR AHMAD - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE recommendation of the High Court on the basis of which the appellant, who held the rank of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, was compulsorily retired from service, exhibits the tragic fact that the highest judicial body of the State which abhors anything done contrary to the rule of law or done in a whimsical manner or arbitrarily, can itself act in that manner on the administrative side. Still, the plea that High Court Judges suffer from "split personality" cannot be accepted for the pleasant fact that though on the administrative side they might have had acted as ordinary bureaucrat, once they don the robes they forget all their previous associations and connections. THE transformation is so complete and real that even though they themselves were part of the decision making process, they quash their own administrative decisions in exercise of their power of judicial review and thus maintain the majesty and independence of the Indian Judiciary in which the people have always reposed tremendous faith. In the instant case, however, the order of compulsory retirement dated 2-8-1997 passed by the State Government on the High Court's recommendation has been upheld and it has fallen to our lot, in this appeal, to scrutinise the validity of this order. Before coming to the merits of the case, we may scan the service record of the appellant who joined the Judicial Service as Temporary Munsif on 15-5-1975. He was confirmed on that post on 8-2-1980 and was promoted to the rank of Sub-Judge with effect from 16-5-1985. He was confirmed as Sub-Judge on 19-1-1988. The appellant was promoted to the Superior Judicial Service in 1991 and was put to officiate as Addl. District and Sessions Judge with effect from 15-7-1991. He was not, till the date of his compulsory retirement, confirmed on that post. 3-A. The character roll entries, as recorded by District Judges, under whom the appellant had worked, are as set out below :- JUDGEMENT_459_JT1_1999Html1.htm Categorisation made by the Inspecting Judges of the High Court are as follows :- "1984 - B (average) by Hon'ble Abhiram Singh 1987 - B (satisfactory) by Hon'ble R.C.P. Sinha 1988 - Good by Hon'ble S. Roy 1990 - B Plus by Hon'ble B. K. Roy"
(3.) ON 14th of November, 1995 while working as District and Sessions Judge Incharge, Madhubani, the appellant granted anticipatory bail to certain accused in a case under Section 307, IPC. The bail order was challenged in the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 18207 of 1995 which came up before a learned Judge of the High Court who passed the following order on 26-3-1996 :- "The allegations as against opposite parties No. 2 and 3 appear to be more serious than against the rest, although notice was issued to all the opposite parties, it appears from the service report that the notice is deemed to have been validly served as the concerned opposite parties refused to grant the receipt. In my opinion, the petitioner should take fresh steps for service of notice against opposite parties No. 2 and 3 alone. Let requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D be filed by Monday (1-4-1996), failing which this application, as against the concerned opposite parties, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. In the meantime, the office is directed to put up this matter on Administrative side so that the conduct of the Officer, who granted anticipatory bail, may be examined. The office will also disclose the name of the sessions Judge I/C, who passed the order on 14-11-1995." This case was finally disposed of by the same learned Judge on 22-7-1996 and the anticipatory bail, granted to two of the accused, was set aside. This order contains, inter alia, the following observations :- "From the order of the Sessions Judge incharge it appears that he took into account the fact that with respect to the occurrence a counter case had also been instituted and, therefore, 'the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out.' Considering the fact that two persons on the side of the prosecution had sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body, I am unable to understand the logic. Even if there was a counter version of the occurrence, the Court below should have considered the manner of occurrence and the fact that the prosecution party had sustained grievous injuries which cannot be said to be manufactured or self-inflicted, before coming to the final conclusion. Such a consideration was all the more necessary because the opposite party were seeking the privilege of pre-arrest bail. It does not give correct message to the public if persons accused of causing grievious injuries on vital parts of the body do not even surrender to custody and are granted anticipatory bail. Even if in the matter of cancellation of bail, the Court should not make distinction between the anticipatory bail and regular bail; nevertheless if the superior Court find that the exercise of discretion itself was not proper, subverting the people's faith in the administration of criminal justice, it is its duty to intervene and set a right the wrong. Besides, as stated above, there are also allegations that the opposite party have been holding out threats to the petitioner, his family members and the prosecution witnesses and the attitude of the police is not helpful." (Emphasis supplied) "1975-76 (Distt. Muzaffarpur) -Quality of work satisfactory and quantity capable of improvement. Relation with Bar satisfactory. 1976-77 (Distt.Muzaffarpur) -Quality of work satisfactory and quantity fair. Relation with Bar fair. 1977-78 (Distt. Gaya) -He is intelligent. His Judgments are of average quality. Outturn is satisfactory. 1978-79-No remarks. 1979-80 (Distt. Munger) -On the whole his work and conduct is average. Relationship with the members of the Bar and the Judicial Officers has been satisfactory. He is laborious and painstaking. 1980 -81-No remarks. 1981-82 (Distt. Palamau) -Intelligent and hard working. Writes good Judgments. Enjoys good relation of integrity. 1982-83 (Distt. Palamau) -Carries a good reputation regarding his integrity. 1983-84 (Distt. Palamau) -Shaping well as a Judicial Officer. 1984-85 (Distt. Hazaribagh) -He has satisfactory knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. An average Officer. Relation with Bar, colleagues and staff cordial. 1985-86 (Distt. Aurangabad) -Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period. As in-charge of the Nazarat and Account he requires to exercise more effective control. Satisfactory. Maintains good relation with the other Judicial Officers and the Bar. 1986-87 (Distt. Aurangabad) -Knowledge of law and procedure is satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. Disposal of the cases is satisfactory. He is an efficient Officer. He writes well-discussed judgments and orders, both Civil and Criminal. He enjoys good reputation as an honest and impartial Officer. Good. He maintains cordial relation with other Judicial Officer and Bar. 1987-88 (Distt. Aurangbad) -Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of the cases. Disposal satisfactory. He is an efficient Officer. None made any complaint regarding his honesty and impartiality. He enjoys good reputation with respect to his integrity and laborious. Defects, if any :- No. Good. He maintains cordial relation with Judicial Officers and Bar. 1988-89 (Distt. Aurangabad) -His knowledge of law and procedure is satisfactory. He is industrious, an efficient Officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He enjoys good reputation as an honest and impartial Officer. He is fit for appointment as C.J.M. Defects - Nil. Good. He maintains cordial relation with other Judicial Officer, staff and Bar. 1989-90 (Distt. Begusarai) -Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. His supervision of distribution of business among and his control over the subordinate Courts good. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. Defects, if any - No. Very frequently he loses his temper in the Court but he writes good judgment and order. 1990-91 (Distt. Begusarai) -Very sound knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. His supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the subordinate Court good. He is an efficient Officer. He enjoys confidence of Bar and litigants. He is a very good Officer. Has grip and control over office and Subordinates. Relationship with Bar and Officers cordial." ;