- (1.) The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia therein the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No.8987 dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure-10) communicated vide memo no.8991 whereby and whereunder the Respondent State has compulsorily retired the petitioner in the most arbitrary and whimsical manner. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner back to the post of District and Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, with dignity and respect along with all the monetary benefit.
(2.) The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which requires to be referred herein for consideration of the issue agitated by the writ petitioner reads hereunder as: The petitioner joined the services on 12.12.1995 in the erstwhile State of Bihar and served at different places. After reorganization of the State, was finally allocated to the cadre of the State of Jharkhand as Judicial Magistrate and thereafter he discharged his duties in different capacity at different places. The petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Sub Judge on 02.04.2012, subsequently to the post of District and Additional Sessions Judge vide notification dated 05.06.2014. The petitioner since discharged his judicial services for about 21 years and 8 months and during the aforesaid period there are no adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Record (ACR) and never any adverse entry has been communicated to him rather his ACR reflects that his services are satisfactory and maintaining the higher ranks in judiciary. The petitioner along with other 11 judicial officers were compulsorily retired on the basis of ACR and Vigilance report vide order dated 11.09.2017 which according to the writ petitioner is not justified since no adverse entry has been made in the ACR or communicated at any time.
(3.) The writ petition has been heard and on being called upon the respondent no.3, the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court who has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, therein the stand has been taken that a list of 130 judicial officers who come under the purview of the age of 50-55 years (57 officers), 55-58 years (44 officers) and 58-60 years (29 officers) as on 30.06.2017 was placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, whereupon vide minutes dated 12.07.2017, the matter has been referred before the Screening Committee for consideration. The name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No.38 among the list of 44 officers under the age group of 55-58 years. The Screening Committee considered the entire service records, ACR, overall performance and Vigilance report and on careful consideration of service record of each and every judicial officers, it was resolved vide minutes dated 03.08.2017 that the services of 12 judicial officers including the petitioner are not required to be continued and they be retired from their services compulsorily under Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 03.08.2017 was placed before the Acting Chief Justice, whereupon the matter was transferred upon the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee of the High Court after considering the recommendations/reports of the Screening Committee including the service records, Vigilance files and entries made in the ACRs and after consideration of each and individual case, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 8(1) (ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, resolved to accept the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 03.08.2017 and accordingly, 12 judicial officers including the petitioner were recommended for compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, in public interest. The State of Jharkhand has acted in pursuance to the recommendation of the Standing Committee, as requested by this Court vide letter no.09.08.2017 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for issuance of appropriate notification and in terms thereof the order for compulsory retirement has been issued. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that as per the Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, the suitability of the officers who have completed 30 years of qualifying service or have attained 50 years of age in service is to be considered. It has further been stated by taking reference of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rule, which confers power upon the authority in public interest conferring absolute right to retire any Government Servants by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowance in lieu of such notice once he attains the age of 50 years and again at the age of 55 years. The provision of Rule 8(ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 has also been referred which empowers the Standing Committee to make recommendation to the State Government for compulsory retirement of any judicial officers. It has been stated that the adverse remarks was for the year 2003-04 by the then Hon'ble Zonal Judge of the Ranchi Judgeship while the petitioner was posted as the Administrative Officer, Judicial Academy, Ranchi which was communicated to him vide letter dated 01.05.2004. The petitioner has submitted his representation for expunging of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2003-04 which was rejected by this Court which has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2004. Further adverse entries have been made against the petitioner for the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 which were recorded by the then District and Sessions Judge, Giridih which were communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 12.10.2009. The petitioner represented before the Court for expunging the aforesaid entries but was rejected which was also communicated vide memo dated 02.04.2011. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been a man of disputed character and throughout his career he has indulged in family dispute with his wife, who herself is a judicial officer, which has also led to explanation being called for him. The details of one such instance has been mentioned in para 15(b) of the writ petition wherein an allegation petition dated 19.04.2011 was sent by Smt. Veena Mishra, wife of the petitioner and upon consideration of which under the direction of the Zonal Judge an explanation was called for from the petitioner with regard to the contents of the allegation petition. Another allegation petition was also sent by wife of the petitioner alleging therein the concealment of the fact about a daughter of 10-11 years by him at the time of marriage with her and also for neglecting her and making objectionable remarks on her complexion. It has further been stated that a letter from the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India dated 05.05.2015 was received in the office of the respondent no.3 through which a copy of the grievance petition of Annapurna Mishra of Allahabad, mother in law of the petitioner against the petitioner who was posted as SDJM, Gumla, alleging therein that at the time of marriage with her daughter Smt. Veena Mishra, District and Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, he concealed the fact that he is already married and after marriage, her daughter was blessed with one daughter of 17 years and one son of 11 years, however, the petitioner lives with his daughter of first wife at Gumla and there also he used to torture her physically. The further statement has been made by making reference of the statement made by the writ petitioner at paragraph 15 thereof, certain instance leading enquiry has been mentioned. ;