P.P.BHATT, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the notification no. 6/est. -a//se./ni/ -11/2012 ka 6783/Ranchi dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure -24) issued by the respondent no. 1, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on 30thth May, 2012 from the post of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka. It is further prayed to quash/expunge/delete the adverse entry made in A.C.R., of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -5, 10/1, 10/2 and 15/2. It is further prayed that the direction be issued upon the Respondent no. 2 to reinstate the petitioner on his post of Principal District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court with all consequential benefits with continuity of service like entire back salary and promotion in super time scale.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are as follows: - The petitioner was selected for direct recruitment as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide Notification dated 21stst May, 1997 and accordingly, he joined as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, Bihar on 28thth May, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed in the service on 21stst of March, 2001. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner joined as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tenughat, district -Bokaro on 16thth of March, 2001. Thereafter, on 02ndnd February, 2002, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of District and Sessions Judge. The selection grade was given to the petitioner on 11.08.2006. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint received by the High Court in June, 2006, enquiry was ordered and initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry, three charges were levelled against the petitioner and on conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 74 (b) (ii) with effect from 30thth May, 2012 by the State Government upon the recommendation made by the Standing Committee of the High Court under Rule 8 (ix) of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said action of compulsory retirement, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned senior counsel Mr. Dhrub Agrawal appearing for the petitioner by referring Article 233 (1) of the Constitution of India, submitted that appointments, posting and promotion of District Judges, in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. By referring Article 235 of the Constitution of India it is submitted that the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court. In this context, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon paragraphs 23 and 25 of the decision given in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary -versus -State of Bihar and others, 1999 3 SCC 396 and submitted that in view of the above decision under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court's control over the subordinate judiciary is comprehensive and extends over a variety of matters, including posting, promotion and grant of leave. The three words, namely, "posting", "promotion" and "grant of leave" used in this Article 235 are only illustrative in character and do not limit the extent of control exercised by the High Court over the officers of the subordinate judiciary. It is also submitted that as per the said decision, transfers, promotions and confirmations including transfer of District Judges or the recall of District Judges posted on ex -cadre post or on deputation or on administrative post etc. is also within the administrative control of the High Court. So also premature and compulsory retirement is also within the "control" of the High Court. The learned senior counsel also referred to paragraphs 22 and 24 of the decision given in the case of Registrar, High Court of Madras -versus -R. Rajiah, 1988 3 SCC 211, which reads as under : - "22.It is true that the High Court in its administrative jurisdiction has power to compulsorily retire a member of the judicial service in accordance with any rule framed in that regard, but in coming to the conclusion that a member of the subordinate judicial service should be compulsorily retired, such conclusion must be based on materials. If there be no material to justify the conclusion, in that case, it will be an arbitrary exercise of power by the High Court. Indeed, Article 235 of the Constitution does not contemplate the exercise by the High Court of the power of control over subordinate courts arbitrarily, but on the basis of some materials. As there is absence of any material to justify the impugned orders of compulsory retirement, those must be held to be illegal and invalid. 24. In regard to the case of the other respondent, namely, K. Rajeswaran, the High Court took the view that the constitution of the Review Committee by the Chief Justice and not by the Full Court was illegal. We are unable to accept the view of the High Court. We fail to understand why the Chief Justice cannot appoint a Review Committee or an Administrative Committee. But in one respect the High Court is, in our opinion, correct, namely, that the decision of the Review Committee should have been placed before a meeting of the judges. In the case of the respondent, K. Rajeswaran, the decision and recommendation of the Review Committee was not placed before the Full Court Meeting. Nor is there any material to show that the same was circulated to the judges. In that sense, the recommendation of the Review Committee was not strictly legal." ;