A panel comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi from the Lucknow division of the high court delivered the verdict in response to a writ petition submitted by Judge Shobh Nath Singh.
Lucknow : On Monday (Sep 2): The Allahabad High Court confirmed the early compulsory retirement of a lower court judge, citing multiple allegations of corruption and dishonesty against him spanning from 2009 to 2019.
A panel comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi from the Lucknow division of the high court delivered the verdict in response to a writ petition submitted by Judge Shobh Nath Singh.
In his petition, Judge Singh contested the high court’s administrative committee’s recommendation made on November 26, 2021, which advocated for his premature compulsory retirement. He also challenged the subsequent order issued by the state government on November 29, 2021, that enforced his early retirement from judicial service.
“Fundamental Rule 56(i) in terms does not require that any opportunity should be given to the concerned government servant to show cause against his compulsory retirement. A government servant serving under the Union of India holds his office at the pleasure of the President as provided in Article 310 of the Constitution. But this ―pleasure‖ doctrine is subject to the rules or law made under Article 309 as well as to the conditions prescribed under Article 311. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights.” …
The bench dismissed the plea, stating that “Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It is applied when an employee, though not guilty of misconduct warranting punishment, is deemed unsuitable for continued service based on their overall performance.”
In 1954, the Supreme Court in Shyamlal v. State of U.P. explained why premature retirement is not punishment. The Court gave the following reasons:
(a) Every termination of service was not punishment-but only those which were brought about by “removal” or “dismissal” for misconduct after enquiry.
(b) There is no “element of charge or imputation in the case or compulsory retirement”
(c) “Compulsory” retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehavior or incapacity.
(d) Service rules [in Shyamlal it was r. 49 of the Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules] indicate that dismissal or removal is a punishment as it involves loss of benefit already earned and deprives the employee of pension which he has earned-whereas in compulsory retirement there is no such deprivation or loss.
The petitioner, who began his career as an Additional Munsif in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services in 2003 and was promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2008, faced two departmental inquiries on charges of doubtful integrity and misconduct, but he was ultimately exonerated.
Despite this, he received several adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR). Considering the entirety of his service record, the high court’s administrative committee recommended his premature compulsory retirement on November 26, 2021, citing that the petitioner “did not enjoy a good reputation” and was “troublesome” within the judicial administration.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
