Supreme Court declines to entertain plea by former Telangana Judicial officer for reinstatement

The Supreme Court recently declined to entertain a plea moved by a former judicial officer from Telangana who had challenged a 2019 order for his compulsory retirement from Judicial service on account of certain allegations of indiscipline. [P Ranjan Kumar v. State of Telangana].Notably, the Judicial Officer’s plea on this issue had already been dismissed earlier by the High Court. As per the petition, a Special Leave Petition filed on the same matter was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court in 2021. .In the latest plea filed earlier this year, the Judicial Officer (writ petitioner) urged the top court to reconsider the matter citing two replies obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) which he claimed had “completely changed the facts and circumstances of the case.”.The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi, however, made it clear that the Court was not in favour of hearing the matter. Hence, the Judicial Officer withdrew his plea. The Court also took on record his undertaking to not pursue further litigation on this issue in its February 13 order. ."After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner has further assured this Court that he will not initiate any further litigation in reference to the order of compulsory retirement dated 27.12.2019, which has now attained finality after few rounds of litigation in this Court", the Court's order stated. .The Judicial Officer (petitioner) had formerly served as an Additional District Judge in Karimnagar, Telangana, before he was compulsorily retired from service. Allegations of indiscipline levelled against him included an accusation that he had delayed the pronouncement of orders on account of certain “extraneous” considerations..The petitioner, however, had asserted that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a fraudulent foundation and that the complaints made against him were fake and motivated..In this regard, his petition had referred to the alleged animosity harboured by a lawyer who was then the President of the Jagtial Bar Association, after the petitioner pulled him up in open court for allegedly tampering with a court order. The petitioner added that there were other judicial officers who resented him after he challenged certain judicial appointments and promotions for not implementing reservation..The petitioner further alleged that he was harassed because he belonged scheduled caste community. In this regard, the petitioner had recounted that when he had opted to join as a judge in Telangana, after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, he had faced verbal harassment from some members of the Jagtial Bar Association. .As per the petition, these lawyers had conducted protests and passed slogans such as “Andhra Judge Go Back”, apart from sending post cards as part of a mass campaign that demanded that the petitioner leave the Telangana Judicial Service..The petitioner proceeded to contend that the order for his compulsory retirement was passed solely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, while also arguing that it was erroneous and mechanically passed. .Further, he had contended that the two RTI replies obtained by the petitioner established that the disciplinary inquiry initiated against him was on the basis of a fake complaint which was fraudulent and non-existent. As such, the petitioner had urged for the top Court's intervention so that he may be reinstated back to service. .Advocates Deepak Prakash, Sriram Parakkat, Pawan Kr. Dabas, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Divyangna Malik, Bhavika, Vishnu Priya, Shyam Nair, Vardaan Kapoor, Disha Gupta and Raneev Dahiya represented the petitioner before the Supreme Court..[Read Order]