Yardstick for judging conduct of judicial officer has to be strict, SC upholds compulsory retirement order against District Judge

While upholding an order of compulsory retirement passed against an Additional District and Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court recently observed that the yardstick for judging the conduct of a judicial officer has to be strict. This will ensure that the common litigant has faith in the justice system at the subordinate judiciary level itself, the Court opined..A Division Bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Ashok Bhushan held the same while deciding an appeal filed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate against whom an order of compulsory retirement was passed..Facts of the Case.In 1996, the appellant acquitted an accused in a criminal case involving Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was instituted against the appellant in light of the acquittal. The Administrative Judge, after perusing all the documents on record, recommended for an enquiry into the issue..The enquiry report turned out to be unfavourable for the appellant. After his views were heard, the appellant was informed that on the basis of the enquiry, a censure entry had been recorded in his character roll. The appellant did not challenge this order of punishment. Later, a committee of three judges was constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsorily retirement. The committee passed the an order calling for the compulsory retirement of the appellant..The appellant challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court, but was unsuccessful. In this background, he approached the Supreme Court in appeal..What the Supreme Court held.Before the Court, Senior Counsel R Basant argued that the appellant had always maintained his integrity since the time he joined as a civil judge. He submitted that an error of judgment cannot result in the compulsory retirement of the appellant..The appellant was also promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and had crossed the efficiency bar, Basant added. It was also submitted that the the performance chart of the appellant, demonstrates that his assessment from 1996-97 till 2014-15 rates him as a “fair” or “good officer” and rates him as “very good” in the year 2011-12..On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that the fact that the appellant may have been promoted subsequently is irrelevant for the purpose consideration of compulsory retirement..After appreciating the submissions made on behalf of both sides, the Court went on note that the appellant was provided several opportunities to submit his defence before and during the enquiry..The Court further stated that the scope for a judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement of matters is quite confined and limited. The principles of natural justice have no application in such cases, the Court clarified..The contention of the appellant that compulsory retirement could not have been ordered for mere error of judgment in decision making was not accepted by the Court. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. KK Dhawan and Union of India & Ors. v. Duli Chand were cited to arrive at this conclusion..Additionally, the Court noted that a person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State. Dispensation of justice is a pious duty, the Court firmly asserted..“A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. .….A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise.”.On the point of the appellant’s “performance chart” the Court stated that such aspects were quite subjective. In this regard, the Court noted the “present system of writing ACRs of judicial officers had deficiencies in several ways”..The Court further propounded that the yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer therefore has to be strict so that a common litigant will have faith in the judicial system right from the lowest level. The Court went on to note,.“Having said so, we must also observe that it is not every inadvertent flaw or error that will make a judicial officer culpable. The State Judicial Academies undoubtedly has a stellar role to perform in this regard. A bona fide error may need correction and counselling. But a conduct which creates a perception beyond the ordinary cannot be countenanced. For a trained legal mind, a judicial order speaks for itself.”.In the light of the above observations, the Court held that the order of compulsory retirement “calls for no interference”..[Read Judgment here]