Rama Chandra Mohanty V. State Of Orissa & Another-Judicial Officer Who Lacks Integrity And Honesty Is A Danger To Judiciary

DATE: 17th March, 2021

JUDGES

• B.P. Routray
• Dr. S. Muralidhar

PARTIES

• Rama Chandra Mohanty (PETITIONER)
• State of Orissa & another (RESPONDENT)

SUBJECT: In the following judgement the court deals with provision of compulsory retirement of judicial officer in public interest. The question before the court was whether the order was mala fide or not.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a judicial officer against the order of Government of Orissa in Law Department which directed him to retire in public interest.
2. Two proceedings were initiated against him during his tenure. Five charges were framed against him in the first proceeding in the year 2003, those included unauthorized retention of Government quarters, deliberate delay in payment of bills towards purchase of law journals for Bolangir Judgeship, illegal counting of leave in his own leave account and lesser deduction of rent towards occupation of Government quarters, which was addressed as gross misconduct and failure in due discharge of duties under Rules 3 and 4 of the Orissa Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959.
3. The second proceeding was done on the ground that he the petitioner availed loan in the name of his class IV servant of which, the servant had no knowledge and was without his consent. Further, the petitioner did not repay the same until a complaint was made against him by the servant.
4. It was contended by the petitioner that without recognizing his commendable service, which was appreciated by the Chief Justice also, he was removed by way of premature retirement under Rule 44 of the O.S.J.S. and O.J.S. Rules, 2007. It was further contended that the petitioner was not even viewed a show cause notice and without any opportunity of being heard was directed for a compulsory retirement.
5. Moreover, the petitioner contends that no allegations were made against the integrity and honesty were made against him and thus, the order of premature retirement is unjustified. He further states that the entries that are referred to as adverse in nature are not adverse rather advisory and instructive in nature. Therefore, without any material evidence premature retirement without giving an opportunity to be heard is not sustainable in law.
6. On the other hand, the respondent contended that not only the adverse entries touching on the honesty and integrity of the Petitioner which were duly communicated to him were taken into consideration but, multiple factors which played a vital and important role for recommending premature retirement of the Petitioner, were also considered.
7. Apart from that, it was submitted that opportunity of hearing or issuance of a show cause notice prior to the decision being taken is nowhere mentioned in terms of compulsory retirement as per rule 44.
8. The order is neither punitive nor stigmatic and thus, opportunity of hearing as principle of natural justice cannot be claimed. Also, not only the two disciplinary proceedings but the petitioner’s entire service record has been taken into account.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

ODISHA SUPERIOR JUDICIAL SERVICES AND ODISHA JUDICIAL SERVICES RULES-

• Rule 44-Retirement in public interest:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Governor shall, in consultation with the High Court, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have absolute right to retire any member of the service who has attained the age of fifty years, by giving him/her notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

(2) Whether any officer of the service should be retired in public interest under subrule(1) shall be considered at least three times, that is, when he is about to attain the age of fifty years, fifty five years, and fifty eight years:
Provided that nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed in public interest as preventing the Governor to retire a member of the service at any time after he/she attains the age of fifty years on the recommendation of High Court under sub-rule (1)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

• Article 235- Control over subordinate courts- The control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, 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, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.

ISSUES: The key issue before the court in the present case was whether the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner was justified or not?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

• Answering the contentions the court observed that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dishonest, the corrupt and the deadwood. An officer having sound knowledge of the law but lacking in integrity or having a dubious character, is a great danger to the smooth functioning of the judiciary.
• While examining the entries made in CCR the court observed that the petitioner’s contentions are not in consonance with his personal record.
• Referring to the case of Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah, the court stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the power of the High Court, on its administrative jurisdiction to recommend compulsory retirement of a member of the judicial service in accordance with the rules framed in that regard.
• After reviewing the complete service record of the petitioner, the court held that the order of compulsory retirement was not mala fide and is warranted in public interest.

SUMMARY

• Judiciary is the third and very important pillar of democracy. It has the responsibility to safeguard the constitution and restore justice among the people of the country. Therefore, the instances where the judicial officers themselves turn out to be dishonest, corrupt and deem to take advantage of their position, it becomes necessary to sack out such officers.
• In the present case, as observed by the bench that there was nothing to back the contentions of the petitioner and state that he has been honest throughout his tenure. Thus, it was indeed a step in public interest to direct a compulsory retirement for those officers who take undue advantage of their position and instead of securing justice harass people.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement