"Even a single aberration not permitted": SC; compulsory retirement for judicial officers

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Jharkhand High Court’sgranting compulsory retirement to two judicial officers including one who had used "highly sexist" remarks during his lectures to civil services probationers. It also upheld the decision of granting compulsory retirement to the other judicial officer for granting bail to a person by taking bribe in a non-bailable offence under section 327 of IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to extort property).

The bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, delivered judgment which observed that a judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted, and dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by Judicial officers of Jharkhand who were compulsorily retired. "A judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted," the bench said.

The bench didn’t interfere with the findings by the screening committee and standing committee and dismissed the petitions of two judicial officers, Arun Kumar Gupta and Raj NandanRai, who challenged the high court decision taken on the administrative side."Senior judges of the High Court who were the members of the Screening Committee and Standing Committee have taken a considered and well-reasoned decision. Unless there are allegations of mala fides or the facts are so glaring that the decision of compulsory retirement is unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of judicial review," the bench said.

Further, SC rejected the submission that they have been granted various promotions in their career which would have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if any. “In our opinion these are not fit cases to interfere with the said decisions," the bench said.

The bench summed up the principles as follows:

(i) An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitive in nature;

(ii) An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil consequences;

(iii) While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage;

(iv) Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired;

(v) The 'washed off' theory does not apply in case of judicial officers especially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity;

(vi) The courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high powered committee(s) of the High Court.

BACKSTORY

First allegation for Arun Kumar Gupta was from his tenure as the Deputy Director, Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, when as many as 10 women civil service probationers had alleged that he was using unwarranted and objectionable language during his lectures, citing indecent examples and using words having double meaning, thereby causing embarrassment to the lady officers.Another allegation against Gupta that he had physically hurt a washer man by placing a hot iron on his head for allegedly not ironed his clothes properly.This incident of assault was reported by the Principal District Judge to the High Court after the victim had personally approached him immediately after the occurrence and he (the Principal District Judge) found that the victim had sustained burn injuries and got the victim treated.Gupta was exonerated in the preliminary inquiry by Gupta's successor judicial officer before whom the complainant denied having suffered any injury.

"In our view, the two instances are sufficient to decide the case against the petitioner," it said, adding that even if the earlier adverse entries in his annual confidential reports are ignored, Gupta cannot be granted relief for the reasons.

Dealing with the case of Raj Nandan Rai, the top court noted that his record on many counts was not at all good and his reputation and integrity have been doubted more than once in the years 1996-­1997, 1997-­1998 and 2004-­2005. It said that in the year 2015­-2016, Rai's knowledge of law and procedure was found to be average and his relation with the members of the Bar was found to be not very good. Allegation against him was of having granted bail for illegal gratification and substance in the report of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (who is equivalent to the Principal District Judge).

"The officer (Rai) had granted bail by noting in the order that Section 327 of the IPC was bailable whereas the offence is non-bailable and an unrecorded warning regarding the integrity of the judicial officer was issued to him in 2012," it said. PTI MNL SA