Judicial officer lacking integrity and having dubious character is a danger to judiciary: Rama Chandra Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

GENERAL OVERVIEW

• The Orissa High Court last week held the order of compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer.
• The case was heard by Chief Justice Dr. S Muralidhar and Justice B.P Routray about a judicial officer named Rama Chandra Mohanty who requested the squashing of an order regarding compulsory retirement and for all consequential service benefits.

FURTHER DETAILS

• The judicial officer while serving at Koraput as a Civil Judge( Sr. Division) was told to retire in public interest from 22nd March 2010 vide notification dated 9th March 2010 of Government of Orissa in Law Department.
• Two departmental proceedings were taken against the petitioner. In the year 2003, five charges were framed relating to unauthorized retention of Government quarters, purposely delaying the payment of bills towards the purchase of law journals for Bolangir Judgeship and gross misconduct and failure in discharging duties under Rules 3 and 4 of the Orissa Government Servant Conduct Rules 1959. Another charge against the petitioner was that he took a loan in the name of one of his class-IV servants without his consent and didn’t repay until a complaint was filed by the said class-IV employee.

COURT DECISON

• The court observed that judicial officers of the subordinate courts in the State are under the administrative control of the HC under article 235 of the Constitution
• The court further stated that. “Needless to say the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dishonest, the corrupt and the deadwood. It is true that if an honest and sincere judicial officer is compulsory retired, it might lower the morale of his colleagues. Equally, 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.”
• The court looked into the personal file of the petitioner and found that the personal record of the petitioner does not support his disagreement as to having an unblemished career as a judicial officer. “What is to be weighed is the performance of the officer on an overall evaluation of his entire service period. Above all his impartiality, reputation,integrity as well as moral character, should be taken into account”, the court said.

What are your views about the compulsory retirement and the observations of the court?

Let us know your views in the comments below!