SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 250, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 250 
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA 
. v. 
STATE OF JAM MU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 355 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 11, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 - r.24 - Premature 
c retirement - Of judicial officer - On the basis of his Annual 
Confidential Reports, past records and other relevant 
material - Held: The Annual Confidential Report which 
formed the basis of premature retirement cannot be said to 
be a report in the eyes of law not being truthful assessment 
o of the various constituents of the judicial officer's work and 
conduct - However, other considerations, apart from the 
Annual Confidential Reports, were sufficient justifying the 
premature retirement in terms of r.24 when read in 
conjunction with Full Court Resolution of High Court -
E Judicial Service. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The annual confidential report from 
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 cannot be treated as an 
F assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner. 
No assessment whatsoever was made at the hands of 
the Administrative Judge,. insofar as the above annual 
·confidential report is concerned. The above report being 
not a truthful assessment of the various constituents of 
G the judicial officer's work and conduct, it could certainly 
not be taken as an assessment of his work for the period 
from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. Most of the columns of the 
proforma prescribed for recording the
an·nual 
H confidential report, could have been filled up, even in 
250
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 
251 
KASHMIR 
absence of the "self-assessment report". The annual .A 
confidential report being bereft of any assessment of 
the work and conduct of the petitioner for the period from 
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as 
no report, for all intents and purposes. In view of the 
above conclusion, treating the work and c.onduct of the B 
petitioner as "Average" for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 
on the basis of the report for the year 2009 is therefore, 
also not sustainable in law. As such, none of the reports 
of the petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) could have 
been taken into consideration for the purpose of passing C 
the order of premature retirement. [Paras 8, 12] [261 ·C· 
D, F-G; 262-D-F; 264-G] 
2. The Administrative Committee of the High Court 
had examined the past record, annual confidential D 
reports, work done statements, and other relevant record/ 
material pertaining to the petitioner, and had opined that 
he had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. Thus, 
in addition to the annual confidential reports, it was 
concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and that, E 
it was not in public interest to continue him in service. It 
was also recorded, that credible complaints with regard 
to his judicial work were being received periodically. On 
the basis of the above consideration, it was felt that the 
officer had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. F 
In view of the
consideration of the Full Court, in respect 
of material other than the annual confidential report for 
the year 2009 (and of the years 2010 to 2012), it is held 
that there was sufficient material justifying the premature G 
retirement of the petitioner in terms .of Rule 24, specially 
when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court 
resolution dated 3.6.2013. Even though the annual 
confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2009 is 
set aside, the non-submission of the '.'self-assessment H
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A report" by the petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and 
temperament. Therefore, the determination recorded in 
the minutes of the Full Court on 3.6.2013 (even if the 
consideration based on the annual confidential report 
for the year 2009 is excluded) were sufficient to justify 
B the order of premature retirement of the petitioner. [Paras 
12-16] [264-C-D; 265-8-C, F-G; 266-E-F; 267-G-H; 268-
A] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition .(Civil) 
c No(s).355of2014. 
· 
D 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
L. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Pallav Mongia 
for the Petitioner. 
Bharat Sangal, Ms. Srijana, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Mithu 
Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The petitioner was 
selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service 
Commission for appointment to the Kashmir Civil Service 
(Judicial) on 5.1.1987 .. He joined as Munsif (-cum-Judicial 
Magistrate, First Class) at Basohli in District Kathua. He was 
F thereafter promoted as a Subordinate Judge (-cum- Chief 
Judicial Magistrate) on 18.11.1996. And thereafter, as an 
adhoc District & Sessions Judge on 8.8.2002. While in the 
cadre of District & Sessions Judge, he was placed in the 
selection grade on 15.06.2011. 
G 
H 
2. For the controversy in hand, some of the Annual 
Confidential Reports recorded in respect of work and conduct 
of the petitioner are important. A brief
summary thereof is 
recorded hereunder:
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 
253 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
SI.No. 
Annual Confidential Reports 
01. 
02. 
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07. 
for the period 
1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 
1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 
1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 
1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005 
1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 
1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 
2. 1.2009 to 31.12.2009 
Remarks 
Good 
Average 
Average 
Good 
Very Good 
Very Good 
Average 
A 
B 
c 
3: So far as the present controversy is concerned, it 
pertains to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 
Compulsory retirement is regulated under the provisions of D 
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 (issued vide SRO 339, 
dated 27.10.2009, Law Department). Rule 24 of the aforesaid 
rules pertains to the subject of premature retirement. The same 
is being extracted hereunder: 
"24. Premature retirement 
The High Court shall assess and evaluate the record of 
the memberS'Of the service for his/her continued utility 
before he/she attains the age of 50 years, 55 years and 
E 
58 years by following the procedure for compulsory F 
retirement under the service roles applicable to him/her 
and if he/she is not found fit and eligible he/she will 
compulsorily retire on his/her attaining the age of 50 
years, 55 years and 58 years, as the case may be." 
G 
4. A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that it is open 
• 
to the High Court to evaluate the record of a judicial officer, 
before he attain~ the ages of 50, 55 and 58 years, for ordering 
his premature
retirement. In evaluating the record of the 
concerned judicial officer, the High Court is to follow the H
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules 
applicable to him. In the event of a judicial officer being found 
unfit to continue in service, it is open to the High Court to 
prematurely retire him, on attaining the ages of 50,55 and 58 
B 
years. 
5. In conjunction with the rule of premature retirement, it 
is also essential for us to refer to the criteria/norms for continuity 
in service after the ages of 50,55 and 58 years. The criteria/ 
norms were adopted by a resolution of the Full Court of the 
c High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 3.6.2013. Some parts 
of the resolution are relevant for the present controversy, and 
are being extracted hereunder: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"While considering the cases of the Judicial Officers 
for their continued utility in service at 50, 55 and 58 years 
of age in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 
Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India 
AIR 1993 SC 2493 and (2011) 10 SCC. I, the following 
criteria/norms shall be taken into account by the High 
Court in its administrative capacity. 
A. Assessment Standards: 
FollowinQ are the factors to be taken j{Jto consideration 
individually/collectively to assess the officer. 
1. Over all past service record of the Officer shall be 
examined and considered with emphasis on the last 5 
years' record to assess his potential for continued utility 
in the service beyond 50,55 and 58 years. 
2. The quality of the
judgments delivered by the officer, 
whether or not assailed before the High Court, in suits, 
appeals, Session cases, Revisions and other 
proceedings during the past ten years of his service 
tenure. The quality of judgments will be determined by 
its content, the legal acumen it reveals, the nature of
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 
255 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
approach adopted, the language employed and the A 
results achieved etc. etc. 
3. Rate of disposal of the case by the officer in the light 
of the separate criteria prescribed by the High Court 
for this purpose. 
4. Material reflecting the character of the officer, 
including the complaints, enquiries and vigilance reports 
lodged against him. The fact that the officer was 
superseded in the last promotion shall also be taken 
into consideration. 
· 
B. Annual Confidential Reports (AC.Rs.) 
1.General 
B 
c 
a) The AC Rs for the last five years should be taken into 
account. 
D 
b) If the other record of the officer is at Variance with 
AC Rs. 
Provided, however-, that if the ACR of the officer for a 
particular year has not been recorded or approved by E 
the High Court, as can be the situation in case of a 
deputationist, the other record of the officer for that year 
would be considered for rating him. 
2. Special Considerations: 
· F 
A Judicial Officer shall be permitted to continue beyond/ 
50, 55 and 58 years of age if he fulfills the following' 
conditions: 
/ 
i) The Officer has on the basis of the· prescribed criteria G 
earned seventy five per cent or more ('/'>:Grading) of 
his total ACR entries in 'Very Good' or 'Good' gradings. 
ii) If the officer has not earned any adverse or average 
entry in his AC Rs after his last promotion. 
H
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A 
C. Other relevant factors: 
Besides above standard and recording of ACR, 
following factors shall also be taken into account while 
evaluating all round potential of the officer: 
B 
i). His integrity, honesty and judicial conduct shall be 
kept in view and utmost importance be attached; 
c 
D 
E 
ii). His relations with the Bar and his administrative 
capacity should also be considered; 
iii). His dealing with the finance shall also be taken into 
account while evaluating the all round potential of the 
officer; 
iv). The AC Rs shall not constitute the sole guiding factor 
but shall be given due weightage along with other equally 
relevant factors; 
v). The institutional integrity being in larger public interest 
is the uppermost and shall be preferred to individual 
interest. 
These are guidelines for internal use of the High Court. 
However, it would not limit the power of the High Court 
vested by Article 235 of the Constitution of India read 
with Article 104 of the J&K Constitution." 
F It is therefore apparent, that Rule 24 has to be read in 
conjunction with the Resolution dated 3.6.2013, in order to 
determine, whether or not a judicial officer should be 
prematurely retired. 
G 
6. Before we venture to deal with the evaluation of the 
record of the petitioner in terms of the Instructions/Resolution 
dated 3.6.2013, it is imperative for us to notice, that the afore-
stated Resolution constituted the basis for
determining the 
retain-ability of the petitioner in service. In the Resolution dated 
H 3.6.2013, emphasis was placed on the immediately preceding
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 
257 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
. five years record, to assess the potentiality and utility of the A 
employee under consideration. Likewise, the Instruction dated 
3.6.2013, postulated in addition to the consideration of the 
quality of his judgments, his institutional integrity in larger public 
interest, his judicial conduct, his administrative capacity, the 
rate of his disposal of cases, the character of the officer, the B 
complaints, the enquiries and the vigilance reports lodged 
against him, his.dealing with financial matters, and the like. 
Since the issue of premature retirement of the petitioner came 
up for consideration in the year 2013, mainly the annual 
confidential reports for the years 2008 to 2012 were to be taken C 
into consideration. In the summary, extracted hereinabove, it 
is apparent, that for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008, 
the petitioner was assessed as "Very Good", whereas for the 
period 2.1.2009 to 31 .12.2009, he was assessed as D 
"Average". In terms of the Resolution dated 3.6.2013 since 
no annual confidential report was recorded after the year 2009, 
assessment made for the previous year, i.e., for the year 2009 
was taken into consideration as the assessment for the years 
2010, 2011 and 2012. It is therefore, that the High Court arrived E 
at the conclusion, that the work and conduct of the petitioner 
was merely "Average", as his annual confidential report from 
the year 2009
to the year 2012 reflected him and having been 
graded as "Average". 
7. The first question that arises for our consideration, is F 
about the veracity of the Annual Confidential Report for the 
period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. In fact, this was the.main 
and emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the 
petitioner. In the above report, the learned Administrative Judge G 
on 29.05.2013 recorded as under: 
"Note: It is being brought on record that when this Judicial 
Officer did not choose to send his self Assessment · 
Report for year 2009 ending 31•1 December, 2009, 
Registry was informed by the Secretary vide letter dated H
258 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14 S.C.R. 
06.10.2012 addressed to RIG asking him to send his 
S.A.R. at the earliest and in turn he was duly informed 
by Registry vide Commn. No.6474-80/GS dated 
11.10.2012 which was received by him on 16.X.2012. 
Despite that this Judical Officer has not cared to 
respond/comply with the direction. Even vide Commn. 
No.2507/GS dated 24.5.2013, this Judicial Officer once 
again has been asked by RIG to send his S.A.R. forthe 
year 2009, but till date no response has been sent by 
him, Keeping all these aspects into consideration, I am 
awarding hisA.C.R. as AVERAGE only. 
Sci/-
Administrative Judge 
29.5.013" 
D 
It would be pertinent to mention, that a Annual Confidential 
Report evaluates a judicial officer on a variety of aspects. To 
highlij;lht the subjects on which an officer is assessed, it is 
considered just and appropriate to extract hereunder relevant 
parts of the annual confidential report of the petitioner, for the 
E 
period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. This would also permit 
a closer examination of the above report: 
1. 
Knowledge of LalN & Procedure 
Since Self Assessment 
Report has not been 
F 
sent by the Judicial 
Officer, I cannot 
oomment upon it 
2. 
Impression during inspection 
.. 
(how he conducts the Coor!, his 
behaviour with advocates and 
G 
litigants, his clarity in 
understanding and appreciating 
the arguments adjudged from his 
interaction with advocates during 
arguments. Whether he is able
to 
dictate in Court, at least in 
H 
miscellaneous applications).

SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 
259 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
A 
3. 
Areas in which he was 
counselled during inspection 
4. 
1$ he industrious and prompt in 
the disposal of cases and has 
Average 
be coped effectively with heavy 
.B 
work? 
5. 
Is he/she an efficient Judicial 
-do-
Officer 
6. 
What is his/her reputation for 
honesty, integrity and 
Average 
c 
impartiality. Whether Very 
Good, Average, Doubtful, bad 
or positively lacking. 
7. 
Remarks about his/.her attitude 
towards his superiors, 
subordinates and colleagues. 
D 
8. 
Behaviour towards members of 
the Bar and the Public. 
'9. 
Remarks about Administrative 
capability. 
E 
10. 
How is his/her reputation for 
private life/character and does 
it tend to lower him/her in the 
estimation of public members 
o( Bar and adversely affect the 
discharge of his/her judicial 
F 
functions? 
11. 
What degree of control does 
he/she exercise over the files in 
the matter of : 
G 
a) Proper fixation of cause list 
b)Avoidance of unnecessary 
adjournments 
c) Disposal of old cases 
H
260 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
12. 
Is he/she punctual in coming to 
the office and sitting in the 
court? 
13. 
Did 
any 
incident/incidents, 
involving 
him/her 
occurred 
during the year which warrants 
or . led 
to, 
recording 
of 
commendatory/critical remarks 
about his I her conduct I 
behaviour in relation to such 
incident/incidents? 
14. 
Is 
his 
supervision 
and 
distribution of business among, 
and 
his 
,..11ntrol 
over 
the 
Subordinate Courts Good? 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
15. 
Are· his judgments and orders No comments as 
well 
written 
and 
clearly SAR not sent 
expressed? 
16. 
Grading of Judgments 
A-Outstanding 
B-Very Good 
C-Good 
D-Average 
E-Below Average 
17. 
Other remarks. if any 
18. 
Overall assessment as per the 
grading given below: 
A-Outstanding 
B-Very Good 
C-Good 
· D-Satisfactory 
E-Average 
F-Poor 
19. 
Convey the following remarks 
to 
the 
Officer, 
for 
his 
reply/explanation 
Average 
Average
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 261 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
Most of the columns in the annual confidential report were left A 
blank. It is obvious, that the petitioner was not assessed for 
the columns left blank. In some columns, the Administrative 
Judge expressly mentioned, that it was not possible to record 
. the remarks on account of the petitioner not having submitted 
his "self-assessment report". In five of the columns, the B 
Administrative Judge recorded the assessment as "Average". 
8. The question that arises for our consideration is, 
whether the petitioner can be deemed to have been graded 
for the period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 as "Average". It is c 
not possible for us to accept the determination of the High 
Court, that the aforesaid annual confidential report should be 
. treated as an assessment of the work and conduct of the 
petitioner. We are satisfied in concluding, that no assessment 
whatsoever was made at the hands of the Administrative D 
Judge, insofar as the above annual confidential report is 
concerned. The same was recorded, on the apparent grouse, 
that the petitioner had not submitted his "self-assessment 
report". Even though, it was possible for the Administrative 
Judge to have filled up a number of columns based on the E 
assessment of the judgments, and the record available to him 
otherwise, yet merely on account of the fact that the petitioner 
had not submitted his "self-assessment report", the
Administrative Judge recorded the "Average" report. The 
above report being not a truthful assessment of the various F 
constituents of the judicial officer's work and conduct, it could 
certainly not be taken as an assessment of his work for the 
period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. It may be mentioned 
illustratively; that on the basis of the record accessible and 
available to the High Court, it was not at all difficult to evaluate G 
the petitioner (or for that matter any judicial officer) in respect 
of his knowledge of law and procedure, about impressions 
during inspection (how he conducts the Court, how he behaves 
with advocates and litigants, his clarity and understanding of H
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 14S.C.R. 
A the submissions made at the bar, and whether he is able to 
dictate from the dias- at least miscellaneous orders), whether 
he is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases, whether he 
is an efficient judicial officer. Without any inputs which a judicial 
officer would provide in a "self-assessment report", the 
B Administrative Judge can also record his views on the judicial 
officer's reputation for honesty, integrity and impartiality, and 
his assessment about the officers attitude towards his 
superiors, subordinates and colleague, as well as, behaviour 
toward members of the Bar and public, and also, areas on 
C which the judicial officer had been counselled. The "self-
assessment report" would also not be necessary, while 
expressing the judicial officers reputation in his private life or 
his character in his private life, or for that matter, the estimation 
D of the judicial officer in the perception of members of the Bar 
and the public. It is therefore apparent, that most of the 
columns of the proforma prescribed for recording the annual 
confidential report, could have been filled up, without any 
difficulty, in absence of the "self-assessment report". The 
E annual confidential report being bereft of any assessment of 
the work and conduct of the petitioner for the period from 
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as no 
report, for all intents and purposes. In view of the above 
conclusion, it
is also imperative for Lis to further hold, that 
F treating the work and conduct of the petitioner as "Average" 
for the years 201 o, 2011 and 2012 on the basis of the report 
for the year 2009 is therefore, also not sustainable in law. 
9. The further question, that still remains for our 
determination is, whether in the absence of the annual 
G confidential report for the year 2009, the order of premature 
retirement of the petitioner, would remain sustainable in law. It 
was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, 
that since the order of premature retirement of the petitioner, 
H was based on the petitioner's work and conduct, for which
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 
263 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
reliance was mainly placed on the "Average" report for the year A 
2009, the impugned order was liable to be set aside, after the 
said report is held to be unsustainable in law. 
10. Insofar as the issue of premature retirement of the 
petitioner is concerned, it is essential to notice, that the same B 
was considered in the background of compl(3.ints made against 
him, by members of the Bar, more particularly, Advocates 
practicing in the District Consumer Forum, Srinagar, followed 
by another complaint, by the elected office bearers of the Bar 
Association, Srinagar, who had met the Chief Justice, specially c 
in connection with their grievances and allegations against the 
petitioner. There was also a complaint at the hands of one 
Shyam Lal. In furtherance of the complaint made by the 
aforesaid Shyam Lal, the Chief Justice of the Jammu and 
Kashmir High Court had directed the Registrar(Vigilance) of D 
the Jam mu and Kashmir High Court, to conduct a preliminary 
enquiry. There were also other complaints which were shown 
to us, from the original record. One of the complaints was at 
the hands of Nissar Ahamd Khan, who had alleged, that the 
petitioner had required him to have his personal laptop of HP E .. 
brand repaired. The complainant accordingly had got it 
repaired from "New A.S. Combines (Regd.)", an authorised 
HP service station, for which he had paid Rs.6,500/-, which 
the
petitioner refused to reimburse. There were also complaints 
in respect of disproportionate assets held by the petitioner. F 
We are not verifying the veracity of these complaints. We are 
merely noticing, that complaints were available in the record 
· of the High Court, which could have been, and indeed must 
have been, taken into consideration, while taking the decision 
to prematurely retire the petitioner. 
· 
G 
11. In conjunction with the factual position noticed 
hereinabove, it is necessary to record, that the Registrar 
General of the High Court had telephonically required the 
petitioner on 10.09.2012 to meet the Chief Justice of the H
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 
A Jammu and Kashmir High Court, at his residence, on 
11.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m. The record also reveals, that the 
petitioner had met with the Chief Justice on the appointed day 
and time, and was counselled by the Chief Justice, with 
reference to the complaints received by the High Court, against 
B the petitioner. 
12. The decision to prematurely retire the petitioner, came 
up for consideration before the Full Court on 3.6.2013. The 
minutes of the Full Court meeting have been placed on the 
c record of this case, along with the supplementary affidavit filed 
by the petitioner. A perusal thereof reveals, that the 
Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting held 
on 21/29.05.2013 had examined the past record, annual 
confidential reports, work done statements, and other relevant 
o record/material pertaining to the petitioner, and had opined 
that he had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. The 
Administrative Committee accordingly recommended to the 
Full Court, that the petitioner was not fit to continue as District 
and Sessions Judge, after the age of 55 years. Based on the 
E aforesaid recommendation of the Administrative Committee, 
the Full Court discussed the matter on 3.6.2013, and arrived 
at its conclusion based on the service record of the officer. 
Based on his "Average" report for the year 2009, and in 
conjunction with the Full Court Resolution dated 3.6.2013, his 
F 
annual confidential
reports for the years 2009 to 2012 were 
also treated as "Average". As such, he was not considered 
suitable, to be continued in service. Since we have already 
declared the annual confidential report for the year 2009, as 
no report in the eyes of law, and as such, nonest; none of the 
G said reports of the petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) 
could have been taken into consideration for the purpose of 
passing the order of premature retirement. 
13. In addition to the above, the Full Court in its meeting 
H dated 3.6.2013 recorded as under:
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 
265 
KASHMIR [JAGOISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
'The Full Court has echoed the feeling that the officer is A 
incorrigible and it is not in the public interest to continue 
him in service as credible complaints with regard to his 
judicial conduct keep pouring in. The officer has lost 
utility and has become deadwood." 
B 
It is apparent, that in addition to the annual .confidential reports, 
it was concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and that, 
it was not in public interest to continue him in service. It was 
also recorded,. that credible complaints with regard to his 
judicial work were being received periodically. On the basis c 
of the above consideration, it was felt that the officer had lost 
his utility, and had become deadwood. Based on the aforesaid 
determination, the Full Court accepted the recommendation 
of the Administrative Committee on 11.6.2013. The Full Court's 
decision to prematurely retire the petitioner, was forwarded to D 
the Government for approval. On 7 .10.2013, the Cabinet 
approved the recommendations made by the High Court. On 
11.1.2014, the Governor of the State of Jam mu and Kashmir, 
accorded his approval, to the premature retirement of the 
petitioner. It is therefore, that the petitioner was issued an order E 
dated 24.1.2014, intimating him of his premature retirement 
on attaining the age of 55 years. 
14. Having given our thoughtful consideration, to the 
consideration of the Full Court,
in respect of material other F 
than the annual confidential report for the year 2009 (and of 
the years 2010 to 2012), we are of the view, that there was 
sufficient material justifying the premature retirement of the. 
petitioner in terms of Rule 24, extracted hereinabove, specially 
when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court G 
resolution dated 3.6.2013. It may be noted that there cannot 
be concrete evidence in respect of allegations pertaining to 
integrity. If the competent authority arrives at a justifiable 
conclusion, on the basis of the record .available in connection 
H
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A therewith, that itself would be sufficient to order the premature 
retirement of the concerned individual. 
15. Herein it is apparent, that based on the complaints 
received against the petitioner, the Chief Justice of the High 
B Court of Jam mu and Kashmair, afforded him an audience on 
11.09.2012. The Chief Justice counselled the petitioner, with 
reference to the complaints received against him. Few of the 
complaints received against the petitioner, have been referred 
to above. The complaints expressed aspersions on the 
c petitioner's financial dealings, and also, in respect of the 
petitioner's conduct during court proceedings. The petitioner's 
conduct was adversely commended upon by the members of 
the Bar of the District Consumer Forum, Srinagar, and by the 
Bar Association, Srinagar. A clear reflection that his behaviour 
D with advocates and members of the Bar Association was 
improfessional and/or indiscreet. There were vigilance 
enquiries pending against the petitioner. Besides all this, it is 
necessary to notice, that even though we have set aside the 
annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2009, 
E since it was based on the non-submission of the "self-
assessment report" by the petitioner, it is necessary to record, 
that the non-submission of the "self-assessment report" by the 
petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and temperament. A 
perusal of the note of the Administrative Judge dated
F 29.5.2013 (extracted above) reveals, that the officer was 
adamant about not submitting the "self-assessment report". 
The stand of the petitioner before us was, that the "self-
assessment report", was to be furnished to the District Judge, 
G who would then forward it to the Administrative Judge. This 
position adopted by the petitioner cannot be accepted, in view 
of the clear instructions circulated by the High Court of Jammu 
and Kashmir, to all Additional District Judge Courts, on 
4.9.1995. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the above circular are 
H relevant and are being extracted below:
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAM MU AND 
267 
KASHMIR [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
"3. Jhe self assessment form should be completed by A 
the Officer reported upon and submitted by him to his 
District Judge, along with the 12 months' statements of 
the work done for the whole year, before 28'h February 
in the year following the pedod of reporting. 
B 
4. In case the Officer reported upon happens to be Addi. 
District Judge/District Judge the self assessment form, 
duly completed in all respects, along with the 12 monthly 
statements of the work done for the whole year, shall be 
.submitted by the officer reported upon to the Private c 
Secretary of the Administrative Judge concerned/ 
Registrar, High Court before 28'h February of the year 
following the period of reporting." 
Paragraph 4 shows, that the position adopted by the petitioner . D 
is patently incorrect. That apart, the petitioner was repeatedly 
addressed letters by the Administrative Judge (dated, 
11.10.2012 and 24.5.2013) as is apparent from the note dated 
29.5.2013, but the petitioner remained stead fast in his resolve 
not to furnish the "self-assessment report" to the Administrative E 
Judge. This also reveals his behaviour, which has relevance 
to the annual confidential report - specially the aspects 
referable to all serial nos. 7,9 and 13, i.e., his attitue towards 
his superiors. All this was also duly concerned, when the 
petitioner was recommended by the Administrative Committee F 
for premature
retirement on 21/23.5.2013. The matter was 
thereafter considered by the Full Court of the High Court. On 
· each of the aforesaid considerations, the issue of incorrigibility 
of the petitioner was sought to be reiterated. 
16. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that 
the determination recorded in the minutes of the Full Court on 
3.6.2013 (even if we were to exclude the consideration based 
G 
on the annual confidential report for the year 2009), were 
sufficient to justify the order of premature cetirement of the H

268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A petitioner. We therefore hereby uphold the order of premature 
retirement of the petitioner dated 3.6.2013/24.1.2014. 
17. During the course of hearing, we were informed by 
the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the retiral benefits 
8 of the petitioner, ~ad not yet been released to him. If the 
petitioner has submitted all papers connected to his pension, 
we direct the High Court to process and pay the petitioner all 
his retiral benefits within four months. In case, the petitioner 
has not submitted his pension papers, he may do so within 
c two weeks from today, in which eventuality, he shall be released 
all his retiral benefits, within four months from the date of 
submission of all his pension papers. 
18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Writ Petition disposed of.