Case: R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court Of M.P.

2. On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on the post of District and Sessions Judge, Punna was compulsorily retired from the service in the public interest by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (for short, ‘theon the request of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (for short, ‘HighThe order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under amended Rule 56(2)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘1994Rule 42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘1976and Rule 1-A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 (for short, ‘1964In lieu of notice of three months, it was directed in the order that the appellant shall be entitled to threesalary and allowances which he was receiving prior to his retirement.3. The appellant challenged the above order of compulsory retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 20.04.2006, allowed the writ petition; quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 13.09.2004 and directed that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.4. The High Court on the administrative side challenged the order of Single Judge in writ appeal. The Division Bench of that Court on consideration of the entire matter held that the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was ill-founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single Judge vide its judgment dated 23.11.2006. It is from this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.5. The appellant was selected in the higher judicial service of Madhya Pradesh by direct recruitment. He joined the judicial service as an Additional District Judge on 17.10.1979. On 26.06.1985, he was confirmed as a District Judge. The appellant was awarded lower selection grade on 07.09.1990 with effect from 24.03.1989. He was awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. As noted above, by the order dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was compulsorily retired in public interest.

Court's reasoning:
40. The conduct of the appellant in involving an M.P. and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in a matter of the High Court concerning an administrative review petition filed by him for expunging adverse remarks in ACRs of 1993 and 1994 is most reprehensible and highly unbecoming of a judicial officer. His conduct has tarnished the image of the judiciary and he disentitled himself from continuation in judicial service on that count alone. A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any external pressure and he is also supposed not to exert any influence on others in any administrative or judicial matter. Secondly and still worst, the appellant had an audacity to set up a plea in the rejoinder that he never made any representation to Shri R.K. Malaviya, M.P. for any purpose whatsoever. But for theapproaching Shri R.K. Malaviya and his request for help, Shri R.K. Malaviya would have never written the letter quoted above to the then Minister of State for Law, Justice and Company Affairs. On this ground also his writ petition was liable to be dismissed.41. The learned Single Judge examined the administrative decision of the Full Court to recommend to the Government to compulsory retire the appellant as if he was sitting as an appellate authority to consider the correctness of such recommendation by going into sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which led the Full Court in reaching its satisfaction. The whole approach of the Single Judge in consideration of the matter was flawed and not legally proper. The learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the materials by observing,entire record pertaining to complaints against the petitioner has also been produced before me during the course of argument by learned senior counsel for respondent no. 1. Thus, I am dealing each and every complaint one byWe are afraid, the learned Single Judge did not keep the scope of judicial review in view while examining the validity of the order of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court in the intra-court appeal was, thus, fully justified in setting aside the impugned order.In view of the above, we are satisfied that the recommendation made by the High Court to the Government for compulsory retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Government do not suffer from any legal flaw. The order of compulsory retirement is neither arbitrary nor irrational justifying any interference in judicial review.