High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13664/2000dismissed

Mehar Singh Rattu v. Regisrar Pb. And Hy. High Court

2025-06-20The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel10 pages

"# $!%&'&"()

* * +

)

, - * . .- / .

, - * . . -

! "#$ " %

"#$ &' "#$ (! "#$ )* + #& "!"% ), ----- . -

/ * #. $

" $!++/++0

1 .

$ $'' +*34+333 5 !! )+ +634+333 )+ 7 $! .' $ 2 ! *3*3+33389,39": ),8 :

! '#$ + 9 ! ! $

!' ; lis '

$!#$ *443 # " ! $ 7 '

! $

$ $ "' # 7 $ $ # 5 8 :

## ! < $!$$ !

$ $ 2 ! $ #!'. $''

#' ' $ $! "' #7 $ $ # #$''

$ +=30*440 8:

2 #9$

2 5 !! )+ # $ # $ '. # $''

$ 363>*440

! $ ! $ ' # $'' 5 !! )+ ' ! *=36*440 $ 9 #

$ $'

! !! )+ ' ! *+34*440 8#:

$''

$ *034*440 ' $ #

*44/940 !

#9 ; $ ! $ ;

$ #'. # ' $! #$''

$ *,3+*44> 5 ' ;

#'.!$' $ 8#:

1 $ *44094> # '. $ < $! $ #

$ '

' '. 2 ! $! ?"#@ <" 8"

! ! : *44094>$' $?"# @ 8#:

A $ # 3**3*444 )+ !

$'' $$ 9 '

' !

5 !!

)+ $$!

# ' $

#$''

$ 3/3=+333 8#:

#$ 66 !$ 5 !! )+ # +*34+333 '

$ $'' $''

$ +634+333 )+ $! .

$ '$' $

# *3*3+333 ), $'

! ' $

!$. $'

$ , A $ ! C! !

"#$ C $ '

$ $'

!! !! ! ! $ ; !! ' '

$! $ A $ !

' " $qua '

' 'A $ !

#$$ ! # $ D ' = A $ !

)* + ! '. ' '

! '

<#$

$ !' $ #$ 66A $ ! $ #!

! $ $

$ $ $! $ ! ! )* + '$ ! ! $$

$ '!A $ !

! ! $ !$ '! )* +A $ !

$ ;

$ 2 !

$ '

=* A $ ! ! ),

),$

$'' 8:'5 !!

)+ 6 (#! $ ! #! #

$ / ' $ $'

! '

# 2

+ 0 E $ !# !

7 E $ ' <!

"32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary ) in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order.

(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter ) of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere."

C!! $ 8

' $ ! " #

$ % !

& !

"16.

The law on the subject of compulsory retirement, especially in the case of judicial officers may be summarised 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 specially 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." ratio decidendi #$9! !$

$ $ '

! $ $ $!

! ' '! $ $ ' !

8: $

! 2 $ $ 2 $'

! ' '

'! !. $ $ $'

! ;$ # ' !#!! $

$!# '

! '

'! ! $ '! ' ! # >

# $

!' ; $ !

' $ "

! ! '. ' $ $ "' #7 . $ $

' (

! )! * * 1990)1991 B) Satisfactory 1991)1992 B)Plus (Good) 1992)1993 Plus (good) Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?

(Category in which the judgments are to be placed, viz. A)Plus Outstanding, A) Very Good, B Plus (Good), B)Average/Satisfactory, C) Below Average) There is scope for further improvement (Good) Is he an efficient judicial officer?

Yes. There is scope for further improvement.

1993)1994 Plus (Good) 1994)1995 Plus (Good) 1995)1996 Plus (Good) Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?

(Category in which the judgments are to be placed, viz. A)Plus Outstanding, A) Very Good, B Plus (Good), B)Average/Satisfactory, C) Below Average) Average.

Needs improvement (By way of advice) 1996)97 C)Integrity Doubtful Knowledge of law and procedure Poor Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and has he coped effectually with heavy work?

Average Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?

(Category in which the judgments are to be placed, viz. A)Plus Outstanding, A) Very Good, B Plus (Good), B)Average/Satisfactory, C) Below Average) Poor Below Average Is his supervision of the distribution of business amongst and his control on the subordinate Courts, good?

Average Is he an efficient judicial officer?

No Has a stinking reputation regarding his honesty (Integrity doubtful) Net result Below Average 1997)1998 Average Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and No.

(Note:

vide Has he maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality?

has he coped effectually with heavy work?

orders dated 24.10.98 of Hon'ble Administrative Judge, the above remarks was treated as advisory.) Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?

(Category in which the judgments are to be placed, viz. A)Plus Outstanding, A) Very Good, B Plus (Good), B)Average/Satisfactory, C) Below Average) I have gone through minutely his judgments delivered on civil and criminal side. They are rated satisfactory B (Satisfactory) Is he an efficient judicial officer?

Satisfactory There was no general complaint about his reputation for honesty and impartiality.

However, his judgments were found satisfactory.

Keeping in view the recommendation s of the Sub Committee and especially the report of 1996) 97, I am recommending that this officer may be kept under surveillance for another period of six months.

1998)1999 B Plus (Good) Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?

Has he maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality?

+B (Good).

Advised to improve further.

(Advisory) Is he an efficient Judicial Officer?

Good (+B) Required to improve further Net result :

Required to improve efficiency and the quality of judgments +B (Good) 1999)2000 B Plus (Good)

" !;' *3*3+333#!

$ $'

! ' 'Public Interest' FPublic Interest' ! !! ;$!

#' $'

$ # $ ! $ $!# $ $! # $'

!!'

;

# $ '

!<$ #$$ $#

!$$ 5 ' !

<" '. !$! $ #$$' !'

#$9$

!$ '

!#'. ' $ #$ '.

! # #$

!# $ "' #7 '$

# $ 9 '#

$! ' $ !

ipso facto !# '! 2 $ 1

#'.#$! '

$ 9 $! ' otiose $ #$ 66 $#'. " '

$ $'

!! ;$ !'!' 5' ' !

$ $'' 8:' 5 !!

$ $ !$ '!D $ '

!! # !$ <#$$ ;$ $ ! Ergo,

!%&'&"( 4 1 # $ $ '

!$ 8:

!!! ) $

. -

+3 +3+6 Ajay/Jatin ( .

G) ( !