Shambhu Kumar Verma vs In The High Court of Judicature

Vide notification dated 21.05.2014 issued under the

signature of Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department,

Government of Bihar, the petitioner, Sri Shambhu Kumar Verma,

Munsif, Ara was compulsorily retired in public interest by invoking

power under Rule 74(b)- (ii) of the Bihar Service Code by offering

him three months'' salary in lieu of three months notice. This

notification is Annexure-6 and the petitioner seeks quashing of the

same.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

that before imposing such a serious punishment upon the petitioner,

adequate opportunity and show cause should have been issued to him

as unilateral kind of decision has been taken by the authorities, which

has taken the petitioner totally off-guard. There are serious

consequences for him, therefore, the decision of the respondents

contained in Annexure-6 requires to be quashed.

So far as principle of law is concerned, there are

series of decision on the subject, emanating from the Apex Court that

compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Therefore, such

submission on the above ground assailing the decision impugned, is

required to be rejected.

The other contention that there should have been

an opportunity to the petitioner is also not supported by any kind of

law or precedent because exercise of such power is taken keeping in

mind the track and field record emanating from the service book

maintained for the purpose.

The Court, however, to be doubly sure that there

was an occasion and that materials existed for the High Court

Administration to invoke the power against the petitioner, had

directed filing of counter affidavit, which is very much on record. To

be fair to the High Court Administration, a detailed counter affidavit

has been served and filed on 07.09.2016, no rebuttal has been made to

the facts and the pleadings of the High Court.

The history of service of the petitioner has been

narrated in the counter affidavit from the time he joined as

Probationary Munsif on 25.11.1986 till the order of compulsory

retirement was passed against him. It is noticeable and significant that

the petitioner entered service as Munsif and was compulsorily retired

from the post of a Munsif after 28 years of service. Obviously things

have to be amiss why a person like the petitioner would not earn a

single promotion in his life and for which he never fought any legal

battle in this regard.

Things started building up against the petitioner

when besides comments on the conduct as a judicial officer, a noting

was made on 13.07.2007 that he was of doubtful integrity and not fit

for administration. The ACR thereafter has been recorded as Average,

there was indication that his rate of disposal was very low and again

doubt was raised with regard to his integrity. There is even a noting

that he was shirker, lacked co-ordination with colleagues and

subordinate staff and even the quality of judicial work was adversely

commented upon.

To sum, therefore, by all parameters, the petitioner

had become a dead wood and it was to purge such persons from the

system that the High Court Administration on the administrative side,

after review, decided to compulsorily retire him.

The petitioner was on notice for quite a while. He

as a Judicial Officer should have taken note of the adverse comments,

which was piling up in his service book. He was amply given

opportunity to pull up his socks, but it seems he had given up and

instead of improving his performance, he kept sliding down and down

in his judicial work and even his integrity as Judicial Officer became

doubtful.

There cannot be a better case for invoking and

exercising power for compulsory retirement. Therefore, the Court

comes to the considered opinion that the decision contained in

Annexure-6 need not be interfered with.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner has not got his post retiral dues even though the

decision to do so was passed as far back as on 21.05.2014.

Counsel representing the High Court submits that

all the paper-formalities were completed and there should not be any

impediment in the way of the petitioner for getting his post retiral

dues.

If the post retiral dues and his entitlement have

not been offered so far, steps will have to be taken preferably within a

period of three months to do so because nothing has emerged that

there is any legal impediment coming in the way for consideration of

such grant and release in favour of the petitioner.

The writ application is otherwise dismissed with

the observations and directions above.