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.