Orissa HC upholds compulsory retirement of a judicial officer on grounds of inefficiency, not meeting required standards
The Orissa High Court upheld compulsory retirement of a judicial officer on grounds of inefficiency and not meeting required standards.
The Petitioner initially joined as Probationary Munsif, OJS-II. He then worked in different capacities as Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class at different places in Odisha. In 1999 the Petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-JMFC, Sorada in the judgeship of Ganjam–Gajapati and was relieved in 2002. He joined as JMFC, Daringibadi in 2002 in the judgeship of Kandhamal-Phulbani and was relieved from Daringibadi in 2005.
He served as Munsif at Sambalpur, Additional Civil Judge-cum-JMFC at Bhubaneswar, Sorada, Daringibadi, Cuttack and lastly at Motu. He also served as Inspector of Process-cum-JMFC at Dhenkanal and Sambalpur.
While serving at Sorada, an inquiry was conducted by the then District Judge, Ganjam in respect of the allegations regarding passing of discriminatory orders. The High Court directed that he should be let off with a warning to be careful in future and guard against such type of mistake. This was duly communicated to him.
Advocate Mohanty, appearing for the Petitioner, contended that in absence of any adverse remark in the confidential report of the Petitioner touching on his integrity or about his inability to achieve the prescribed yardstick, the recommendation of the Full Court for his compulsory retirement is arbitrary.
Advocate Muduli, appearing for the Opposite Parties, contended that the Full Court after taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the CCRs and the report of the review committee has recommended the Petitioner’s premature retirement in public interest after forming an opinion that the Petitioner does not possess the standard efficiency required to discharge the duty of the post held by him.
The division bench of the Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray noted that the authority was of the opinion that the Petitioner does not possess the standard efficiency required to discharge the duty of the post held by him.
The court said that on an overall assessment of the personal record of the Petitioner, the emerging picture is not favourable to him. During his service career spanning fourteen years and eight months, he was not able to get a ‘good’ grading for at least three consecutive years. He was earlier also let off with a warning to be careful in future.
While dismissing the writ petitions the court considered the scope of judicial interference in such matters involving compulsory retirement and did not find any reason to interfere.
Case title: Ashok Kumar Agarwala v/s Registrar General of Orissa High Court, Cuttack and Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.19322 OF 2014
