ARUN KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 27-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1015
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Compulsory Retirement – Of Judicial Officers – Challenged
in Writ Petition before Supreme Court – As per direction of Supreme
Court, Screening Committee of High Court approved earlier action
to compulsorily retire the officers – Resolution of Screening
Committee approved by Standing Committee of High Court – Held:
In respect of one officer against whom there had been complaints
that during training of Civil Service probationers, in his lectures he
had used highly sexist language and that he had hurt a washerman
with hot iron – The two instances are sufficient to decide the case
against him – In respect of second officer, his reputation and integrity
have been doubted on more than one occasion, his knowledge of
law and procedure had been found to be average, relations with
bar members were not very good – Adverse entries with regard to
integrity do not lose their sting at any stage – Judicial officer’s
integrity should be of higher order, even a single aberration is not
permitted – Senior Judges of the High Court who were members of
the Screening and Standing Committees have taken considered and
well-reasoned decisions on two occasions – Supreme Court cannot
exercise its power of judicial review unless there is allegation of
mala fides or there are facts so glaring that the decision of compulsory
retirement is unsupportable.
Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer – Effect and criteria
for its consideration – Discussed.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD : 1. The  law  on  the  subject  of  compulsory
retirement,  especially in the case of judicial officers may be
summarised as: (i) An order directing compulsory retirement of
a judicial officer is not punitive in nature; (ii) An order directing
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1015
1015
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
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. [Para 16][1031-B-E]
Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha (1970) 2 SCC 458 :
[1971] 1 SCR 791 ; State of Gujarat v. Suryakant
Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 : [1998] 3 Suppl.
SCR 293 ; Baikunta Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical
Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836;
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC
545 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674 ; Syed T.A. Naqshbandi
v. State of J&K (2003) 9 SCC 592 : [2003] 1 Suppl.
SCR 114, Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand (2010)
10 SCC 693 : [2010] 11 SCR 216 ; Rajendra Singh
Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 1
: [2011] 12 SCR 496 ; R.C. Chandel v. High Court of
M.P. (2012) 8 SCC 58 : [2012] 7 SCR 205; Rajasthan
SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir (2013) 10 SCC 551 : [2013]
11 SCR 159; High Court of Judicature of Patna v.
Shyam Deo Singh (2014) 4 SCC 773 : [2014] 4 SCR
541 ; D. Ramaswami v. State of T.N. (1982) 1 SCC 510
: [1982] 3 SCR 75 – relied on.
2.1 So far as the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 190 of
2018 is concerned, there are two very serious allegations against
him. The first is that when he was working as Deputy Director,
Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, as many as 10 ladies,
who were Civil Service Probationers, made allegations that he
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
was using unwarranted and objectionable language during his
lectures, citing indecent examples and using words having double
meaning, thereby causing embarrassment to the lady officers.
The complaints show that the language used by the petitioner
during his lectures, was highly sexist. [Para 18][1031-H; 1032-
A-B]
2.2. There is also another allegation that he had physi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.