NAND KUMAR VERMA versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 504 
NANO KUMAR VERMA 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1458 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 01, 2012 
[H.L.DATTU AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW· 
C 
Successive departmental proceedings on the same set 
of charges - Held: On general principles, there can be only 
one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct 
and that is also what the rules usually provide - When a 
completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent 
forum on a technical ground or on the ground of procedural 
D infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is 
permissible - Jn the instant case, the High Court, having 
accepted the explanations, could not have proceeded to pass 
the order of initiating subsequent departmental proceedings 
- There is no justification for conducting a second enquiry on 
E the very charges, which had been dropped earlier - Even 
though the principles of double jeopardy is not applicable, the 
Jaw permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment 
- Allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service 
- In the circumstances, the impugned order reverting the 
F officer to the lower post cannot be sustained. 
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT: 
Order of compulsory retirement - Judicial review of - Held: 
G When an order of compulsory retirement is challenged, the 
court has the right to examine whether some ground or 
material germane to the issue exists or not - However, the court 
is not to examine the sufficiency of the maten'al upon which 
the order of compulsory retirement rests - Further, formation 
H 
504 
NANO KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & 505 
ORS. 
of opinion for compulsory retirement is the subjective A 
satisfaction of the authority concerned, but such satisfaction 
must be based on a valid material - It is permissible for courts 
to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on 
which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority 
is based - In the instant matter, the material on which the 
B 
decision of compulsory retirement was based and material 
furnished by the Judicial Officer would reflect that totality of 
relevant materials was not considered or completely ignored 
by the High Court - Consequently, the subjective satisfaction 
of the High Court was not based on sufficient or relevant c 
material - In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the 
service record of the Officer was unsatisfactory so as to warrant 
premature retirement from service - Therefore, there was no 
justification to retire the Officer compulsorily from service. 
Judicial service - Annual confidential remarks - Held: 
D 
Greater importance is to be given to the opinion or remarks 
made by the immediate superior officer as to the functioning 
of the judicial officer concerned for the purpose of his 
compulsory retirement - The immediate superior is better 
placed to observe, analyse, scrutinize from close quarters and 
E 
then, to comment upon his working, overall efficiency, and 
reputation - Jn the instant case, the District and Sessions 
Judges had the opportunity to watch the functioning of the 
Judicial Officer from close quarters, who have reported 
favourably regarding his overall performance except about 
F 
his disposal, in recent ACR for two years - High Court was not 
justified in sustaining the orders passed by the Full Court of 
the said High Court. 
The Inspecting Judge of the High Court during his 
G 
inspection noticed certain omissions and commissions 
in granting bail in certain cases by the appellant, who was 
working as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further, the 
appellant granted bail to an accused charged with an 
offence punishable u/s 302 IPC (Case No.90/93). The 
H 
.I 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A appellant furnished his explanations on 7.5.1994 for 
strictures passed by the Inspecting Judg~ and, secondly, 
on 21.12.1994 for adverse remarks made by the High 
Court in connection with the granting of bail in Case 
No.90/93. Both the explanations were duly accepted by 
B the High Court. 
Subsequently, the Standing Committee of the High 
Court in its meeting dated 11.8.1995 directed initiation of 
departmental proceedings against the appellant. 
The 
appellant 
was 
served 'Articles of Charge' dated 
C 13.12.1995 containing two charges relating to granting of 
bail indiscriminately in Case No.90/93. The appellant in 
his reply asserted that his explanation on the said 
charges had already been

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