NAWAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 23-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NAWAL SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 
1992-Rule 2-.Compulsory retirement of judicial officers-Legality of-
Held: The finding of the Screening Committee that appellants-judicial officers 
were not suitable for continuing in service beyond the age of 58 years was 
C based on their past records of service, character roll and other matters 
relating to them-Committee had followed the procedure for compulsory 
retirement prescribed in Rule 56-Also, there is no allegation that orders 
were arbitrary or malafide-Hence, there is no illegality in the order of 
compulsory retirement- U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56. 
D 
U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56-Applicability of in view of 
overriding effect of Rule 2 of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement 
on Superannuation) Rules, 1992-Held: The 1992 Rules regulating the 
retirement on superannuation of the judicial officers deal only with the 
extension of retirement age from 58 to 60-By giving overriding effect, Rule 
E 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules is substituted for judicial officers of the 
State of U.P-By no stretch of imagination it can be said that Rule 56 (b) 
to (e) and the Explanations thereto are, in any wiry, altered, amended or 
substituted-Thus it cannot be said that Rule 56 as a whole is not applicable 
to judicial officers-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 235. 
F 
Judicial service-Nature of-Held: Is not a service in the sense of an 
employment-Functions discharged by Judges are in exercise of the 
sovereign judicial power of the State-Their honesty and integrity to be 
beyond doubt and should be reflected in their overall reputation-Hence, 
persons of doubtfal integrity or who have lost their utility should not be 
allowed to continue in service. 
G 
Judicial Officer-Compulsory retirement of-Object and purpose of 
-Held: To weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of 
efficiency and honesty to keep judicial service unpolluted-The authority 
concerned is empowered to retire officers of doubtfal integrity depending 
upon overall impression gathered by the higher officers who had the 
H opportunity to watch the performance of the concerned officer-Uttar 
1046 
( 
-- .,# 
NA WAL SINGH v. STA TE 
1047 
Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on superannuation) Rules, 1992- A 
Rule 2-UP. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56. 
The appellants are judicial officc!rs in the State of U.P. Various 
allegations were made against them and inquiries were held against 
them. The Screening Committee after examining the past records of 
service, character roll and other matters relating to the appellants opined B 
that they were not suitable for continuing in service beyond the age of 
58 years. High Court passed an order of compulsory retirement. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants challenging the order of 
compulsory retirement contended that Rule 2 ofUttar Pradesh Judicial 
Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, increasing the C 
retirement age from 58 years to 60 years would have overriding effect 
and Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules envisaging compulsory 
retirement would stand repealed and would not be applicable to the 
Judicial Officers. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The orders of compulsory retirement of the appellants 
are not, in any way, erroneous or unjustified. [1061-F-G) 
D 
2.1. The judicial service is not a service in the sense of an E 
employment Judges are discharging their functions while exercising 
the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity 
are expected to be beyond doubt and should be reflected in their overall 
reputation. Further, nature of judicial service is such that it cannot 
afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity F 
or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee 
of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in writ proceedings, except in 
very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the 
same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on 
the subjective satisfaction of the Authority. [1049-F-G) 
2.2. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead 
wood in order to maintain high standard of efficiency and honesty to 
keep judicial service unpolluted. It empowers the authority to retire 
officers of doubtful integrity which depen

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