P. D. GOEL versus HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 08-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 523 
P. D. GOEL 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS 
REGISTRAR GENERAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 10244 of2017) 
AUGUST 08, 2017 
(J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.( 
A 
B 
Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 - r. 14 -
Judicial Services - Retrospective retirement - Date. of retirement of C 
the appellant was 31.07.2007, date on which he completed the age 
of 60 years as provided u/r. 14 - High Court issued notification 
retiring appellant from service from 31.07.2005 i.e. at the age of 58 
years - Notification challenged in writ petition - Single Judge of 
High Court held the retirement contrary to law - Division Bench 
held that notUlcation of High Court to be treated as D 
recommendation to the Governor .for removal of services of the 
appellant - Jn terms of the direction, the Governor passed an order 
on 31.01.2017 retiring the appellant with retrospective effect from 
31.07.2005 i.e. at the age of 58 years - Whether retiring the 
appellant retrospectively at the age of 58 years was justified - Held: 
Jn the instant case, the High Court had issued notijlcation holding 
that the appellant stood retired from service at the age of 58 years 
- Appellant had not been retired by the appointing authority, namely, 
the Governor of Himachal Pradesh - Therefore, ii cannot be said 
that the appellant had retired on the completion of age of 58 years 
- Division Bench treated the notification as recommendation to the 
Governor for removal of the services - However, this order was 
passed after appellant had completed the age of 60 years - The 
order of the Governor retiring the appellaf!( retrospectively in terms 
E 
F 
of order of the Division Bench, not permissible in law - Himachal 
Judicial Service Rules do not provide for retrospective retirement of G 
judicial officers - Therefore, appellant to be treated as retired on 
completion of 60 years of age - Service Law - Retirement. 
Constitution of India,... Arts.233, 234 and 235 - Scope of-
The control vested in the High Court over the subordinate judiciary 
- Nature of - Held: Though absolute and exclusive, has to be 
H 
523 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
exercised without usurping the power vested in the executive under 
the Constitution. 
B 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The control vested in the High Court over the 
subordinate judiciary though absolute and exclusive, has to be 
exercised without usurping the power vested in the executive 
under the Constitution. The High Court retains the power of 
disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary, including the 
power to initiate disciplinary proceedings, suspend them 
pending enquiry and impose punishment on them. But when it 
comes to the question of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank 
or termination of judicial officers on any count whatsoever, the 
High Court becomes only the recommending authority and cannot 
itself pass such an order. The High Court has to send its 
recommendations to the Governor because the Governor is the 
authority to dismiss, remove, reduce in rank or terminate the 
D 
appointment. 1Para 91 [528-A-Cf 
2. In the instant case, the High Court issued a notification 
holding that the appellant stands retired from service with effect 
from the afternoon of 31.7.2005, i.e. the last day of the month in 
which he attains the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years under 
E 
proviso to Rule 14 of the H.imachal Pradesh Judicial Service 
Rules. The appellant had not been retired by the appointing 
authority, namely, the Governor ofHimachal Pradesh. Therefore, 
it cannot be said that the appellant had retired on the completion 
of age of 58 years. Instead of quashing the notification, the 
F 
Division Bench treated the said notification as recommendation 
of the High Court to the Governor for removal of the services of 
the appellant. This order was passed after the appellant had 
completed the age of 60 years. In terms of the order of the Division 
Bench, the Governor has passed an order dated 31.1.2017 
retrospectively retiring the appellant with effect from 31.7.2005, 
G which is not permissible in law. The Himachal Pradesh Judicial 
Service Rules do not provide for retrospectively retiring the 
judicial officers. The order of the High Court retiring the appellant 
at the age of 58 years cannot take effect as it was without 
authority of law. It only means that the appellant has to be treated 
H 
to have been retired from service o

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