PYARE MOHAN LAL versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 216 · Decided: 10-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 216 
PYARE MOHAN LAL 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 382 of 2003) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. S.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Compulsory retirement - Judicial review - Scope of 
Compulsory retirement - Adverse entries in the ACRs -
Significance of, while retiring a person compulsorily - Held: 
The adverse entries remain part of the record for overall 
D consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily -
The object always is public interest - Such entries do not lose 
significance, even if the employee has subsequently been 
promoted -
The law requires the Authority to consider .the 
"entire service record" of the employee before assessing him 
E for compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the 
adverse entries were not communicated to him or that he was 
promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries - A single 
adverse entry regq!_ding the integrity of arr employee, even, 
in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement -
· F Doctrine - Washed off theory. 
~ 
Compulsory retirement - Judicial Officer compulsorily 
retired in public interest - Held: The case of a Judicial Officer 
is required to be examined! treating him different from other 
G wings of the society, as he is serving the State in a different 
capacity - His case is considered by a Committee of Judges 
of the High Court dulyf. constituted by the Chief Justice and 
then the report of the Committee is placed before the Full 
Court - A decision is taken by the Full Court after due 
H 
216 
PYARE MOHAN LAL v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & 217 
ORS. 
deliberation on the matter - Therefore, fault cannot be found 
A 
in the decision making process or the decision - The perusal 
of some of the entries in the ACRs of the Judicial Officer of 
the last years showed that he remained an average officer 
throughout his service career and could never improve - His 
· out turn was poor -'- He was given adverse entries regarding 
B 
his integrity and reputation - No reason to interfere with the 
order of compulsory retirement - Jharkhand Civil Service 
Code - r. 74(b)(ii). 
Precedent: Conflict between judgments -
Held: 
C 
Judgment of larger bench to be followed. 
Relief - Held: Relief not specifically sought cannot be 
granted by the court 
The petitioner was a judicial officer. In his ACRs for o 
the year 1996-97 to 2001-2002, certain adverse remarks 
were made against him. His name was recommended for 
promotion in October, 2001 and he was appointed as 
Additional District and Sessions Judge on ad hoc basis. 
On 12.5.2003, an order of compulsory retirement of six 
judicial officers including the petitioner was issued in 
public interest invoking the provision of Rule 74(b)(ii) of 
the Jharkhand Civil Services Code. The instant writ 
petition was filed challenging the said order of 
compulsory retirement. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. An order of compulsory retirement is not a 
punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such 
order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved 
G 
misconduct, as prescribed in the Statutory Rules. The 
Authority must consider and examine the over-all effect 
of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated 
entry, as it may well be, in some cases that in spite of 
H 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to 
compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, if in 
the opinion of the said Authority, the post has to be 
manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if 
there is sufficient material on record to show that the 
s employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", 
there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in exercise 
of its limited power of judicial review. [Para 18) [231-E-G] 
Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical 
Officer, Baripada & Anr. AIR 1992 SC 1020; Posts and 
C Telegraphs Board & Ors. v. C.S.N. Murthy AIR 1992 SC 1368; 
Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & 
Anr. (1996) $ SCC 103; l.K. Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. 
AIR 1997 SO 3740; M.S. Bindra v. Union oflndia & Ors. AIR 
1998 SC 3058; Rajat Baran Roy & Ors. v. State of West 
D Bengal & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1661; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. 
Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529; State of UP. & 
Anr. v. Bihari Lal AIR 1995 SC 1161; State of UP. & Ors. v. 
Vijay Kumar Jain AIR 2002 SC 1345; Jugal Chandra 

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