LexR.C. CHANDEL versus HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 205
R.C. CHANDEL
v.
HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5790 of 2012)
AUGUST 8, 2012
[R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Service Law - Judicial Service - Compulsory retirement
A
B
Of appellant-judicial officer after 25 years in judicial service
Challenge to - Scope of judicial review - Held: On facts, it C
;annot be said that the recommendation made by the Full
Court (of the High Court) to the Government for compulsory
retirement of the appellant was arbitrary or based on material
not germane for such recommendation - Recommendation
made by High Court to the Government for compulsory
D
retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory
retirement issued by the Government did not suffer from any
legal flaw - In assessing potential for continued useful service
of a judicial officer, the High Court is required to take into
account the entire service record - Those of doubtful integrity,
E
questionable reputation and wanting in utility are not entitled
to benefit of service after attaining the requisite length of
service or age - Appellant did not have unblemished service
record all along - His quality of judgments and orders was not
found satisfactory on more than one occasion - His reputation
F
was observed to be tainted on few occasions and his integrity
was not always found to be above board - Confirmation of
appellant as District Judge and grant of selection grade and
super time scale did not wipe out his earlier adverse entries
- Conduct of appellant in involving an M.P. and the Ministry
G
of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in a matter of the High
Court concerning an administrative review petition filed by him
for expunging adl(erse remarks in his ACRs was most
reprehensible and highly unbecoming of a judicial officer -
205
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Still worst, appellant had the audacity to plead that he never
made any representation to such M.P.- The Single Judge of
the High Court examined the administrative decision of the
Full Court (to recommend to the Government to compulsory
retire the appellant) as if he was sitting as an appellate
B authority to consider the correctness of such recommendation
by going into sufficiency and adequacy of the materials which
led the Full Court in reaching its satisfaction - The whole
approach of the Single Judge was flawed and not legally
proper - It did not keep the scope of judicial review - The
c Division Bench of the High Court was, thus, fully justified in
setting aside the order of Single Judge - Fundamental Rules,
as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh - Rule 56(2)(a)
as amended - Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service
{Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 - Rule 14
0 - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 -
Rule 42(1 )(b) - Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions
Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 - Rule
1-A -Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235.
Judiciary - Judicial Officer - Conduct of - What should be
E - Held: Judicial service is not an ordinary government service
and the Judges are not employees as such - Judges hold the
public office - In discharge of their functions and duties, the
Judges represent the State - A Judge must be a person of
impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence - The
F standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than
an ordinary man - A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above
suspicion - A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any
external pressure and he is a/so supposed not to exert any
influence on others in any administrative or judicial matter.
G
On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on
the post of District and Sessions Judge, was
compulsorily retired from service in public interest, by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the request of the
H Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Full Court, on the basis
R.C. CHANDEL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.
207
of the service record of the appellant, had formed a
A
unanimous opinion that he must be compulsorily retired
and had recommended to the Government, accordingly.
The order of compulsory retirement was issued by the
Government in exercise of its power under amended Rule
56(2)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in
B
the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 1994, Rule 42(1 )(b) of the
MExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.