RAM MURTI YADAV versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
RAM MURTI YADAV
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8875 of 2019)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
U.P. Fundamental Rules – r.56(c) – Compulsory Retirement
of a Judicial Officer – Appellant while posted as a Chief Judicial
Magistrate granted acquittal to the accused u/ss.467, 468, 471,
474, 420, 406 and 120B of IPC – A complaint was lodged against
the appellant with regard to the acquittal – A vigilance enquiry
was initiated and the report was adverse to the appellant – A
censure entry was recorded in his character roll and order of
punishment was accepted by the appellant without any challenge
– Screening Committee recommended compulsory retirement of the
appellant – Thereafter, appellant was compulsorily retired which
was endorsed by the Full Court of the High Court – Held: The
service records of the appellant were examined by the Screening
Committee, the Full Court as also by the Division Bench of the High
Court – The scope for Judicial review of an order of compulsory
retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is
extremely narrow and restricted – Only if it is found to be based
on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by malafides, overlooks
relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference –
The Full Court scrutinised the service records of the appellant and
arrived at the conclusion that it was in public interest to compulsory
retire the appellant – Further, punishment of censure meted out to
the appellant was never assailed by him – Therefore, the order of
the compulsory retirement of the appellant required no interference.
Service Law – Judicial Services – Held: A judge holds the
office of a public trust – Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable
independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute
imperatives which brooks no compromise – A judge is the pillar
of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand
virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 818
818
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
judicial function – Judges must strive for the highest standards of
integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The service records of the appellant have been
examined by the Screening Committee, the Full Court as also
by the Division Bench of the High Court. The scope for judicial
review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the
subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow
and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or
capricious grounds, vitiated by malafides, overlooks relevant
materials, could there be limited scope for interference. The
court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same
as an Appellate Authority. Principles of natural justice have no
application in a case of compulsory retirement. [Para 6] [824-
H; 825-A-B]
2. The complaint against the appellant with regard to the
acquittal granted by him was first considered by the
Administrative Judge, who was satisfied that it is a matter for
further enquiry. The comments of the appellant were called for.
A vigilance enquiry was recommended by the Administrative
Judge, who obviously was not satisfied with the explanation
furnished. The officer holding the vigilance enquiry was also a
judicial officer who opined that the act of acquittal by the
appellant was not above board. The comments of the appellant
were again called for. The Screening Committee consisting
of three Hon’ble Judges, on an overall assessment of the
appellant’s service record, recommended his compulsory
retirement. The Full Court scrutinised the service records of
the appellant again while considering the recommendation of the
Screening Committee and arrived at the conclusion that it was
in public interest to compulsory retire the appellant. It is
undisputed that the punishment of censure meted out to the
appellant was never assailed by him. [Para 8] [825-E-G]
3. A person entering the judicial service no doubt has
career aspirations including promotions. An order of compulsory
retirement undoubtedly affects the career aspirations. Having
said so, it is also cautioned that judicial service is not like any
other service. A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf
RAM MURTI YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
of the State in discharge o

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