SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 11-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. 250 
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA 
. v. 
STATE OF JAM MU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 355 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 11, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 - r.24 - Premature 
c retirement - Of judicial officer - On the basis of his Annual 
Confidential Reports, past records and other relevant 
material - Held: The Annual Confidential Report which 
formed the basis of premature retirement cannot be said to 
be a report in the eyes of law not being truthful assessment 
o of the various constituents of the judicial officer's work and 
conduct - However, other considerations, apart from the 
Annual Confidential Reports, were sufficient justifying the 
premature retirement in terms of r.24 when read in 
conjunction with Full Court Resolution of High Court -
E Judicial Service. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. The annual confidential report from 
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 cannot be treated as an 
F assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner. 
No assessment whatsoever was made at the hands of 
the Administrative Judge,. insofar as the above annual 
·confidential report is concerned. The above report being 
not a truthful assessment of the various constituents of 
G the judicial officer's work and conduct, it could certainly 
not be taken as an assessment of his work for the period 
from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. Most of the columns of the 
proforma prescribed for recording the an·nual 
H confidential report, could have been filled up, even in 
250 
SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JAMMU AND 
251 
KASHMIR 
absence of the "self-assessment report". The annual .A 
confidential report being bereft of any assessment of 
the work and conduct of the petitioner for the period from 
2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as 
no report, for all intents and purposes. In view of the 
above conclusion, treating the work and c.onduct of the B 
petitioner as "Average" for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 
on the basis of the report for the year 2009 is therefore, 
also not sustainable in law. As such, none of the reports 
of the petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) could have 
been taken into consideration for the purpose of passing C 
the order of premature retirement. [Paras 8, 12] [261 ·C· 
D, F-G; 262-D-F; 264-G] 
2. The Administrative Committee of the High Court 
had examined the past record, annual confidential D 
reports, work done statements, and other relevant record/ 
material pertaining to the petitioner, and had opined that 
he had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. Thus, 
in addition to the annual confidential reports, it was 
concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and that, E 
it was not in public interest to continue him in service. It 
was also recorded, that credible complaints with regard 
to his judicial work were being received periodically. On 
the basis of the above consideration, it was felt that the 
officer had lost his utility, and had become deadwood. F 
In view of the consideration of the Full Court, in respect 
of material other than the annual confidential report for 
the year 2009 (and of the years 2010 to 2012), it is held 
that there was sufficient material justifying the premature G 
retirement of the petitioner in terms .of Rule 24, specially 
when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court 
resolution dated 3.6.2013. Even though the annual 
confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2009 is 
set aside, the non-submission of the '.'self-assessment H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 
A report" by the petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and 
temperament. Therefore, the determination recorded in 
the minutes of the Full Court on 3.6.2013 (even if the 
consideration based on the annual confidential report 
for the year 2009 is excluded) were sufficient to justify 
B the order of premature retirement of the petitioner. [Paras 
12-16] [264-C-D; 265-8-C, F-G; 266-E-F; 267-G-H; 268-
A] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition .(Civil) 
c No(s).355of2014. 
· 
D 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
L. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Pallav Mongia 
for the Petitioner. 
Bharat Sangal, Ms. Srijana, Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Mithu 
Jain for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The petitioner was 
selected by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service 
Commission for appointment to the Ka
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.