SHIV DAYAL GUPTA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 13-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHIV DAY AL GUPTA 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Judiciary-Higher Judicial Service-Compulsory retirement-
Appellant, an Additional District Judge in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial 
C Service-Compulsorily retired from service on basis of Review Committee 
report submitted by four Senior Judges of the Rajasthan High Court which 
was approved by the Full Court-Review Committee found that continuance 
of Appellant in office would be a liability and adverse to public interest-
Writ petition filed by Appellant assailing the order of compulsory retirement 
dismissed-On appeal, held, the order of compulsory retirement was passed 
D after subjective satisfaction of the matter inasmuch as it was based on ACR 
and service record of Appellant-Besides, appellant never raised any 
allegation of malafide or non-application of mind before High Court or this 
Court-Hence, no interference called for by this Court. · 
Appellant was holding the post of Additional District Judge in the 
E Rajasthan Higher Judicial service. He was compulsorily retired from service 
on the basis of Review Committee report submitted by four Senior Judges of 
the Rajasthan High Court. which was approved by the Full Court The Review 
Committee found that the continuance of Appellant would be a liability and 
adverse to public interest and accordingly recommended that he should be 
p compulsorily retired. Appellant assailed the order of compulsory retirement 
before High Court by filing writ petition. But the High Court dismissed the 
petition after perusing the entire records placed before it. Hence the present 
appeal 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. On the basis of overall perusal of the ACR and overall 
assessment of service record of the appellant, the Review Committee consisting 
of four Senior Judges found that continuance of officer would be liability to 
the Department and adverse to the public interest and recommended that he 
should be compulsorily retired. The recommendations of the Review 
H 
732 
SHIV DAY AL GUPTA v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN [SEMA, J.] 
733 
Committee was accepted by the Full Court It is really a case of chopping of A 
the dead wood. (734-E) 
2. That apart, either before the High Court or before this Court, the 
appellant never raised any allegation of malafide nor the s.aid order has been 
passed without application of mind. In fact, considering all the facts and 
circumstances the appointing authority has come to the conclusion that the B 
appellant's continuance in the service will be a liability to the public interest 
and passed the order after subjective satisfaction of the !llatter on the basis of 
the record placed before the authority. (734-F] 
Bhaikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer Braipada C 
& Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299; State of Gujarat v. Umedhbhai M Patel, (2001) 3 
SCC 314; State of U.P. & Anr. v. Vinay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 and 
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Lalsa Ram, (2001) 3 SCC 389, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5397 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.2002 of the Rajasthan High D 
Court in D.8.C.W.P. No. 1614 of200l. 
M.R. Calla and Ms. Rachana Srivastava for the Appellant. 
Sunil Kumar Jain, S. Borthakur, Aruneshwar Gupta and Navin Singh for E 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEMA, J. The appellant at the relevant time was holding the post Of 
Additional District Judge (Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service). By an order F 
dated 9.11.2000, he was compulsorily retired from service. He has assailed the 
order of compulsorily before the High Court. The High Court of Rajasthan 
dismissed the Writ Petition after perusing the entire records placed before it. 
The appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of Review Committee 
report submitted by four Senior Hon'ble Judges of the High Court which was 
approved by the Full Court of the High Court. 
G 
We have been taken through the entire judgment of the High Court. The 
High Court, on perusal of the record produced before it, found that in the year 
1983, the appellant was not assessed as good officer and his integrity was 
doubtful. In 1984 he was reported to be corrupt officer. The High Court was 
also of the view that when the appellant has been granted selection grade, H 
734 
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A the adverse entries were not brought to the notice of the authorit

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