Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged an order dated 26 February 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary and Legal Advisor, Law and Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, compulsorily retiring him from judicial service. The petitioner had joined judicial service on 19 November 1997 as a Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay (District Judge cadre). He later served as Special Judge for TADA Designated Court, Solicitor-cum-Joint Secretary to the Government, and Principal District and Sessions Judge at Amaravati and Sangli. During his tenure as City Civil Court Judge, adverse remarks were made in his Confidential Reports for the years ending March 2005 and March 2006. Based on these remarks and his service record, the Review Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 27 January 2010 recommended his compulsory retirement under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 read with Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The petitioner contended that the adverse remarks were never communicated to him, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that non-communication of adverse remarks vitiates the decision to compulsorily retire, as the officer must have an opportunity to improve. The court quashed the order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Adverse Remarks - Non-Communication - The order of compulsory retirement based on uncommunicated adverse remarks in confidential reports is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained - Held that the adverse remarks must be communicated to the employee to enable him to improve his performance (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner based on adverse remarks in confidential reports, which were not communicated to him, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 26 February 2010, and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Compulsory retirement
- adverse remarks
- non-communication
- natural justice
- judicial service
- Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules
- 2008
- Rule 19
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- Rule 10(4)
- Article 226
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (11) 79
WRIT PETITION NO. 5856 OF 2010
Mr. Pradip Vasant Bavkar (Petitioner in person), Mr. C.R. Sonavane (AGP for Respondent no.1), Mr. S.K. Shinde (for Respondent no.2)
Shri Pradip Vasant Bavkar
The State of Maharashtra, The Registrar General, High Court, Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging compulsory retirement order passed by the State Government on recommendation of the High Court Review Committee.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 26 February 2010 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from judicial service.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was compulsorily retired based on adverse remarks in confidential reports that were never communicated to him, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The Review Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 27 January 2010 recommended compulsory retirement under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 read with Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Issues
Whether the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner based on adverse remarks in confidential reports, which were not communicated to him, is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the adverse remarks in his CRs for the years ending March 2005 and March 2006 were never communicated to him, and therefore the order of compulsory retirement based on such remarks is violative of principles of natural justice.
Respondents contended that the decision to compulsorily retire was based on overall service record and not solely on the uncommunicated adverse remarks.
Ratio Decidendi
Adverse remarks in confidential reports must be communicated to the employee to enable him to improve his performance; non-communication of such remarks vitiates any decision based on them, including compulsory retirement.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the Principal Secretary and Legal Advisor, Law and Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from judicial service of the State of Maharashtra.
On the basis of the said adverse remarks and considering his service record, Review Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay took decision on 27th January, 2010 as per Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 read with Rule 10 (4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 to recommend to the Government for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner on his
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 26 February 2010. The petition was heard by a Division Bench consisting of J.P. Devadhar and K.K. Tated, JJ. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith by consent. After hearing the parties, the court reserved judgment on 19 October 2011 and pronounced it on 16 November 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008: Rule 19
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 10(4)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
