The Court during Judicial Review do not have the same power as that of an Appellate Authority.

Aashray Chaudhary | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 16th December 2019

Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another., Civil Appeal No(s). 8875 OF 2019

The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgement over the same as an Appellate Authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in case of compulsory retirement.

FACTS

• There was complaint against the appellant (i.e. Ram Murti Yadav Additional District and sessions Judge). The complaint was regarding an acquittal order granted by the appellant when he was a Chief Judicial Magistrate. In response of the complaint an Administrative Judge recommended an enquiry on 24^th February 2009 not being satisfied with the comments of the appellant on the complaint against him.
• A vigilance enquiry was held by an Officer on Special Duty, High Court of Allahabad. A censure entry[1] was recorded in the character roll of the appellant after the enquiry on 20^th December 2012 and it was accepted by him without any challenge. 
• After this the appellant was promoted to the post of Additional district and sessions Judge in 2013.
• On 1^st April 2016 a committee of three judges constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsory retirement[2] under the rules[3] recommended the compulsory retirement of the appellant. This recommendation was also passed by the Full Court on 14^th April 2016.
• This order of the committee was challenged before the High Court on failure of which this appeal was brought before the Apex court.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Whether the court can interfere in an order of compulsory retirement through Judicial Review?
2. Whether the decision of the screening committee based on arbitrary or capricious ground?

WHAT WAS HELD?

• With regard to the first issue the court was of the opinion that the scope of judicial Review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and only if its found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by mala-fides, overlooks relevant material, could there be limited scope for interference. It said

 “The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgement over the same as an Appellate Authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in case of compulsory retirement.”

• The Court relied on the Judgement in case Syed T.A Naqshbandi &Ors vs. State of Jammu &Kashmir &Ors [4]. It said that Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself as such.
• The Court also cited the judgements in the cases of Rajendra Singh Verma vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi)[5] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Ptil & Anr[6].  In which it was held that in such matter if a Bona fide opinion is formed by the authority that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful then such opinion cannot be challenged before the court. This is because when such the constitutional function is exercised by the administrative side of the High Court, any Judicial review should be made with circumspection and in parameter set by the courts in several reported decisions.
• By this court is basically saying that in the matters of Judicial review of such screening processes the court can only see if the process was conducted in a just manner, they cannot go into the questions relating to the correctness of the decision taken by the process.
• On the second issue the court held that even a single adverse entry could suffice for an order of compulsory retirement relying upon the judgement in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and ors[7]. In this case the Apex court had spread clarity on the process of Screening in such matters, which involves a committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by the Chief Justice of that High Court and then the report made by this committee is placed before the Full Court which takes a decision after due deliberation on this matter. Therefore there is hardly any chance to make the allegations of the non-application of mind or mala-fides.

The Court rejected the contention of the counsel from the appellant side that the Promotion given to appellate in 2013 shows the integrity and merit he has. It said that a person discharging Judicial duty is not like any other service. There needs to be complete trust of the litigants over such an officer and thus even a single stigma on his record cannot be taken lightly, even though he was promoted. In this case the appellant never challenged the censure entry on his record.

[1] A censure entry is awarded to an employee when he allegedly does something that is against the interest of the department though it is not too big. It’s a recorded in your character roll for future reference of various screening committees like in this case the committee for screening judicial officers for compulsory retirement.

[2] This is a form of penalty given in cases where the government feels the continuance of service of a Government servant is considered undesirable but the extreme penalty of removal or dismissal, with the consequent loss of pension, is considered to be too severe. 

[3] Rule 56(c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules

[4] (2003) 9 SCC 592

[5] (2011) 10 SCC 1

[6] (2000) 1 SCC 416

[7] (2010) 10 SCC 693