Judicial officer’s integrity must be of a higher order, even a single aberration is not permitted: Supreme Court

In a judgment rendered today, the Supreme Court observed that the integrity of a judicial officer must be of a higher order and that even a single aberration in the same is unacceptable and cannot be permitted..The Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta was deciding on petitions filed by two judicial officers from Jharkhand, who were made to compulsorily retire from service after a Screening Committee comprising Senior High Court Judges made adverse entries about the two..Adverse entries with regard to integrity do not lose their sting at any stage. A judicial officer’s integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted.the Supreme Court observed..The two petitioners, Arun Kumar Gupta and Ran Nandan Rai, were made to compulsorily retire on account of misconduct and other allegations. .Gupta had two charges against him, first one being the use of indecent, unwarranted, and objectionable language and double meaning statements while working as Deputy Director of an Administrative Training Institute. The second charge against him pertained to physically assaulting a washerman..Rai's record, the Court noted, had come to be questioned for bad conduct multiple times. His knowledge of the law was found to be average and his conduct and behaviour with the members of the Bar was found not to be good. There were also allegations against him for accepting illegal gratification while granting bail in a criminal matter. .The files of these two officers were directed to be placed before a Screening Committee. In turn, the Committee also found sufficient reason in both cases for ordering compulsory retirement. The resolution of the Screening Committee was placed before a Standing Committee of the Jharkhand High Court and the same was then approved..The orders for their compulsory retirement were passed under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. These were the orders challenged by way of writ petitions by the two judicial officers. .The petitioners contended that their compulsory retirement was "not in public interest". They had also argued that their entire record was not considered. Further, it was contended that the fact that they were granted promotions through their service would "wash off" any earlier adverse entries..Before delving into the facts of the case, the Court first laid down the standard of integrity expected from judicial officers, observing that,.The standard of integrity and probity expected from judicial officers is much higher than that expected from other officers.Supreme Court.The Court relied on a plethora of judgments on the subject of compulsory retirement, where time and again it was found that if the integrity of a judicial officer is found to be compromised, it would be in public interest to compulsorily retire him..Further, the Court also dealt with the "wash off" argument posed by the petitioners i.e. that since they have been promoted various times, the same would wash off the "sting" of adverse record prior to such promotions. .Addressing this argument, the Court placed reliance on various judgments to summarise the law on compulsory retirement as follows:.An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitive in nature; An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil consequences; While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage; Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired; The ‘washed off’ theory does not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity; The courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a highpowered committee(s) of the High Court..Applying these principles, the Court proceeded to find that the conclusions of the Screening Committee were correct. .Therefore, it refused to interfere in the same and upheld the decision of the High Court. The petitions filed by the judicial officers were therefore dismissed by the Supreme Court..[Read the Judgment]