Judicial officers different from other civil servants, single blot in service record makes them vulnerable: Orissa High Court

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack recently refused to quash the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer. In doing so, the Court also made pertinent observations on the high standards of integrity expected from judicial officers (Rama Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa). .A division bench led by Chief Justice Dr S Muralidhar emphasised:."They (Judicial Officers) are different from other civil servants. A single blot in their service record makes them vulnerable. They are expected to have a good character in all respects.".The Court noted that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dishonest, the corrupt and the deadwood. .The Bench added, "Equally, an officer having sound knowledge of the law but lacking in integrity or having a dubious character, is a great danger to the smooth functioning of the judiciary. What is to be weighed is the performance of the officer on an overall evaluation of his entire service period. Above all, his impartiality, reputation, integrity, as well as moral character, should be taken into account.".Having considered the facts of the case before it, the Court proceeded to conclude that there is no reason to view the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Government of Orissa (Law Department) as mala fide, stigmatic or not warranted in public interest..The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a judicial officer to quash the order compulsorily retiring him from the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), in public interest from March 22, 2010. .The Court reviewed the service record of the Judicial Officer and the entries made in his CCRs. It was observed that the file of the petitioner reveals that "several complaints were recieved against him, right from his posting as J.M.F.C., Soro till the end of his career as Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Koraput.".Admittedly, two disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for grave charges, the Court added. The Court also took note of an entry that "his integrity was suspicious and doubtful for the years 2005 and 2006." .As such, contrary to the judicial officer's assertions, the Court found that the material on record does not suggest that he had an unblemished career as a Judge. .The Court acknowledged that the Chief Justice of Orissa had, at one point, appreciated the judicial officer's work and given him an out-of-turn promotion. However, the officer's track record thereafter left much to be desired, the High Court found. Moreover, the Court also noted that the judicial officer's original rank was re-instated following an order of the High Court on the judicial side. . "The pending disciplinary proceedings against him, the nature of charges framed thereunder, and the entries made in the CCRs, as well as the nature of complaints seen from the personal file, all present a picture that at oddly with what the Petitioner has sought to project. Not only the adverse remarks, which were duly communicated to him, but at other materials on record justify the impugned order of compulsory retirement", the Court remarked..The Bench further pointed out that Rule 44 of the applicable Rules of 2007 authorizes the High Court to retire in public interest any member of the service, who has attained the age of fifty years. .Such consideration, for all the officers in the service, shall be made at least three times i.e., when he is about to attain the age of fifty years, fifty-five years and fifty-eight years..As such, given that there was sufficient material on record to justify the order passed against the judicial officer in this case, the Court declined to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement..Senior Advocate J Patnaik appeared for the petitioner, whereas Additional Government Advocate MS. Sahoo appeared for the respondents. .Read order: