Holding

Rule 2 only replaces the age‑limit provision of Rule 56(a); the rest of Rule 56, including the power of compulsory retirement, continues to apply to judicial officers, rendering the High Court’s order valid.

Summary

The appellants, senior judicial officers of Uttar Pradesh, were ordered by the Allahabad High Court to retire compulsorily at age 58 after a screening committee found them unsuitable to continue in service. They challenged the order, contending that Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, which raises the retirement age to 60, overrides Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules and thus eliminates the power of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that Rule 2 only supersedes the age‑limit provision of Rule 56(a); the remaining provisions of Rule 56, including compulsory retirement under clause (c), remain applicable to judicial officers. The Court emphasized that judicial service is not ordinary employment and that integrity is essential, making compulsory retirement a legitimate, non‑punitive tool. Finding no arbitrariness or mala‑fide intent in the High Court’s order, the Court dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

The extent to which Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 overrides Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules with respect to compulsory retirement of judicial officers.
Whether the Allahabad High Court had authority to order compulsory retirement of the appellants under Rule 56(c) and the required procedural safeguards.
Whether the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary, mala‑fide, or violative of principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 235, s. Article 309, s. Article 310

Subjects

compulsory retirementjudicial servicenon obstante clauseRule 56Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers Rulesintegrity of judgespublic interesthigh court authorityArticle 235age of superannuation

Judgment

(
A NAWAL SINGH
V.
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

B [M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules,
1992-Rule 2-.Compulsory retirement ofjudicial officers-Legality of-
Held: The finding ofthe Screening Committee that appellants-judicial officers
were not suitable for continuing in service beyond the age of 58 years was
C based on their past records of service, character roll and other matters
relating to them-Committee had followed the procedure for compulsory
retirement prescribed in Rule 56-Also, there is no allegation that orders
were arbitrary or malafide-Hence, there is no illegality in the order of
compulsory retirement- U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56.

D U.P. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56-Applicability of in view of
overriding effect of Rule 2 of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement
on Superannuation) Rules, 1992-Held: The 1992 Rules regulating the
retirement on superannuation of the judicial officers deal only with the
extension ofretirement age from 58 to 60-By giving overriding effect, Rule
E 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules is substituted for judicial officers of the
State of U.P-By no stretch of imagination it can be said that Rule 56 (b)
to (e) and the Explanations thereto are, in any wiry, altered, amended or
substituted-Thus it cannot be said that Rule 56 as a whole is not applicable
to judicial officers-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 235.

F Judicial service-Nature of-Held: Is not a service in the sense ofan
employment-Functions discharged by Judges are in exercise of the
sovereign judicial power of the State-Their honesty and integrity to be
beyond doubt and should be reflected in their overall reputation-Hence,
persons of doubtfal integrity or who have lost their utility should not be
allowed to continue in service.
G Judicial Officer-Compulsory retirement of-Object and purpose of
-Held: To weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of
efficiency and honesty to keep judicial service unpolluted-The authority
concerned is empowered to retire officers of doubtfal integrity depending
upon overall impression gathered by the higher officers who had the
H opportunity to watch the performance of the concerned officer-Uttar
1046
NA WAL SINGH v. STA TE 1047
Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on superannuation) Rules, 1992- A
Rule 2-UP. Fundamental Rules-Rule 56.

The appellants are judicial officc!rs in the State of U.P. Various
allegations were made against them and inquiries were held against
them. The Screening Committee after examining the past records of
service, character roll and other matters relating to the appellants opined B
that they were not suitable for continuing in service beyond the age of
58 years. High Court passed an order of compulsory retirement.

In appeal to this Court, the appellants challenging the order of
compulsory retirement contended that Rule 2 ofUttar Pradesh Judicial
Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992, increasing the C
retirement age from 58 years to 60 years would have overriding effect
and Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules envisaging compulsory
retirement would stand repealed and would not be applicable to the
Judicial Officers.
D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The orders of compulsory retirement of the appellants
are not, in any way, erroneous or unjustified. [1061-F-G)

2.1. The judicial service is not a service in the sense of an E
employment Judges are discharging their functions while exercising
the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity
are expected to be beyond doubt and should be reflected in their overall
reputation. Further, nature of judicial service is such that it cannot
afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity F
or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee
of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in writ proceedings, except in
very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the
same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on
- - .,#
the subjective satisfaction of the Authority. [1049-F-G)

2.2. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead
G
wood in order to maintain high standard of efficiency and honesty to
keep judicial service unpolluted. It empowers the authority to retire
officers of doubtful integrity which depends upon overall impression
gathered by the higher officers and it is impossible to prove by positive
evidence that a particular officer is dishonest. [1059-A-Bl H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Union ofIndia v. M.E. Reddy and Anr., (1980) 2) sec 15, relied on.

3.1. Rule 2 of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on
Superannuation) Rules, 1992 provides that notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, a
Judicial Officer shall retire from service on superannuation when he
B attains the age of 60 years. The 1992 Rules deal only with the extension
of retirement age from 58 to 60 and by giving overriding effect Rule 56
(a) of the Fundamental Rules is substituted for judicial officers of the
State of U.P. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Rule 56
(b) to (e) and the Explanations (1), (2) or (3) are, in any way, altered,
C amended or substituted. (1052-F, 1052-H, 1053-Al

3.2. There is no embargo on the competent authority to exercise its
power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules.
Because of the increase in retirement age, rest of the Rules providing
for compulsory retirement would not be nugatory and are not repealed.
Hence, it was open to the High Court to follow the procedure for
D exercising the power under Rule 56 (c) and the procedure prescribed in
Explanation (2-A) which requires that such order should be in public
interest and the appointing authority may take into consideration any
material relating to such officer. (1057-A-BJ

E 3.3. The Committee followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 56,
as provided in explanation to the said Rule. The material on record
reveals that the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant
facts. There is no allegation that the orders were arbitrary or ma/a fide.
Before passing the order of compulsory retirement, the High Court
exercised its powers under Fundamental Rules and that is specifically
F mentioned in the orders. (1059-H, 1057-D)

Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer,
Baripada and Anr., [1992) 2 SCC 299, relied on.

High Court ofJudicature for Allahabad 1hrough Registrar v. Sarnam
G Singh & Anr., 120001 2 sec 339, Distinguished.
A.G. Varadarajulu and Anr. v. State ofT.N. and Ors., (1998] 4 SCC
231; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi & Anr., [1978] 2
SCC 102; Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,
(2003] 6 SCC 545; High Court ofJudicature for Rajasthan v. P.P Singh,
H (20031 4 SCC 239; All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1049
India and Ors., (1993) 4 sec 288 and Union ofIndiav. J.N. Sinha, (1970) A
2 sec 458, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2898 of
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.99 of the Allahabad High B
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 14831 of 1999.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 2920 and 7342 of 200 I.
c
Manoj Swamp, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Anubhav Kumar for Mis Manoj
Swamp & Co., Sudhir Kulshreshtha, R.D. Upadhyay, Girdhar G.Upadhyay,
Syed Ali Ahmad and Syed Tanweer Ahmad for the Appellants.

Rakesh Dwivedi, Ashok K. Srivastava, R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma, D
Manish Shanker, Abhishek Chaudhary and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra (NP) for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. : Challenge in these appeals is to the orders of compulsory E
retirement of Judicial Officers, who were working in the State of U.P.

At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a
service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their
functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their F
honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected
in their overall reputation. Further nature of judicial service is such that
it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful
integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the
Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition,
except in very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere G
with the same, particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based
on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority.

On the basis of the aforesaid principles these appeals against the
judgments and orders dated 19.4.1999, 27.3.1999 and 15.2.2000 passed by H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 14831 of 1999, CMWP
No.28664 of 1998 and CMWP No.1312 of 1999, challenging their
compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years, are required to be decided.

I. At the time of hearing, firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel
B for the appellants that:-
"In view of the Rule increasing the retirement age from 58
years to 60 years, Rule 56 ofU.P. Fundamental Rules would
stand repealed.

C For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
Rules regulating the retirement on superannuation of the Judicial Officers •
framed by the State of U.P. vide Notification dated 20th October, 1992,
published in the U.P. Gazette Part l(ka) dated 3rd April, 1993, p. 930, SI.
No.14. The said Rules read as under:-

D I. Short title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be
called the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on
Superannuation) Rules, 1992.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date
E of their publication in the Gazette.

2. Overriding effect.-The provisions of these rules shall
have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, contained in the
Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts II to IV or any other rules
F made by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution or orders, for the time being in force.

3.

4. Retirement.- A Judicial Officer shall retire from service
G on superannuation in the afternoon of the last day of the month
in which he attains the age of sixty years."

Before appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the
parties, we would refer to Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, which
H reads thus:-
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE (SHAH, J.] 1051
•• "56. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rules, every A
Government servant other than a Government servant in inferior
service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day
of the month in which he attains the age offifty eight years. He
may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement
with the sanction of the Government on public grounds which B
must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the
age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.
'
(b) A Government servant in inferior service shall retire
from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which
he attains the age of sixty years. He must not be retained in service C
after that date, except in very special circumstances and with
sanction of the Government.

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or
clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time by notice to D
any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary),
without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains
the age offifty years or such Government servant may by notice
to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after
attaining the age of forty five years or after he has completed
qualifying service of twenty years. E

.. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months:

Provided that ...

(e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement F
benefits, if any shall be available in accordance with and subject
to the provisions of the relevant Rules to every Government
servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this
Rule.
G
Provided that ......

Explanation: (I) The decision of ..... public interest.

(2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public
interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A the appointing authority may take into consideration any material
relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained
shall be construed to exclude from consideration-

(a) any entries relating to any period before such Government
servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he
B was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive
capacity or on an ad hoc basis; or

(b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided
that the representation is also taken into consideration along
c with the entry; or

(c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under
the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965.

(2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been
D taken in the public interest.

(3H4) "

The title of the aforesaid 1992 Rules makes it clear that the Rules only
E pertain to U.P. Judicial Officers' Retirement on Superannuation and
provide that a judicial officer shall retire from service on superannuation
when he attains the age of sixty years.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Rule 2 would have
F overriding effect and Rule 56 as a whole would not be applicable to the
Judicial Officers. This submission is without any substance. Rule 2 only
provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Rule
56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, a Judicial Officer shall retire from
service on superannuation when he attains the age of 60 years. Under Rule
56 (a), the retirement age is 58 years and that part of the Rule would not
G be applicable as it is contrary to Rule 4 of the 1992 Rules.
Further, from the Rules quoted above, it is apparent that the 1992
Rules regulating the retirement on superannuation of the Judicial Officers
deal only with the extension ofretirement age from 58 to 60 and by giving
H overriding effect Rule 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules is substituted for
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1053

judicial officers of the State of U.P. From this, by no stretch of A
imagination, it can be said that Rule 56 (b) to (e) and the Explanations (I),
(2) or (3) are, in any way, altered, amended or substituted. If the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the other rules which
provide for giving such employee retirement benefits as provided in Rule
56 (e), issuance ofnotice by considering the material relating to government B
servants for compulsory retirement would be redundant. Such contention
is apparently without any basis. Hence, it does not require further
elaboration. However, we would refer to the decision in A.G. Varadarajulu
' and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Ors., [1998] 4 SCC 231 which was relied
upon by the learned senior counsel Mr. Dwivedi, wherein [in para 16] this C
Court held as under:-

"16. It is well settled that while dealing with a non obstante
clause under which the legislature wants to give overriding effect
to a section, the court must try to find out the extent to which the
legislature had intended to give one provision overriding effect D
over another provision. Such intention of the legiSlature in this
behalf is to be gathered from the enacting part of the section. In
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bosee, AIR (1952) SC 369,
Patanjali Sastri, J observed"
E
"The enacting part of a statute mus~, where it is clear,
be taken to control the non obstante clause where both
cannot be read harmoniously."

In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, [1971] l SCC 85 at
page 139, Hidaytullah, C.J observed that the non obstante clause F
is no doubt a very potent clause intended to exclude every
consideration arising from other provisions of the same statute or
other statute but "for that reason alone we must determine the
scope" of that provision strictly. When the section containing the
said clause does not refer to any particular provisions which it G
intends to override but refers to the provisions of the ,statute
generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole
Act and stands all alone by itself "A search has, therefore, to be
made with a view to determining which provision answers the
description and which does not." H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
f •
A II. The learned counsel next submitted that as per the Allahabad High
Court Rules, before recommending compulsory retirement of the appellants,
the Full Court was required to pass such orders and as the Full Court has
not passed any resolution, compulsory retirement is bad.
-
B Dealing with Allahabad High Court Rules, in State of Uttar Pradesh
v. Batuk Dea Pali Tripathi & Another, [1978] 2 SCC 102, 7-Judge Bench
of this Court considered similar contention and negatived the same by
holding that it was misconception that control over the Subordinate
Judiciary which is vested by Article 235 in the High Courts mzist be
C exercised by the whole body of the Judges. The Court negatived the
contention that the High Court cannot delegate its function or power to a
Judge or smaller body of Judges of the Court; it is no exaggeration to say
that the control will be better and more effectively exercised if a smaller
committee of Judges has the authority of the court to consider the manifold
D matters falling within the purview of Article 23 5. Such an authorisation
effectuates the purpose of Article 235. After elaborate discussion, the Court
upheld the minority judgment of the Full Bench that Rule 1 of Chapter III
of the 1952 Rules framed by the Allahabad High Court is within the
framework of Article 235 and the recommendation made by the
E Administrative Committee that the Judicial Officer should be compulsorily
retired cannot be said to suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity.
The aforesaid decision is repeatedly followed by this Court. Finally, in
Chandra Singh and Ors. v. State ofRajasthan and Anr., [2003] 6 SCC 545
the Court observed as under:-

F "40. Article 235 of the Constitution of India enables the High
Court to assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time
with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out the
deadwood. This constitutional power of the High Court cannot
be circumscribed by any rule or order....
G
4 7. In the instant case, we are dealing with the higher judicial
officers. We have already noticed the observations made by the
Committee of three Judges. The nature ofjudicial service is such
that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons
H of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility."

... '
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1055

• • Similarly, in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh, A
[2003] 4 SCC 239, the Court held that:-

- "19. It is also true that the powers of the Chief Justice
under Articles 235 and 229 of the Constitution of India are
different and distinct. Whereas control over the subordinate B
courts vests in the High Court as a whole, the control over the
High Court vests in the Chief Justices only. (See All India Judges'
Association's case). However, the same does not mean that a Full
Court cannot authorize the Chief Justice in respect of any matter
whatsoever. In relation to certain matters keeping the rest of it C
in itself by the Full Court, authorization to act on its behalf in
favour of the Chief Justice on a Committee of Judges is permissible
in law. How far and to what extent such power has been or can
be delegated would be discernible only from the Rules. Such a
power by the Full Court can also be exercised from time to time."
D
III. The learned counsel for the· appellants thirdly submitted that in view
of the decision rendered by this Court in High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad through Registrar v. Sarnam Singh & Another, [2000] 2 SCC
339 the orders passed by the High Court compulsory retiring the appellants
on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in All India Judges' E
Association v. Union of India & Others, [1992] 1 SCC 119 cannot be
justified.

Learned Counsel submitted that in similar set of circumstances for the
rules framed by the State of U.P. extending the age limit from 58 years F
to 60 years, this Court has held that for all Judicial Officers working in
the subordinate courts, retirement age would be 60 years and thus, the age
having been raised from 58 years to 60 years, all Judicial Officers in the
State would retire on attaining the age of 60 years and not earlier.

In the aforesaid case, the Court held that in view of the aforesaid rule G
which had overriding effect, the directions given by this Court [in All India
Judges' Association case (supra)] for scrutiny of the service records before
allowing the Judges to continue in service beyond 58 years, being of a
transitory character, yielded place to the new rules made by the State
Government under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, it was H

.. ...,

J
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A no longer incumbent upon the High Court to resort to the procedure of
scrutiny of the service records of all the Judicial Officers before allowing
them the benefit of extension in the age of retirement. The Court held that

B
the directions issued by this Court in the Review Petition in All India
Judges ' Association case, for scrutiny of service record would not be
applicable as the judicial officers by virtue of new rule would continue up
-
to the age of superannuation fixed under the new rule.

Firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Sarnam Singh (supra), the
High Court on judicial side has set aside the order of compulsory retirement
passed on the report of the Scrutiny Committee, as it was based on no
C material in support of such order. That order was challenged before this
Court by the High Court of Allahabad. In that set of circumstances, the
Court arrived at the conclusion that once the retirement age of judicial
officers was extended to 60 years, the direction issued in All India Judges'
Association Case for scrutiny of service records before allowing the judges
D to continue in service beyond 58 years would not survive and, therefore,
there was no question of passing order of compulsory retirement. The only
reason recorded in the said judgment for confirming the order passed by
the High Court was that compulsory retirement was bad as the judicial
officer was entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years in view of the
E amended Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

This Court in Sarnam Singh 's case (supra) was not required and has
not dealt with exercise of powers by the High Court under Rule 56(c).

In these matters, the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction not only
F on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in All India Judges'
Association Case but also in exercise of its powers under Rule 56 (c) which
empowers it to pass an order of compulsory retirement after an employee
attains the age of 50 years. In All India Judges' Association and Others
v. Union of India and Others, (1993] 4 SCC 288 - (Review Petition), this
G Court has made it clear that the direction issued by the Court for continuing
judicial officers in service by considering their suitability for the entitlement
of the benefit of increased age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years was
in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for the compulsory
retirement and the compulsory retirement at the early stage/s under the
H respective Services Rules.
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1057

Therefore, there is no embargo on the competent authority to exercise A
its power of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules.
As stated above, we have arrived at the conclusion that because of the
increase in retirement age, rest of the Rules providing for compulsory
retirement would not be nugatory and are not repealed. Hence, it was open
to the High Court to follow the procedure for exercising the power under B
Rule 56 (c) and the procedure prescribed in Explanation (2-A) requires that
such order should be in public interest and the appointing authority may
take into consideration any material relating to such officer. It inter alia
provides that any entry in service record against which a representation is
pending can be taken into consideration provided that the representation C
against such entry is also taken into consideration along with the entry and
to consider any report of the Vigilance Establishment. This power was
exercised by the High Court. No doubt, the Committees were constituted
on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in First All India Judges'
Association case, but at the same time, before passing the order of
compulsory retirement, the High Court exercised its powers under D
Fundamental Rules and that is specifically mentioned in the orders.

IV. It was finally contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
• there was no justifiable reason for passing the order of compulsory
retirement. E
This contention is required to be appreciated on the basis of settled
law on the subject of compulsory retirement. In Baikuntha Nath Das and
Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr., [1992] 2 SCC
299, this Court considered Fundamental Rule 560) and rule corresponding F
to it and observed that the object and purposes for exercise of these powers
are well stated in Union ofIndia v. J.N Sinha, [1970] 2 SCC 458 and other
decisions referred to by the Court and held thus:-

"34. The following principles emerge from the above
discussion: G

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It
implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a
government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on
the subjective satisfaction of the government.

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of
an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that
B judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High
Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an
appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that
the order is passed (a) ma/a fide or (b) that it is based on
no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no
c reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the
given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.

(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may
be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before
taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more
D
importance to record of and performance during the later
years. The record to be so, considered would naturally
include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls,
both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is
promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse
E remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the
promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon
seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be
F quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while
passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken
into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a
basis for interference."

In J.N. Sinha 's case (supra), the Court specifically held that the rule
G embodies one of the facts of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310
of the Constitution and that the rule holds the balance between the rights
of the individual government servant and the interest of the public; the rule
is intended to enable the government to energise its machinery and to make
it efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be
H there in public interest.
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1059

Further, it is to be reiterated that the object of compulsory retirement A
is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of
efficiency and honesty to keep judicial service unpolluted. It empowers the
authority to retire officers of doubtful integrity which depends upon overall
impression gathered by the higher officers and it is impossible to prove by
positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest. This aspect is dealt B
with in Union of India v. ME. Reddy and Anr., [1980] 2 SCC 15 wherein
the Court (in para 17) held thus:-

·- "Mr. Krishnamurty Iyer appearing for Reddy submitted that
the order impugned is passed on materials which are non-existent C
inasmuch as there are no adverse remarks against Reddy who had
a spotless career throughout and if such remarks would have been
made in his confidential reports they should have been
communicated to him under the rules. This argument, in our
opinion, appears to be based on a serious misconception. In the D
first place, under the various rules on the subject it is not every
adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer
concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while
assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based
• on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks
may be purely innocuous, or may be connected with general E
reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys.
It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive
evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have
had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer
from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and F
character not only of his performance but also of the reputation
that he enjoys."

In the backdrop of the settled law, the learned counsel for the parties
have drawn our attention to the relevant material considered by the G
Committee appointed by the High Court. The Committee followed the
procedure prescribed in Rule 56, as provided in explanation to the said
Rule. The material on record reveals that the High Court has taken into
consideration all the relevant facts. There is no allegation thilt the orders
were arbitrary or ma/a fide. Still however, with regard to each case, we H

' ,,,
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A would refer in brief what has been stated in Confidential Reports of the
appellants.

CIVIL APPEAL No.2898 OF 2001

Appellant Nawal Singh was appointed in 1972. In Confidential
B Reports for the year 1975-76, 1976-77, it has been mentioned that his
judicial work needs improvement. For the year 1980-81, his judicial work
was of average quality. For the year 1984-85, the District Judge has rated
him as good officer. For the year 1986-87, there were complaints about
his integrity. For this purpose, reference was made to cases wherein he
C had granted bail in serious offences. However, with regard to doubtful
integrity, the representation of the appellant was accepted and it was
substituted by holding that no reason to doubt the integrity of the officer.
Again, for the year 1990-91, it has been stated that with regard to the
interim orders/injunctions, he was directed to be more scrupulous; it was
D stated that integrity was doubtful and over all assessment was poor. On
his revision, adverse remarks with regard to his integrity were expunged
by holding that the appellant was suspended during the relevant year
pending the departmental enquiry touching his integrity but he was
exonerated by the Administrative Committee. Again, there are instances
E indicating that various inquiries were held subsequently. It is not necessary
to refer to the same. His application for revoking the suspension was also
rejected. However, later on, order of suspension was revoked.

CIVIL APPEAL No.2920 OF 2001

F Same is the position with regard to Chander Pal Singh. His
confidential reports reveal that various allegations were made and various
inquiries were held against him. Once he was charged with the offence
of committing breach of guidelines prescribed by the High Court and also
for committing an act of gross mis-conduct by misusing the authority of
G the District & Sessions Judge in violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Government
Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. In one matter, the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur made a complaint against him stating that he was entertaining
revisions against orders passed by him under Section 3 of U.P. Control of
Goondas Act, 1970. The matter was referred to the Adrriinistrative
H Committee for consideration.

... ,
NA WAL SINGH v. STATE [SHAH, J.] 1061

CIVIL APPEAL No.7342 OF 2001 A

Case of Bharthari Prasad is also of the same nature. His confidential
reports reveal that various allegations were made and various inquiries
were held against him. In confidential report for the year 1975-76, the
District Judge observed disposal of cases to be poor and judgment of B
average quality. For the years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the disposal was
observed to be below standard. Once he was charged for the omission
' while delivering the judgment of conviction in the absence of the accused
and also discharging the bail bonds and sureties, which was in violation
of Section 353 of Cr.P.C. For this, he was asked to be careful in future. C
For the year 1994-95, District Judge remarked his integrity to be doubtful
and overall assessment as poor. Representation of the appellant against
these remarks was also rejected. For the year 1997-98, the District Judge
awarded adverse remarks against him. The District Judge also requested
for his transfer from Allahabad to another station. The appellant was later D
on transferred from Allahabad. It is also stated that the appellant did not
comply the orders of transfer but even after receiving the orders of transfer,
he continued to decide cases. The matter was later on considered by the
• Administrative Committee.
E
Hence, it is apparent that the Screening Committee after examining
the past records of service; character roll and other matters relating to the
appellants opined that they were not suitable for continuing in service
beyond the age of 58 years.
F
From the facts narrated above, even if we were to sit in appeal against
the subjective satisfaction of the High Court, it cannot be said that the
orders of compulsory retirement of the appellants are, in any way,
erroneous or unjustified. Further, it is impossible to prove by positive
evidence the basis for doubting integrity of the judicial officer. In the G
present day system, reliance is required to be placed on the opinion of the
higher officer who had the opportunity to watch the performance of the
concerned officer from close quarters and formation of his opinion with
regard to overall reputation enjoyed by the concerned officer would be the
basis. H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A It is to be reiterated that for keeping the stream of justice unpolluted,
•
repeated scrutiny of service.records of judicial officers after specified age/
completion of specified years of service provided under the Rules is must
by each and every High Court as the lower judiciary is .the foundation of
judicial system. We hope that the High Courts would take appropriate steps
B regularly for weeding out the dead-wood or the persons polluting justice
delivery system.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs, quantified at r
Rs. 5000 in each appeal.

C D.G. Appeals dismissed.

•