The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the plea of a judicial officer who challenged his compulsory retirement, upholding the State Government’s decision based on adverse entries in his service record. A Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh stressed that maintaining public confidence in the justice system is crucial, especially when it concerns the integrity of a judge.
“The ordinary litigant must have complete faith in the judicial system and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even remotely create perception against the justice delivery system,” the Court held.
Background
The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Yadav, was appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) in March 2001 and promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in July 2015. Though he was due for retirement in February 2026, he was compulsorily retired by an order dated 29 November 2021, based on recommendations from the Screening Committee and approval by the Full Court.
He challenged the retirement, alleging that positive aspects of his service were ignored and that irrelevant material was considered.
The Screening Committee relied on three major pieces of adverse material:
- Adverse Remarks (2008-09):
The Administrative Judge marked his integrity as doubtful and deemed him “not a good officer.” Multiple representations against this remark were rejected, making the entry final. - Advisory from 2011:
Based on a complaint from the Special Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, an advisory was issued urging the officer to be more careful in the future. Though not directly punitive, it was valid contextual material. - Censure Entry (2012):
A vigilance enquiry found misconduct in selling a firearm without prior permission and mishandling a case involving vehicle release. This led to a formal censure, which also attained finality after multiple rejected representations.
“Law is well settled that sufficiency or otherwise of such material cannot be gone into in writ. Correctness or otherwise of the adverse material also cannot be examined when such entries have attained finality,” the bench stated.
While the petitioner argued that the Screening Committee overlooked favourable entries and used pending or unproven issues, the Court rejected this. It clarified that only finalised adverse records were considered. The Committee wasn’t required to detail every positive aspect when adverse material alone justified compulsory retirement.
“Screening Committee specifically noticed the adverse material... and on the strength of it alone it came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not suitable to be retained in employment.”
The Court also relied on previous Supreme Court rulings, including Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, which held that even a single adverse entry on integrity could justify retirement.
Further, the judgment reaffirmed that a judicial officer’s standards are more stringent than other services, citing Ram Murti Yadav vs. State of U.P.:
“A Judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise.”
The Court found no illegality or mala fide intent in the decisions of the Screening Committee or the Full Court. Since valid adverse materials existed, the High Court concluded that the compulsory retirement order was lawful and did not merit interference.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 12020 of 2022]
