Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of UP Judicial Officer, Declines to Interfere with HC Order

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer from Uttar Pradesh, effectively endorsing the state governmentโ€™s 2021 decision based on a screening committeeโ€™s evaluation of the officer’s service record.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and K. Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Courtโ€™s April 2024 judgment, which upheld the officerโ€™s removal from service. The officer, appointed as a munsif/civil judge (junior division) in March 2001, was compulsorily retired in November 2021. At the time of retirement, he was serving as a Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioner had contended that his track record was “exemplary” and that he had earned promotions, arguing before the bench, โ€œI am not a deadwood.โ€ However, the top court remarked, โ€œKindly give some credence to the wisdom of the full court,โ€ signaling deference to the institutional evaluation process undertaken by the judiciary itself.

READ ALSO  เคฎเฅˆเคŸเคฐเคจเคฟเคŸเฅ€ เคฌเฅ‡เคจเคฟเคซเคฟเคŸ เคเค•เฅเคŸ เค•เฅ‡ เคชเฅเคฐเคพเคตเคงเคพเคจ เค•เฅ€ เคธเค‚เคตเฅˆเคงเคพเคจเคฟเค• เคตเฅˆเคงเคคเคพ เค•เฅ‹ เคšเฅเคจเฅŒเคคเฅ€ เคฆเฅ‡เคจเฅ‡ เคตเคพเคฒเฅ€ เคฏเคพเคšเคฟเค•เคพ เคชเคฐ เคธเฅเคชเฅเคฐเฅ€เคฎ เค•เฅ‹เคฐเฅเคŸ 28 เค…เคชเฅเคฐเฅˆเคฒ เค•เฅ‹ เคธเฅเคจเคตเคพเคˆ เค•เคฐเฅ‡เค—เคพ

The Allahabad High Court, in its detailed judgment, had noted that a screening committee had been constituted to assess the performance and service history of judicial officers to โ€œchop the deadwood.โ€ The committee recommended the officer’s compulsory retirement after an overall review of his record, a recommendation that was later approved by the full court of the High Court.

The Supreme Court, agreeing with the High Courtโ€™s rationale, concluded, โ€œWe are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.โ€

READ ALSO  เคธเฅเคชเฅเคฐเฅ€เคฎ เค•เฅ‹เคฐเฅเคŸ เคจเฅ‡ เคธเฅเค•เฅ‡เคถ เคšเค‚เคฆเฅเคฐเคถเฅ‡เค–เคฐ เค•เฅ€ เคฎเค‚เคกเฅ‹เคฒเฅ€ เคœเฅ‡เคฒ เคธเฅ‡ เคฆเคฟเคฒเฅเคฒเฅ€ เค•เฅ‡ เคฌเคพเคนเคฐ เคœเฅ‡เคฒ เคฎเฅ‡เค‚ เคธเฅเคฅเคพเคจเคพเค‚เคคเคฐเคฟเคค เค•เคฐเคจเฅ‡ เค•เฅ€ เคฏเคพเคšเคฟเค•เคพ เค–เคพเคฐเคฟเคœ เค•เคฐ เคฆเฅ€

Had he not been retired, the officer was due to attain the age of superannuation in February 2026.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles