The Allahabad High Court has held that departmental enquiries pending against a judicial officer do not affect a decision to compulsorily retire him. The Court said compulsory retirement is not punitive and rests on an overall assessment of the officer’s service record.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, sitting at Lucknow, dismissed a writ petition filed by Praveen Sonkar, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge. He had challenged his compulsory retirement in November 2021.
Background
The petitioner joined service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2006 and was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service in 2019. He was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hamirpur.
The High Court’s Screening Committee recommended his compulsory retirement at its meetings of June 11 and June 15, 2020. The Administrative Committee accepted the recommendation on November 18, 2021, and the Full Court approved it on November 25, 2021. The State Government passed the order of compulsory retirement on November 29, 2021.
The material before the Screening Committee included four complaints from 2018, made while the petitioner was posted at Amroha:
- Judicial orders: That his judicial orders were not in accordance with law.
- Conduct: Alleged misconduct and the use of foul language.
- Corruption: An affidavit-backed complaint alleging corruption and illegal demands for favourable orders in three cases.
- Female colleague: A complaint by a female judicial officer about alleged indecent conversations and behaviour.
Vigilance enquiries were held on the first three complaints. The reports went against the petitioner, and departmental enquiries were initiated. The fourth complaint was referred to the High Court’s Internal Committee.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mathur, assisted by Advocate Adarsh Srivastava, appeared for the petitioner. He argued that the order was punitive and had been passed to cut short three pending departmental enquiries. He submitted that the petitioner had been promoted despite the complaints, had no adverse entries, and had ACRs at Amroha rating his integrity “Beyond Doubt” and his work “Very Good”. He also argued that the Internal Committee had closed the fourth complaint after finding no fault on the petitioner’s part. He relied on, among other decisions, State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel and Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India.
Advocate Shishir Jain, appearing for the High Court, submitted that the case had been examined at three levels: the Screening Committee, the Administrative Committee and the Full Court. He argued that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer requires no departmental enquiry to be concluded, and that the “washed off” theory does not apply. He told the Court that the departmental enquiries were concluded while the writ petition was pending. The Administrative Committee deferred considering those reports on November 27, 2024, because the petitioner had already been retired. The State was represented by the Standing Counsel.
Court’s Findings
The Bench traced the history of Fundamental Rule 56. It noted that in Uttar Pradesh, compulsory retirement is not a punishment under the rule and may be ordered only in the public interest. Relying on Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, it said a writ court can interfere only if the order is mala fide, based on no evidence, or perverse. It also referred to Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P., in which the Supreme Court rejected the washed-off theory in compulsory retirement cases.
On the fourth complaint, the Court noted that the Internal Committee’s proceedings and findings came after the Screening Committee’s June 2020 meeting. In its resolution of November 29, 2021, the Internal Committee recorded the petitioner’s unqualified written apology and warned him to be careful in his behaviour with colleagues. The Court observed that the material before the Screening Committee nevertheless included the female officer’s complaints. It said the vigilance reports on the other three complaints had led to departmental enquiries, and held that “it cannot be said that there was no material available against the petitioner to warrant his compulsory retirement.”
Rejecting the argument that unproven allegations could not be relied upon, the Bench held:
“the pendency of departmental enquiries in respect of certain allegations which were taken into consideration by the Screening Committee is of no consequence, as the order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature but is based on an overall assessment of the service record of the officer.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Lamror. It also relied on a co-ordinate Bench’s ruling in Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., which concerned the same Screening Committee and held that an officer’s later exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not, by itself, invalidate his compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against that ruling on December 13, 2024.
Outcome
The Bench concluded that the recommendation of the Screening Committee, approved by the Administrative Committee and the Full Court, “was based on sufficient material available in the service record of the petitioner.” It found no infirmity or illegality in the orders of November 26 and November 29, 2021. It dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Praveen Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Writ-A No. 4050 of 2022
Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
Date: 12.11.2026
