The Allahabad High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of Judicial Officer Ramesh Kumar Yadav, holding that even a single adverse entry relating to integrity is sufficient to justify such action. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh delivered the judgment on 22 April 2025 in Writ-A No. 12020 of 2022, dismissing Yadav’s challenge to the State Government’s retirement order.
Background:
Ramesh Kumar Yadav, who entered judicial service as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 24 March 2001 and later rose to the Higher Judicial Service, was compulsorily retired by the State Government on 29 November 2021 following a recommendation from the High Court’s Full Court based on a Screening Committee’s report. His superannuation was otherwise due in February 2026.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Appearing in person, Yadav contended that there was no sufficient adverse material warranting compulsory retirement. He argued that the Screening Committee had improperly relied on irrelevant materials while ignoring his positive service record. He emphasized that vigilance inquiries had exonerated him from allegations of granting bail orders for extraneous considerations.
Yadav specifically challenged reliance on:
- An adverse integrity remark recorded for the year 2008-09.
- An advisory issued on a complaint from the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat.
- A censure entry relating to unauthorized sale and purchase of a revolver and irregularities in judicial orders.
He cited several Supreme Court decisions including Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (1992) and Madan Mohan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (1993).
Respondents’ Arguments:
Representing the High Court and the State Government, Advocate Ashish Mishra asserted that sufficient adverse material existed on record, justifying the action taken. He emphasized that under law, even a single adverse entry touching on integrity could be the basis for compulsory retirement. Reliance was placed on judgments including Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand (2010).
Court’s Analysis:
The Court carefully examined the service record and adverse materials cited:
- It held that the adverse integrity remark for 2008-09 had attained finality and constituted relevant material.
- The advisory issued to Yadav, though not an adverse entry by itself, could be considered during overall service evaluation.
- The censure entry awarded after a vigilance inquiry in 2012 was found valid and not under challenge.
The Court noted that the adverse remark for 2018-19 by the District Judge, Chandauli, had been expunged and thus could not be considered.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pyare Mohan Lal, the Bench observed that “a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement.”
The Court further emphasized the unique standards expected of judicial officers, observing that “the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function” and that judges must demonstrate “impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence.“
Decision:
Finding that the adverse integrity remark and the censure entry provided sufficient basis for forming the opinion that Yadav was not fit to continue in service, the Court refused to interfere with the Full Court’s recommendation and the State Government’s decision. It held that the compulsory retirement was not punitive, and the action was taken in public interest to maintain the dignity and trust in the judicial system.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Citation:
Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others, Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:60142-DB
