Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of UP Judicial Officer Over Adverse Service Record

The Supreme Court docket immediately upheld the obligatory retirement of an Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officer based mostly on hostile service document entries towards him.

Notably, allegations towards the judicial officer included that of passing bail orders for extraneous issues.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Ok Vinod Chandran was coping with the petitioner-judicial officer’s problem to an Allahabad High Court order of April, whereby his obligatory retirement was upheld.

“The odd litigant will need to have full religion within the judicial system and no impression will be afforded to be given to a litigant which can even remotely create notion towards the justice supply system”, the impugned order famous.

Throughout immediately’s listening to, Justice Sundresh famous {that a} Full Bench of the Excessive Court docket had arrived on the choice to obligatory retire the petitioner and there have been service data to assist the choice. “The place is the query of conducting enquiry?” the choose requested Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was showing for the petitioner.

“Usually we do…we want to keep away from embarrassment to the officer by giving a [golden handshake] and say alright…in any other case, in order for you, we’ll ask them to border prices and conduct enquiry…you can be completed. That’s the reason, we usually dispense with this”, Justice Sundresh added.

Pracha argued that there was no proof towards the petitioner by any means and he had an impeccable document, together with getting an appraisal on the age of fifty. The counsel additional submitted that the petitioner was promoted after the service entries, based mostly on which he was compulsorily retired, have been made. “I’ve been exonerated on all counts…”, Pracha submitted.

Unconvinced, Justice Sundresh commented, “there is no query of washing off in these issues…please give some credence to the knowledge of the total courtroom”.

The choose additionally expressed that the Court docket takes strict view towards judicial officers solely sparingly. “Take it from us, we have now enough expertise of those issues, […] is as a final resort solely…preliminary stage, stage 1 stage 2 – we are likely to ignore, giving the advantage of doubt to the officers. Then we name them, warn them. If anyone is in hostile […] repeatedly, in just one out of ten, we take motion”, mentioned Justice Sundresh.

“And solely to make sure that the system isn’t burdened”, added Justice Chandran.

Insofar as Pracha tried to assail the Full Bench’s view towards the petitioner by saying that some highly effective individuals have been concerned, the bench retorted, “this story we do not admire”. Finally, the petition was dismissed.

Background

Petitioner was initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Decide (Junior Division) on 24.03.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted as Civil Decide (Senior Division) and was granted additional promotion to the Greater Judicial Service below rule 22(1) of the U.P. Greater Judicial Service Guidelines, 1975.

As per his date of beginning, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation within the month of February, 2026. Nonetheless, vide order dated 29.11.2021, he was compulsorily retired from service by resorting to powers below the Monetary Hand Ebook (Vol. II, Half II to IV) learn with amended basic rule 56(C).

On the time of passing of the order, he was posted as Particular Decide (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act) at Kaushambi. Petitioner challenged the order of obligatory retirement earlier than the Excessive Court docket on grounds that the fabric which confirmed his benefit and steady passable work had been omitted and never thought-about by the Screening Committee whereas recommending his obligatory retirement.

In April, 2025, upholding the petitioner’s obligatory retirement, the Excessive Court docket observed that the advisory issued to him to watch out in future was not challenged by him and censure entry made towards him had attained finality. Additional, the hostile remarks for the yr 2018-19 by the District Decide, Chandauli within the confidential roll had additionally not been interfered by the Excessive Court docket.

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR YADAV Versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 17129/2025