*Upholds compulsory retirement of Sessions Judge
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 17: In an important judgment, the Supreme Court has spelt out the criteria required to be followed by the respective High Courts while evaluating the performance of the Judicial Officers in the absence of Annual Confidential and Self Assessment Reports.
The criteria has been elaborated while upholding the J&K High Court order regarding compulsory retirement of District and Sessions Judge, Shakti Kumar Gupta in terms of provisions of J&K Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009.
The judgment would go long way in effective assessment of the record of the members of the Higher Judicial Service for their continued utility before they attain the age of 50 years, 55 years and 58 years and taking prompt decision about premature retirement.
Under Rule 24 of the J&K Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, the High Court can evaluate the record of a Judicial Officer and in the event of a Judicial Officer being found unfit to continue in service, it is open to the High Court to prematurely retire him on attaining the age of 50, 55 and 58 years.
The decision to prematurely retire Shakti Kumar Gupta came up for consideration before the Full Court of High Court of J&K on June 3, 2013 wherein it was revealed that the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meetings held on May 21 and 29, 2013 examined the past record, annual confidential reports, work done statements and other relevant record/ material pertaining to Shakti Kumar Gupta and opined that he had lost his utility and had become deadwood.
Based on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee, the Full Court arrived at a conclusion that Shakti Kumar Gupta was not suitable to be continued in service. “The officer is incorrigible and it is not in the public interest to continue him in service as credible complaints with regard to his judicial conduct keep pouring in. The officer has lost utility and has become deadwood”, the Full Court had observed in its resolution.
The decision of the Full Court was challenged by Shakti Kumar Gupta in the Supreme Court mainly on the ground that decision was taken even in the absence of the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and by placing reliance on the “average” report for the year 2009. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
Though the Supreme Court held that treating the work and conduct of the petitioner as “average” for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 on the basis of the report for the year 2009 as not sustainable in law yet it upheld the decision of the J&K High Court regarding premature retirement of Shakti Kumar Gupta on the ground that the same was considered in the background of complaints made against him by the members of the Bar, more particularly advocates practicing in the District Consumer Forum, Srinagar followed by the complaint by the elected office bearers of the Bar Association, Srinagar, who had met the Chief Justice specially in connection with their grievances and allegations against the petitioner.
Referring to the non-submission of the “self assessment report” by the petitioner despite repeated communications, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar observed, “Without any inputs which a Judicial Officer would provide in a Self Assessment Report, the Administrative Judge can also record his views on the Judicial Officer’s reputation for honesty, integrity and impartiality and his assessment about the Judicial Officer’s attitude towards his superiors, subordinates and colleagues as well as behavior towards members of the Bar and Public”.
“Moreover, the Self Assessment Report would also not be necessary while expressing the Judicial Officers reputation in his private life or his character in his private life or for that matter the estimation of the Judicial Officer in the perception of the members of the Bar and the Public”, Supreme Court said.
About non-availability of Annual Confidential Report, Supreme Court said, “on the basis of the record accessible and available to the High Court, it is not at all difficult to evaluate the Judicial Officer in respect of his knowledge of law and procedure, about impressions during inspection (how he conducts the court, how he behaves with advocates and litigants, his clarity and understanding of the submissions made at the Bar and whether he is able to dictate from the dais at least Miscellaneous Orders), whether he is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases, whether he is an efficient Judicial Officer”.
“If the Annual Confidential Report of the officer for a particular year has not been recorded or approved by the High Court, the other record of the officer for that year would be considered for rating him”, Apex Court said, adding “the assessment standards like over all past service record of the officer, the quality of the judgments delivered by the officer, whether or not assailed before the High Court, in suits, appeals, session cases, revisions and other proceedings during the past 10 years of his service tenure, the legal acumen the judgment reveals, rate of disposal of the cases by the officer in the light of the separate criteria prescribed by the High Court for this purpose and material reflecting the character of the officer including the complaints, enquiries and Vigilance reports lodged against him can be considered while rating him”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel