Validity of State Gov't Compulsory Retirement Order Upheld; No Violation of Constitutional Provisions

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the State Government's order for compulsory retirement without salary payment, rejecting arguments of punitive nature and violation of constitutional provisions. The Court ruled that consultation with the entire High Court was not necessary, siding with the minority opinion that the Administrative Committee could act on behalf of the Court. The appeal was allowed, affirming the validity of the retirement order and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of compulsory retirement without salary payment at the time of order.
2. Whether the order of compulsory retirement is punitive and contrary to Article 311.
3. Compatibility of Article 465-A of Civil Service Regulations with Article 233 of the Constitution.
4. Relevance of character roll entries prior to crossing the efficiency bar.
5. Allegations of arbitrariness, capriciousness, and perversity in the order.
6. Application of mind by the Governor in passing the order.
7. Necessity of consultation with the entire High Court under Article 233.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Compulsory Retirement Without Salary Payment:
The respondent argued that the order of compulsory retirement was illegal as no salary was paid at the time the order was passed. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not find merit in this argument either.

2. Nature of the Order and Article 311:
The respondent contended that the order of compulsory retirement was punitive and cast a stigma, thus violating Article 311 of the Constitution. The Division Bench rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court concurred, stating that there were no words in the order casting any stigma on the respondent. The statement by the government about weeding out corrupt officials did not imply that the respondent was retired due to any strain on his character.

3. Compatibility of Article 465-A with Article 233:
The respondent argued that Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which allows the government to consult the Administrative Head before passing an order, contravenes Article 233 of the Constitution. The Division Bench rejected this argument, and the Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the power to compulsorily retire a District Judge is part of the control vested in the High Court under Article 235, not an incident of the power of appointment under Article 233.

4. Relevance of Character Roll Entries:
The respondent claimed that the order was based on irrelevant considerations as it took into account character roll entries before he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The Division Bench rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court found that even if earlier entries were ignored, there was sufficient material to justify the Administrative Committee's decision.

5. Allegations of Arbitrariness:
The respondent alleged that the order was arbitrary, capricious, and perverse, and that the satisfaction of public interest was based on no material. The Division Bench found no merit in this argument, and the Supreme Court agreed, stating that the output of the respondent was sub-standard, providing enough material for the decision.

6. Application of Mind by the Governor:
The respondent argued that the Governor passed the order without applying his mind, merely following a general policy. The Division Bench did not find this argument compelling, and the Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the High Court's recommendation was based on substantial material.

7. Necessity of Consultation with the Entire High Court:
The most significant issue was whether Article 233 required consultation with the entire High Court before making an order of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench was inclined to believe that consultation with the entire High Court was necessary, but referred the matter to a Full Bench due to potential conflicts with established practice and previous decisions. The Full Bench was divided: the majority held that the entire High Court must be consulted, while the minority believed that the Administrative Committee could act on behalf of the Court.

The Supreme Court sided with the minority opinion, stating that the High Court has the power under Article 235 to frame rules for the exercise of control over subordinate courts. The Administrative Committee acts as an instrumentality of the entire Court, not as a delegate. Therefore, the recommendation for compulsory retirement by the Administrative Committee was valid and within the constitutional framework.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, affirming the minority judgment of the Full Bench, and upheld the validity of the order passed by the State Government compulsorily retiring the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

---