Orissa High Court.
Orissa High Court.

Orissa HC upholds compulsory retirement of judicial officer for being inefficient

The ruling came on Wednesday while dismissing the petition filed by former judicial officer Ashok Kumar Agarwala challenging his compulsory retirement.

CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has ruled that there is no scope for judicial interference into compulsory retirement given to a judicial officer for being inefficient and not meeting the required standards to discharge the duty of the post held by him.

The ruling came on Wednesday while dismissing the petition filed by former judicial officer Ashok Kumar Agarwala challenging his compulsory retirement. He had joined the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS-II) as a probationary munsif on November 17, 1997.

Agarwala was an officer in the cadre of civil judge - Judicial Magistrate First Class, Motu, when he was given compulsory retirement at the age of 50 on August 23, 2012. He filed the petition challenging the order on September 30, 2014.

The division bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice BP Routray said that on an overall assessment of the personal records of the petitioner, it was found out that the emerging picture was not favourable to him. During his service career spanning 14.8 years, he was not able to get a 'good' grading for at least three consecutive years.

The bench also observed that Agarwala was not found suitable either for promotion to the higher post or for a pay hike. His performance was often rated ‘average’ and there have been allegations of his passing indiscriminate orders in cases or failing to maintain uniformity or consistency in passing judicial orders.

Charges in this regard were also framed against him in the departmental proceedings. The overall assessment of the petitioner’s entire service career is that his performance failed to meet the expected standards of competency, the bench said.

"An overall consideration of all these factors, tested on the touchstone of the standard of efficiency of the petitioner as a judicial officer reveals that the decision of authority cannot be said to be as mala fide or arbitrary or based on no evidence. Considering the scope of judicial interference in such matters involving compulsory retirement, we do not find any reason to interfere," the bench observed.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com