ORDER
1. Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/08/2006 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, whereby the petitioner, who was a Judicial Officer of the rank of Sub-Judge and who had completed the age of 50 years, was asked to compulsory retire from the service as Sub-Judge with effect from the forenoon of 28/06/2006 under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service, Code in public interest after giving three months salary in lieu of notice.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Judicial Service on 12/12/1986 as Judicial Magistrate. Vide notification dated 14th August 2002 while he was posted as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar, he was given promotion from the cadre of Munsif to the post of Sub-Judge alongwith the other Judicial Officers. His date of birth is 03/01/1954 and he was to superannuate from service after completion of the age of 60 years and, therefore, he was to continue in service till 31/01/2014. According to the petitioner, no departmental enquiry was initiated against him at any point of time and he performed his job sincerely and had good reputation at the places wherever he was posted. He was never served with any show cause notice for dereliction in duty etc. It is submitted that the petitioner was shocked to know that he was asked to compulsory retire after completing the age of 50 years in the public interest by the Governor by utilizing the power under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement is a major punishment and, therefore, without any notice to show cause or a chance of being heard such order of compulsory retirement as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, could not have been passed.
5. It is a settled law that the order of compulsory retirement does not amount to punishment and hence the principles of natural justice is not required to be observed in passing an order for compulsory retirement. Judicial review of the order is open only on grounds of malafides, arbitrariness and perversity in such matters the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit as appellate court. Reference may be made to the case of “Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. “, and in the case of “S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa reported in 1994 Supple. (3) SCC 424.”
Further grievance of the petitioner is that the Governor of the State could not have passed the order for compulsory retirement without consultation and recommendation of the High Court.
6. In order to examine as to whether the High Court was consulted in the matter as to whether High Court had recommended the Government to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code or not. The Registry of the High Court was asked to place the confidential service records as well as other records relating to the service of the petitioner before us. On perusal of the records, it appears that the Standing Committee of this Court in its meeting which was held on 12th May 2005 had taken a decision and, accordingly, a recommendation was made to the State of Jharkhand to retire the petitioner compulsorily under Rule 74 (b)(ii) of Jharkhand Service Code in the public interest, after providing him three months pay in lieu of notice. The confidential service record of the petitioner also justifies the recommendation by the High Court for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. We, after examining the relevant service record and other relevant records, are of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from malafide, arbitrariness or perversity.
7. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ application is dismissed.