Holding

The compulsory retirement orders are valid; adverse integrity entries cannot be washed off by promotions, and no ground exists for judicial review.

Summary

Two former judicial officers of Jharkhand challenged orders of compulsory retirement issued by the High Court’s Screening and Standing Committees, alleging that the committees ignored later service records, that promotions should erase earlier adverse entries, and that the retirements were not in public interest. The Supreme Court examined the law on compulsory retirement, emphasizing that such orders are not punitive, have no civil consequences, and must consider the entire service record with particular weight to integrity. It held that adverse entries relating to integrity retain their sting irrespective of promotions and that the committees’ decisions were not mala fide or arbitrary. Consequently, the Court found no ground for judicial review and dismissed both writ petitions. The judgment reaffirmed the limited scope of court intervention in high‑court committee decisions concerning judicial officers.

Issues considered

The validity of the compulsory retirement orders against the petitioners.
Whether promotions and later favourable records erase earlier adverse entries for the purpose of retirement.
Whether the Supreme Court can intervene absent allegations of mala fides or arbitrariness.
Whether the entire service record, especially integrity-related entries, must be considered in retirement decisions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 235, s. Article 310, s. Article 32
Fundamental Ruless. Rule 56(j)
Jharkhand Service Code, 2001s. Rule 74(b)(ii)

Subjects

compulsory retirementjudicial officersintegrityservice lawjudicial reviewhigh court committeeswashed-off theorypublic interest

Judgment

[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1015 1015

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA A
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 27, 2020 B
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Compulsory Retirement – Of Judicial Officers – Challenged
in Writ Petition before Supreme Court – As per direction of Supreme C
Court, Screening Committee of High Court approved earlier action
to compulsorily retire the officers – Resolution of Screening
Committee approved by Standing Committee of High Court – Held:
In respect of one officer against whom there had been complaints
that during training of Civil Service probationers, in his lectures he
D
had used highly sexist language and that he had hurt a washerman
with hot iron – The two instances are sufficient to decide the case
against him – In respect of second officer, his reputation and integrity
have been doubted on more than one occasion, his knowledge of
law and procedure had been found to be average, relations with
bar members were not very good – Adverse entries with regard to E
integrity do not lose their sting at any stage – Judicial officer’s
integrity should be of higher order, even a single aberration is not
permitted – Senior Judges of the High Court who were members of
the Screening and Standing Committees have taken considered and
well-reasoned decisions on two occasions – Supreme Court cannot
F
exercise its power of judicial review unless there is allegation of
mala fides or there are facts so glaring that the decision of compulsory
retirement is unsupportable.
Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer – Effect and criteria
for its consideration – Discussed.
G
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court
HELD : 1. The law on the subject of compulsory
retirement, especially in the case of judicial officers may be
summarised as: (i) An order directing compulsory retirement of
a judicial officer is not punitive in nature; (ii) An order directing H
1015
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil
consequences;(iii) While considering the case of a judicial officer
for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer
should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more
contemporaneous record must be given more weightage; (iv)
Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record
B
cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer
should be compulsorily retired; (v) The ‘washed off’ theory does
not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse
entries relating to integrity; (vi) The courts should exercise their
power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint
C keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial
officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high-
powered committee(s) of the High Court. [Para 16][1031-B-E]
Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha (1970) 2 SCC 458 :
[1971] 1 SCR 791 ; State of Gujarat v. Suryakant
D Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 : [1998] 3 Suppl.
SCR 293 ; Baikunta Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical
Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299 : [1992] 1 SCR 836;
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC
545 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674 ; Syed T.A. Naqshbandi
v. State of J&K (2003) 9 SCC 592 : [2003] 1 Suppl.
E SCR 114, Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand (2010)
10 SCC 693 : [2010] 11 SCR 216 ; Rajendra Singh
Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 1
: [2011] 12 SCR 496 ; R.C. Chandel v. High Court of
M.P. (2012) 8 SCC 58 : [2012] 7 SCR 205; Rajasthan
F SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir (2013) 10 SCC 551 : [2013]
11 SCR 159; High Court of Judicature of Patna v.
Shyam Deo Singh (2014) 4 SCC 773 : [2014] 4 SCR
541 ; D. Ramaswami v. State of T.N. (1982) 1 SCC 510
: [1982] 3 SCR 75 – relied on.
G 2.1 So far as the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 190 of
2018 is concerned, there are two very serious allegations against
him. The first is that when he was working as Deputy Director,
Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, as many as 10 ladies,
who were Civil Service Probationers, made allegations that he

H
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1017

was using unwarranted and objectionable language during his A
lectures, citing indecent examples and using words having double
meaning, thereby causing embarrassment to the lady officers.
The complaints show that the language used by the petitioner
during his lectures, was highly sexist. [Para 18][1031-H; 1032-
A-B]
B
2.2. There is also another allegation that he had physically
hurt a washerman by placing a hot iron on the head of the
washerman who had allegedly not ironed his clothes properly.
The Principal District Judge had reported to the High Court that
the victim had personally approached him immediately after the
occurrence and he (the Principal District Judge) found that the C
victim had sustained burn injuries and he got the victim treated.
It is true that the petitioner was exonerated by the successor
judicial officer before whom the complainant denied having
suffered any injury, but the successor Principal District Judge
did not even care to examine his predecessor Principal District D
Judge, who had not only been approached personally by the
washerman, but who had himself noted the burn injuries and had
got the victim treated. Therefore, the Screening Committee was
right that the victim may have been put under some pressure to
withdraw his complaint. [Para 19][1032-C-E]
E
2.3 The aforementioned two instances are sufficient to
decide the case against the petitioner. As regards the plea that
the Screening Committee had only taken the entries from 1992-
1993 to 2004-2005 and had ignored the entries from 2005-2006
to 2016-2017, it has been explained by counsel for the High Court
that all the ACRs were before the Screening Committee but in F
the order it is only the adverse entries which have been noted.
Even if these adverse entries are ignored, the petitioner cannot
be granted relief for the reasons aforesaid. [Para 20][1032-F-G]
3. So far as the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) NO. 391 of
2018 is concerned, his record on many counts is not at all good. G
His reputation and integrity have been doubted more than once
in the years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 2004-2005. Some adverse
remarks have been conveyed to him. In the year 2015-2016, even

H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A his knowledge of law and procedure is found to be average and
his relation with the members of the Bar was found not very good.
There are also allegations against him of having granted bail for
illegal gratification and substance has been found in this allegation
in the report of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (who is
equivalent to the Principal District Judge). The petitioner had
B
granted bail by noting in the order that Section 327 of the Penal
Code, 1860 was bailable whereas the offence is non-bailable and
an unrecorded warning regarding the integrity of the judicial
officer was issued to him in 2012. [Para 21][1032-H; 1033-A-C]
4. Adverse entries with regard to integrity do not lose their
C sting at any stage. A judicial officer’s integrity must be of a higher
order and even a single aberration is not permitted. [Para
22][1033-C-D]
5. In the present cases, the matter has been considered by
the Screening Committee on two occasions and the
D recommendations of the Screening Committee have been
accepted by the Standing Committee on both occasions. The
action taken is not by one officer or Judge, it is a collective
decision, first by the Screening Committee and then approved
by the Standing Committee. Senior judges of the High Court who
E were the members of the Screening Committee and Standing
Committee have taken a considered and well-reasoned decision.
Unless there are allegations of mala fides or the facts are so
glaring that the decision of compulsory retirement is
unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of judicial
review. In such matters the court on the judicial side must
F exercise restraint before setting aside the decision of such
collective bodies comprising of senior High Court Judges. [Paras
22 & 23][1033-D-F]
Case Law Reference

G [1971] 1 SCR 791 relied on Para 5
[1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 293 relied on Para 5
[1992] 1 SCR 836 relied on Para 6
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 674 relied on Para 7
H
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1019

[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 114 relied on Para 8 A
[2010] 11 SCR 216 relied on Para 9
[2011] 12 SCR 496 relied on Para 10
[2012] 7 SCR 205 relied on Para 11
[2013] 11 SCR 159 relied on Para 12 B
[2014] 4 SCR 541 relied on Para 13
[1982] 3 SCR 75 relied on Para 14
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
190 of 2018. C
[Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India]
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 391 of 2018.
Alakh Alok Srivastava, Ranjan Kumar Rai, S. S. Jauhar, Sankalp D
Tiwari, Nilesh Tiwari, Amit Kumar, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Sunil Kumar, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Himanshu Shekhar,
Jamnesh Kumar, Parth Shekhar, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Ms. Sukriti
Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by two erstwhile judicial
officers who were members of the judicial service in the State of
Jharkhand and are directed against the orders whereby they have been F
compulsorily retired. In respect of the two writ petitions which are the
subject matter of this judgment, this Court passed the following order on
06.09.2018:
“Writ Petition Nos. 190/2018 and 391/2018 shall remain pending.
The High Court of Jharkhand may like to reconsider the matter in G
the light of the entirety of the materials that have been placed
before us at the hearing by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand
High Court and also by the learned counsel for the High Court.
We make it clear that the High Court is free to decide the
matter as may be considered appropriate and that we have H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A expressed no opinion on merits at this stage. The High Court of
Jharkhand would be free to support its conclusions in terms of the
present order with adequate reasons.
The decision of the High Court in accordance with this order
be laid before us at the end of two months from today.
B List the matters after two months.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the matters were placed before
the Screening Committee of the High Court of Jharkhand and the
Screening Committee on 11.10.2018 again found sufficient reasons and
approved the earlier action taken to compulsorily retire these officers.
C The resolution of the Screening Committee was placed before the
Standing Committee of the Jharkhand High Court, which approved the
resolution of the screening committee on 25.10.2018.
2. Challenge is laid in both these writ petitions to the orders of
compulsory retirement and especially to the reasons assigned or the
D material ignored by the Screening Committee. The orders of compulsory
retirement have been passed in terms of the Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand
Service Code, 2001 which reads as follows:
“(ii)The appointing authority concerned may after giving a
Government servant atleast three month’s previous notice in
E writing, or an equal amount to three month’s pay and allowance in
lieu of such notice, require him in public interest to retire from the
service on the date on which such a Government servant completes
thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on
any date thereafter to be specified in the notice”
F The aforesaid rule is parimateria to Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental
Rules.
3. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are
that their retirement is not in the pubic interest: their entire service record
especially the contemporaneous record has not been taken into
G consideration and also that the petitioners have been granted various
promotions which would have the effect of washing off their previous
adverse entries, if any.
4. While deciding the present case we are conscious of the fact
that we are dealing with the cases of judicial officers. The standard of
H integrity and probity expected from judicial officers is much higher than
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1021
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

that expected from other officers. Keeping these factors in mind we A
shall first discuss the law on the subject and then take up these two
cases on merits.
Principles Governing Compulsory Retirement
5. This Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha1 held that
compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences. It also dealt B
with the issue of what constitutes public interest. The following
observations are apposite:
“9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j)
it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire
a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public C
interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority
is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the
conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned
authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so.
If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of D
that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an
aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been
formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is
an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion
formed by the Government on the ground of mala fide. But that
ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The E
same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not
attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed
or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the
conditions of the 1st respondent’s service is that the Government
can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if F
it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his
compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired
by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves
no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56(j) is
not intended for taking any penal action against the
Government servants. That rule merely embodies one of G
the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310
of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the
appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under
the rule. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular
1
(1970) 2 SCC 458 H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer
more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the
officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate
authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further
be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a
person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is
B
no denying the fact that in all organizations and more so in
Government organizations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is
in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56(j)
holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government
servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service
C is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given
power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by
compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there
in public interest.
xxx xxx xxx
D 11. In our opinion the High Court erred in thinking that the
compulsory retirement involves civil consequences. Such
a retirement does not take away any of the rights that have accrued
to the Government servant because of his past service. It cannot
be said that if the retiring age of all or a section of the Government
E servants is fixed at 50 years, the same would involve civil
consequences. Under the existing system there is no uniform
retirement age for all Government servants. The retirement age
is fixed not merely on the basis of the interest of the Government
servant but also depending on the requirements of the society.”

F (emphasis supplied)
This judgment was followed in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant
Chunilal Shah2, wherein this Court dealt with the concept of public
interest in great detail.
6. A three-Judge Bench inBaikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt.
G Medical Officer3 dealing with the concept of compulsory retirement
laid down the following principles:

2
(1999) 1 SCC 529
H 3
(1992) 2 SCC 299
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1023
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

“34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: A
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It
implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming
the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government
servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective B
satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of
an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that
judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court
or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate C
court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is
passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or
(c) that it is arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person
would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short,
if it is found to be a perverse order. D
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case
may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service
before taking a decision in the matter — of course attaching
more importance to record of and performance during the later
years. The record to be so considered would naturally include E
the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both
favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted
to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such
remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based
upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
F
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed
by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it
uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into
consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis
for interference.
G
Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii)
above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.”
7. In Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, though this Court
came to the conclusion that the compulsory retirement awarded to the
4
(2003) 6 SCC 545 H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A applicant was not in consonance with the law, it did not give relief to the
petitioner on the ground that even under Article 235 of the Constitution
of India, the High Court can assess the performance of any judicial
officer at any time with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out
the dead wood. This Court held that this constitutional power of the
High Court is not circumscribed by any rule. Reference may be made to
B
paras 40 and 47 of the judgment:
“40. Article 235 of the Constitution of India enables the High
Court to assess the performance of any judicial officer at any
time with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out the
deadwood. This constitutional power of the High Court cannot be
C circumscribed by any rule or order.
xxx xxx xxx
47. In the instant case, we are dealing with the higher judicial
officers. We have already noticed the observations made by the
D Committee of three Judges. The nature of judicial service is such
that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of
doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.”
8. In Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State of J & K,5, this Court held
that while exercising powers of judicial review the Courts should not
E substitute themselves for the Committee/Full Court of the High Court.
The following observations are pertinent:
“10…Neither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its
powers of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute
themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High
F Court concerned, to make an independent reassessment of the
same, as if sitting on an appeal. On a careful consideration of the
entire materials brought to our notice by learned counsel on either
side, we are satisfied that the evaluation made by the Committee/
Full Court forming their unanimous opinion is neither so arbitrary
or capricious nor can be said to be so irrational as to shock the
G conscience of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. In
cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions,
a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and
no one factor should be allowed to be overblown out of proportion
either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to
5
H (2003) 9 SCC 592
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1025
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things it would be A
difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise
undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an
extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some
monstrous thing which ought not to have taken place has really
happened and not merely because there could be another possible
B
view or someone has some grievance about the exercise
undertaken by the Committee/Full Court…”
9. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand6, dealing with a
case of judicial officers,this Court in relation to the powers under the
same rule, after referring to a number of judgments, summarised the
law on the point as follows: C

“18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect
that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it
does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a
punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory
rules. [See Surender Kumar v. Union of India] [(2010) 1 SCC D
158]. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect
of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry,
as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory
performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an
employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said Authority, E
the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person
and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the
employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is
no occasion for the court to interfere in the exercise of its limited
power of judicial review.”
F
10. In Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi)7,
this Court was dealing with the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer
from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. It was held that if the authority
bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is
doubtful and it is in public interest to compulsorily retire such judicial
officer, judicial review of such order should be made with great care and G
circumspection. It was specifically observed that when an order of
compulsory retirement is passed, the authority concerned has to take
into consideration the whole service record of the concerned officer
6
(2010) 10 SCC 693
7
(2011) 10 SCC 1 H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A which could include non-communicated adverse remarks also. It would
be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court:
“218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be
held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming
their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor
B can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of
this Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such
assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range
of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor
should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or
deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or
C asserted. In the very nature of things, it would be difficult, nearing
almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the
Full Court to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when
the Court is convinced that some real injustice, which ought not to
have taken place, has really happened and not merely because
D there could be another possible view or someone has some
grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full
Court.
219. Viewed thus, and considered in the background of the factual
details and materials on record, there is absolutely no need or
E justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned
proceedings. Therefore, the three appeals fail and are dismissed.
Having regard to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.”
11. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M. P.8, this Court, after
F dealing with the entire law on the subject, framed the following 3 questions
of law:
“18. The questions that fall for consideration are:
(1) Whether the recommendation made by the High Court on the
basis of unanimous opinion to the Government for compulsory
G retirement of the appellant and the order of compulsory retirement
issued by the Government suffer from any legal flaw?
(2) Is the order of compulsory retirement so arbitrary or irrational
that justifies interference in judicial review?
8
H (2012) 8 SCC 58
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1027
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

(3) Is the view of the Division Bench upholding the order of the A
appellant’s compulsory retirement so erroneous warranting
interference by this Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India?”
The Court took note of the fact that the appellant before ithad
been promoted and confirmed as District Judge and was also given B
selection grade and super time scale etc., but it held that these promotions
would not wash off the earlier adverse entries which shall remain on
record. It would be pertinent to refer to paragraphs 26 and 29 of the
judgment which read as follows:
“26. It is true that the appellant was confirmed as District Judge C
in 1985; he got lower selection grade with effect from 24-3-1989;
he was awarded super timescale in May 1999 and he was also
given above super timescale in 2002 but the confirmation as District
Judge and grant of selection grade and super timescale do not
wipe out the earlier adverse entries which have remained on record
and continued to hold the field. The criterion for promotion or D
grant of increment or higher scale is different from an exercise
which is undertaken by the High Court to assess a judicial officer’s
continued utility to the judicial system. In assessing potential for
continued useful service of a judicial officer in the system, the
High Court is required to take into account the entire service E
record. Overall profile of a judicial officer is the guiding factor.
Those of doubtful integrity, questionable reputation and wanting
in utility are not entitled to benefit of service after attaining the
requisite length of service or age.
xxx xxx xxx F
29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the
Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office;
their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In
discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the
State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A G
Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable
independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral
values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured
that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver
justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an
ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the
society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society
cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness
required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above
suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon
B
the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of
law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be
strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with
integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.”
12. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir9, this Court held as
C follows:
“23. The principle of law which is clarified and stands crystallised
after the judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand is
that after the promotion of an employee the adverse entries prior
thereto would have no relevance and can be treated as wiped off
D when the case of the government employee is to be considered
for further promotion. However, this “washed-off theory” will
have no application when the case of an employee is being assessed
to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires
to be given compulsory retirement. The rationale given is that
E since such an assessment is based on “entire service record”,
there is no question of not taking into consideration the earlier old
adverse entries or record of the old period. We may hasten to add
that while such a record can be taken into consideration, at the
same time, the service record of the immediate past period will
have to be given due credence and weightage. For example, as
F against some very old adverse entries where the immediate past
record shows exemplary performance, ignoring such a record of
recent past and acting only on the basis of old adverse entries, to
retire a person will be a clear example of arbitrary exercise of
power. However, if old record pertains to integrity of a
G person then that may be sufficient to justify the order of
premature retirement of the government servant.”
(emphasis supplied)

9
H (2013) 10 SCC 551
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1029
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

The view in Pyare Mohan Lal(supra) was reiterated. The only A
caveat being that the entire record should be taken into consideration
and the earlier record even after promotions could not be ignored.
13. In High Court of Judicature of Patnav.Shyam Deo Singh10,
this Court was dealing with a case where a judicial officer was retired at
the age of 58 years and was denied the benefit of service of 2 years. B
This Court has held as follows:
“8. The importance of the issue can hardly be gainsaid. The
evaluation of the service record of a judicial officer for the purpose
of formation of an opinion as to his/her potential for continued
useful service is required to be made by the High Court which C
obviously means the Full Court on the administrative side. In all
High Courts such evaluation, in the first instance, is made by a
committee of senior Judges. The decision of the Committee is
placed before the Full Court to decide whether the recommendation
of the Committee should be accepted or not. The ultimate decision
is always preceded by an elaborate consideration of the matter D
by the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court who are familiar with
the qualities and attributes of the judicial officer under consideration.
This is also what had happened in the present case. The very
process by which the decision is eventually arrived at, in our view,
should permit a limited judicial review and it is only in a rare case E
where the decision taken is unsupported by any material or the
same reflects a conclusion which, on the face of it, cannot be
sustained that judicial review would be permissible.”
Washed off theory
14. One of the main arguments raised by the petitioners is that F
since the petitioners have been promoted to various higher posts, their
record prior to the promotion will lose its sting and is not of much value.
Reliance is placed on the observations of this Court in D. Ramaswami
v. State of T. N.11 wherein this Court held as follows:
“4. In the face of the promotion of the appellant just a few months G
earlier and nothing even mildly suggestive of ineptitude or
inefficiency thereafter, it is impossible to sustain the order of the
Government retiring the appellant from service. The learned
10
(2014) 4 SCC 773
11
(1982) 1 SCC 510 H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu argued that the Government
was entitled to take into consideration the entire history of the
appellant including that part of it which was prior to his promotion.
We do not say that the previous history of a government servant
should be completely ignored, once he is promoted. Sometimes,
past events may help to assess present conduct. But when there
B
is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom
of the promotion, we see no justification for needless digging into
the past.”
15. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in
Pyare Mohan Lal (supra) in which while dealing with the concept of
C washed off theory, this Court after dealing with the entire case law on
the subject held as follows:
“24. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state
that in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of
this Court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed.
D More so, the washed-off theory does not have universal application.
It may have relevance while considering the case of government
servant for further promotion but not in a case where the employee
is being assessed by the reviewing authority to determine whether
he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory
E retirement, as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into
consideration his “entire service record”.
xxx xxx xxx
29. The law requires the authority to consider the “entire service
record” of the employee while assessing whether he can be given
F compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse
entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had
been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries. More so,
a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in
remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement. The
G case of a judicial officer is required to be examined, treating him
to be different from other wings of the society, as he is serving
the State in a different capacity. The case of a judicial officer is
considered by a committee of Judges of the High Court duly
constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and then the report
of the Committee is placed before the Full Court. A decision is
H taken by the Full Court after due deliberation on the matter.
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1031
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

Therefore, there is hardly any chance to make the allegations of A
non-application of mind or mala fides.”
16. The law on the subject of compulsory retirement, especially in
the case of judicial officers may be summarised as follows:
(i) An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer
is not punitive in nature; B

(ii) An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer
has no civil consequences;
(iii) While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory
retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into C
consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must
be given more weightage;
(iv) Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record
cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be
compulsorily retired; D
(v) The ‘washed off’ theory does not apply in case of judicial
officers specially in respect ofadverse entries relating to integrity;
(vi) The courts should exercise their power of judicial review with
great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that
compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the E
recommendation of a high-powered committee(s) of the High Court.
It is in the light of the aforesaid law that we will now consider the
factual aspects of the present case.
17. In view of the fact that the Screening Committee has given
detailed reasoning only after the orders of this Court referred to above F
and in view of the limited scope of judicial review when there are no
allegations of mala fide, we would have avoided giving reasons to uphold
such an order since it does not amount to punishment and is not penal in
nature. However, since the petitioners have insisted that there is no
material against them, we have no option but to refer to some of the G
reasons given by the Screening Committee.
Case of Shri Arun Kumar Gupta
18. As far as Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta is concerned, there are two
very serious allegations against him. The first is that when he was
working as Deputy Director, Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R.

A as many as 10 ladies, who were Civil Service Probationers, made
allegations that he was using unwarranted and objectionable language
during his lectures, citing indecent examples and using words having
double meaning, thereby causing embarrassment to the lady officers.
We have perused the complaints which are filed with the reply and the
common refrain is that the language used by Mr. Gupta during his lectures
B
was highly sexist.
19. There is also another allegation that he had physically hurt a
washerman by placing a hot iron on the head of the washerman who
had allegedly not ironed his clothes properly. It would be pertinent to
mention that the Principal District Judge had reported to the High Court
C that the victim had personally approached him immediately after the
occurrence and he (the Principal District Judge) found that the victim
had sustained burn injuries and he got the victim treated. It is true that
Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta was exonerated by the successor judicial officer
before whom the complainant denied having suffered any injury but we
D may note that this is a preliminary inquiry and the successor Principal
District Judge did not even care to examine his predecessor Principal
District Judge, who had not only been approached personally by the
washerman, but who had himself noted the burn injuries and had got the
victim treated. Therefore, we are of the view that the Screening
Committee was right that the victim may have been put under some
E pressure to withdraw his complaint. These occurrences are of the year
2011-2012 and cannot be said to be very old.
20. In our view, the aforementioned two instances are sufficient
to decide the case against the petitioner. We may also note that Shri
Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
F has urged that the Screening Committee had only taken the entries from
1992-1993 to 2004-2005 and had ignored the entries from 2005-2006 to
2016-2017. As explained by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the High Court, all the ACRs were before the Screening
Committee but in the order it is only the adverse entries which have
G been noted. Be that as it may, we are of the view that even if these
adverse entries are ignored, the petitioner cannot be granted relief for
the reasons aforesaid.
Case of Shri Raj Nandan Rai
21. As far as this officer is concerned, we find that his record on
H many counts is not at all good. His reputation and integrity have been
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 1033
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

doubted more than once in the years 1996-1997, 1997-1998 and 2004- A
2005. Some adverse remarks have been conveyed to him. In the year
2015-2016, even his knowledge of law and procedure is found to be
average and his relation with the members of the Bar was found not
very good. There are also allegations against him of having granted bail
for illegal gratification and substance has been found in this allegation in
B
the report of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (who is equivalent to the
Principal District Judge). The officer had granted bail by noting in the
order that Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was bailable
whereas the offence is non-bailable and an unrecorded warning regarding
the integrity of the judicial officer was issued to him in 2012.
Conclusion C

22. As is obvious from the law quoted above, adverse entries with
regard to integrity do not lose their sting at any stage. A judicial officer’s
integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not
permitted. As far as the present cases are concerned, the matter has
been considered by the Screening Committee on two occasions and the D
recommendations of the Screening Committee have been accepted by
the Standing Committee on both occasions. The action taken is not by
one officer or Judge, it is a collective decision, first by the Screening
Committee and then approved by the Standing Committee.
23. Senior judges of the High Court who were the members of E
the Screening Committee and Standing Committee have taken a
considered and well-reasoned decision. Unless there are allegations of
mala fides or the facts are so glaring that the decision of compulsory
retirement is unsupportable this court would not exercise its power of
judicial review. In such matters the court on the judicial side must exercise F
restraint before setting aside the decision of such collective bodies
comprising of senior High Court Judges. In our opinion these are not fit
cases to interfere with the said decisions.
24. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Any pending application(s) shall stand(s) disposed of. G

Kalpana K. Tripathy Writ petitions dismissed.

H