Munmun Kaur
Published On: January 24, 2022 at 11:32 IST
The Orissa High Court, on January 19, dismissed a writ petition filed by former Judicial Officer Ashok Kumar Agarwala challenging the Order of compulsory retirement passed against him in 2012.
While dismissing the petition, the High Court observed that a very limited scope of judicial review is available in cases where an Order of compulsory retirement is passed.
Ashok Kumar Agarwala who was given the Order of compulsory retirement had joined the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS-II) as a probationary Munsif on November 17, 1997. He was given compulsory retirement on attaining the age of 50 years in terms of Rule 44 of the OSJS and OJS Rules, 2007. As per the said Rule 44 of the OSJS and OJS Rules 2007, the High Court is authorized to retire, in the public interest, any member of the service who has attained the age of 50 years. The Order was given for being inefficient and not meeting the required standards to discharge the duty of the post held by him.
The Registrar General of the High Court argued that the Petitioner during his service, had failed to earn even three consecutive ‘Good’ ratings and that he was also found unsuitable for promotion and ACP-II scale.
Further, there were allegations against the Petitioner, of his passing indiscriminate Orders in particular cases or failing to maintain uniformity or consistency in passing judicial Orders.
A Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray while dismissing the petition, observed, “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”.