Judicial Officer Holds a Public Trust; Integrity Must Be 'Impeccable' and 'Unimpeachable': Allahabad High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement

"Even A Single Adverse Entry Regarding Integrity Sufficient To Order Compulsory Retirement In Judicial Service," Allahabad High Court emphasizing the high standards of probity expected from judicial officers. The Court upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a judicial officer, noting that in judicial service, even a single adverse entry regarding integrity may suffice for compulsory retirement.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh firmly asserted that "a Judge holds the office of a public trust" and that judicial officers must embody "impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence" both professionally and personally.

The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Yadav, a Judicial Officer appointed in 2001 and promoted into the Higher Judicial Service in 2015, challenged his compulsory retirement ordered by the State Government on 29 November 2021, based on recommendations from a Screening Committee and Full Court of the Allahabad High Court.

The petitioner argued that the Screening Committee erred by considering irrelevant material and overlooking positive aspects of his service. He also contended that adverse remarks against him had either been resolved or were pending adjudication, and thus could not legally support compulsory retirement.

The main legal question was whether the decision of compulsory retirement was justified and whether it was based on relevant material properly forming the Screening Committee’s opinion.

The Court emphasized that: "The ordinary litigant must have complete faith in the judicial system and no impression can be afforded to be given to a litigant which may even remotely create perception against the justice delivery system."

Relying heavily on precedent, including Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer (1992) 2 SCC 299, the Court reiterated that orders of compulsory retirement are not punitive and that the sufficiency of material is not open to judicial review unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no material.

It underlined: "The law requires the authority to consider the 'entire service record'... More so, a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement."

The Court extensively examined the service record and adverse materials, including:
•    A 2008-09 integrity remark where the Administrative Judge recorded: "Integrity not certified/doubtful. On overall assessment, he is not a good officer."
•    An advisory issued in 2011 warning the petitioner to be more careful.
•    A censure entry awarded in 2012 for selling a revolver to a private person and for mishandling judicial orders concerning confiscation proceedings.

Although an adverse remark for 2018-19 by the District Judge, Chandauli, was later expunged, the Court found that the previous adverse materials were enough to support the Screening Committee’s recommendation.

Significantly, the Court observed: "Out of material relied upon against the petitioner, the adverse remark of the Administrative Judge for the year 2008-09 as also the censure entry awarded in 2012 in itself, were sufficient to come to the conclusion that continuance of petitioner in employment is not warranted."

The Court noted that in judicial service, the expectation of behavior and integrity is far higher: "A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is a pious duty. Standards of probity and conduct must be unimpeachable."

Finally, the Court clarified that while minor faults can sometimes be overlooked in other government services, judicial officers must maintain a higher threshold of personal and professional integrity to sustain public faith.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court held that the compulsory retirement of Ramesh Kumar Yadav was justified, having been based on relevant materials and due process. The judgment reaffirms the stringent standards of conduct expected from the judiciary and the limited scope of judicial review against orders of compulsory retirement.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2025