Writ Petition No. 1751 Of 2011. Case: Mahendrakumar Harmansingh Siriya Vs The Hon ble Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1751 Of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhkoni with Mr. Pramod G. Kuthane and Yogesh S. Sankpal and For Respondents: Mr. P.S. Dani with Mr. Prasad Kulkarni |
| Judges | Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud & A. A. Sayed, JJ. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 - Rule 19; Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 10(4) |
| Citation | 2012 (2) AllMR 182, 2012 (2) BomCR 95, 2012 (2) MahLJ 598 |
| Judgement Date | November 14, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.
-
The Petitioner has been retired prematurely from judicial service in public interest under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules 2008 read with subrule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Petitioner joined judicial service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 29 March 1996. The Petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 11 October 2010. The Review Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and the four senior most Judges held a meeting on 19 October 2010 for considering the cases of judicial officers for review and continuation in judicial service beyond the age of 50, 55 and 58 as the case may be. As regards the Petitioner, the following decision was arrived at:
"The Annual Confidential Reports of the above Judicial Officer for the latest period i.e. 20042005 and 20052006 show that his integrity can be doubted. In the Annual Confidential Report for the years 20072008, the Hon ble Guardian Judge made '' observations that the Judicial Officer needs to improve his disposal. Thus the record shows that the integrity of this officer is doubtful, whereas, even after putting in 14 years of service it was found that he needs improvement in his disposal. In view of this, the Committee is of the opinion that Shri M.H. Siriya does not deserve to be continued in the Judicial Service beyond the age of 55 years. "
-
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that two reasons have been adduced by the Review Committee: (i) The ACRs for 20045 and 20056 show that the integrity of the officer can be doubted; and " " (ii) For the year 20078 the Guardian Judge had made observations in the ACR that the Officer needed to improve his disposal. On the issue of integrity the Review Committee noted that the record showed that the integrity of the officer is doubtful. The first submission is that the ACRs for the " " two years which reflected adversely on the integrity of the Petitioner stated that the integrity can be doubted which, it is urged, must be distinguished from a situation where integrity is doubted. The second limb of the submission is that the doubt about the integrity of the Petitioner was based on a single instance where the Petitioner had ordered the release of certain vehicles. This order of the Petitioner, it was contended, was confirmed by the Revisional Court. Thirdly it has been urged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial