HC upholds compulsory retirement imposed upon a civil judge

The High Court has dismissed a petition, upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon a civil judge. "Maintenance of high degree of probity and integrity, are the hallmarks of judges. Litigants approach the court with utmost trust," Justice P S Dinesh Kumar observed while dismissing the petition filed by Shivanand Laxman Anchi.

The petitioner was appointed as a civil judge (junior division) on April 9, 2014. In 2019, he was posted as additional civil judge, JMFC, Virajpet in Kodagu district. By a notification on June 22, 2019, he was placed in-charge as civil judge and JMFC, Ponnampet with a direction to itinerate the said court for three days in a week, on every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, noticed during a surprise visit to the Virajpet court on June 27, 2019, that the petitioner-judge was signing the order sheets of the previous day and putting the date as June 26. Based on the report, Articles of Charges were issued and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was compulsorily retired on March 22, 2021.

It was contended that the petitioner had gone to Ponnampet on June 26, 2019. He could not reach Virajpet on the same day due to heavy rains and indisposition of his father and therefore, he could not conduct the court proceedings on June 26. It was submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate.

Justice Dinesh Kumar noted that the petitioner has not given any explanation to the enquiry proceedings, but placed arguments mainly on the aspect of proportionality. It was also stated that the petitioner had not put his signature in the attendance register as well.

"To record proceedings in the order sheet, which have not actually taken place is anathema to sacrosanct court proceedings and such conduct cannot be countenanced in the case of a judicial officer/judge. If this is permitted, there will be no sanctity for the proceedings. It is therefore imperative that strict action is taken,” the court said.