Summary
The Court rejected a judicial officer’s challenge to compulsory retirement imposed as a disciplinary penalty. A committee’s favourable conclusions did not bind the Full Court in the absence of rules empowering the committee to act for it. The Full Court was entitled to accept the inquiry findings concerning substantial unexplained banking transactions. Having elected to argue his Article 32 petition on merits despite an earlier suggestion to approach the High Court, the officer was refused withdrawal with liberty after judgment was reserved.
Issues
- Whether favourable disciplinary-committee reports bound the Full Court.
- Whether the record justified interference with the disciplinary retirement decision and the later request for withdrawal.
Provisions considered
- Article 235, Constitution of IndiaThe cited precedent recognised authorised delegation of administrative functions; it did not make a committee’s view binding without the requisite empowering rules. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi concerned rules expressly authorising an administrative committee to act for the High Court. Recognition of that delegation did not establish that every committee report bound the Full Court. Without empowering rules, the Full Court could reach a different conclusion. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The recorded substantial deposits and withdrawals supplied no basis to say that the Full Court was unjustified in accepting the inquiry findings and recommending disciplinary compulsory retirement. (¶¶ 5, 6, 13)
- The Court had suggested the fuller remedy under Article 226, but the petitioner expressly chose a merits hearing under Article 32. His request, made after reservation of judgment, to withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court was rejected in that procedural context. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14)
- No merit was found in the petition, which was rejected. (¶ 15)
Result
Writ petition rejected; post-reservation request to withdraw with liberty to approach the High Court also refused.