Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. The Appellant, a judicial officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge, assails his order of compulsory retirement dated 03.05.2016 at 56 years of age Under Rule 56 (C) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
2. The Appellant while posted as a Chief Judicial Magistrate granted acquittal to the Accused on 17.09.2007 in Criminal Case No. 4670 of 2005 "State v. Mohd. Ayub" Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint was lodged against the Appellant with regard to the acquittal. After calling for comments from the Appellant, and perusing the judgment and the order of reversal in appeal, the Administrative Judge on 24.02.2009 recommended an enquiry. A vigilance enquiry, V.B. Enquiry No. 26/2009, was held by the OSD, Enquiry, High Court of Allahabad. The enquiry report dated 10.05.2012 was adverse to the Appellant. His comments were called for on 28.06.2012. On 20.12.2012, the Appellant was informed that on basis of the enquiry, a censure entry had been recorded in his character roll. The order of punishment was accepted by the Appellant without any challenge. On 01.04.2016, a committee of three Hon'ble Judges constituted for screening of judicial officers for compulsorily retirement under the Rules recommended the compulsory retirement of the Appellant which was endorsed by the Full Court on 14.04.2016 leading to the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The challenge laid out by the Appellant to his order of retirement before the High Court was unsuccessful and thus the present appeal.
3. Learned senior Counsel Shri R. Basant, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that since joining the service in 1996-97 as a Civil Judge (Jr. Division) his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) till 2014-15 certify his integrity. The quota of cases allocated to the Appellant being inadequate, his percentage of work was considered adequate. The adverse remark in 1996-97 for below performance had been expunged. An error of judgment in deciding a criminal case, while discharging judicial functions, cannot ipso facto lead to an inference of dishonesty. There was in fact no material to infer dishonesty or lack of integrity on part of the Appellant in granting acquittal in the criminal case. Merely because a different view was possible does not justify the extreme step of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement being stigmatic in nature, the failure to hold departmental enquiry vitiate........