E-Paper
HC upholds premature retirement of Punjab judicial officer couple
The civil judge (senior division), Ravinder Kumar Condal and his wife, additional district judge, Asha Condal, were ordered to be retired in 2015 and 2017, respectively, on attaining the age of 50 years, by the governor, on the recommendation of the high court.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the government’s 2015 orders for the premature retirement of a Punjab judicial officer couple.
The civil judge (senior division), Ravinder Kumar Condal and his wife, additional district judge, Asha Condal, were ordered to be retired in 2015 and 2017, respectively, on attaining the age of 50 years, by the governor, on the recommendation of the high court.
The duo had challenged the move in 2021 in different petitions and also sought their reinstatement.
The duo faced allegations of corruption/ illegal gratification and amassing property beyond the known sources of their income. Another reason was of adverse remarks in their annual confidential reports (ACRs) by the administrative judges from the high court in different years. The husband had joined the judicial service in February 1996 as a civil judge junior (division) while the wife had joined on the same post in March 1996. In both cases, adverse entries in their ACRs started reflecting mainly from 2009 onwards, and in 2010 -2011 court also received complaints of corruption against them, looked into by the disciplinary committee and vigilance, in which they were indicted.
The court observed that once there are certain remarks in the ACRs, which have been scrutinised by the administrative committee of the high court and thereafter the full court, the court on the judicial side cannot delve into the “adequacy/sufficiency of the material in this regard, keeping in view the limited scope of interference in exercise of powers of judicial review”.
“We are not impressed by the argument …that the petitioners had an unblemished service record and only one ACR, wherein they were ranked as ‘B Average’, cannot be a basis for retiring them prematurely. A careful perusal of the ACRs would show that there were repeated observations/remarks, including those pertaining to the honesty/integrity of the petitioners, starting from the year 2009 onwards itself. The high court has, therefore, kept in mind the overall service record and placed reliance upon the later ACRs before coming to the conclusion to retire the petitioners compulsorily,” the bench of justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor recorded.
The court further added that after examining the ACRs, it comes to fore that the observations regarding integrity were not merely based upon the disciplinary proceedings, besides the fact that “other shortcomings like punctuality, shirking or work etc. were also observed”.
The court also ruled out allegations of bias levelled by the couple against one administrative judge, noting that the adverse remarks/observations were found in reports of the other two administrative Judges also. Also, the judge, against whom allegations were levelled, retired in 2013, but premature retirement orders were passed subsequently.
However, the court did not agree with the decision to order recovery from the husband for the suspension period between 2012-2015, after the premature retirement and quashed the recovery notice of ₹23.85 lakh.
