The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement for a public servant must be based on public interest, consideration of the entire service record with emphasis on later entries, and lack of stigma, in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court.

F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

The petitioner has come forward with the prsent Writ Petition, challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed in G.O.Ms.No.64 Home (Courts-IA) Department, dated 21-01-1999 as well as the subsequent order in letter No.15741/Courts-IA/99 dated 10-11-1999.

2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Neyveli. He joined the services of the Judiciary as Judicial II Class Magistrate under G.O.Ms.No.918 Home dated 21-4-1981. Previously, he was employed as Assistant in the Prohibition and Excise Department in the state of Tamil Nadu. He was posted as Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Vilathikulam on 4-3-1982. His date of birth is 30-7-1948. So, in the second half of 1998, the case of the petitioner was ripe for review under FR 56(2) by the Review Committee as he was 50 years at that point of time. The petitioner's records were considered by the Review Committee along with certain other officers and it was resolved not to recommend the petitioner for continuance in service beyond the age of 50 years and that in the public interest, he should be compulsorily retired. The recommendation of the Review Committee was placed before the Full Court which also approved the minutes of the Review Committee, recommending the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Based on the recommendation of the Full Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 21-1-1999. Against which, the petitioner preferred a review and as there was no provision for review, the same was also rejected.

3. Mr.K.Chandru, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that during the period of his service as Judicial Officer, the petitioner had unblemished record of service except on one occasion where a remark came to be made in the year 1994 to the effect that he must improve his performance; that even the said remark was communicated to the petitioner only on 11-9-1996; that on 9-6-1998 another communication was served on him where again it was mentioned "... poor disposal', for lack of procedural laws and lack of aptitude of hard work"; and that at that point of time, as the Court was newly set up, the petitioner did not have the assistance of the Steno-typist. According to the petitioner, the then District Judge, Cuddalore who was presiding over the Court in the year 1996-97 was prejudiced against him and therefore, the said remarks came to be made. It was contended that as there was no indication in the communication served on him, within which time, he should submit his reply, he could not respond to the said communication. It is, therefore, contended that barring the above, when the performance is considered, the disposal of the cases was substantial, except when he came to be posted as District Munsif. According to the petitioner, all along he was manning only Criminal Courts as Judicial Magistrate and therefore, when he came to be posted as District Munsif to handle the civil cases, due to initial hurdles though the disposals were not appreciable, that cannot be a ground for taking the extreme step of compulsorily retiring him from the service. The learned Senior counsel contended that when there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner and since the lack of performance was the only allegation against him, the petitioner ought not to have been compulsorily retired as it caused extreme hardship to the petitioner.

4. As against the above submissions, learned Spl.Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents after placing the personal record of the petitioner before us, contended that the overall performance of the petitioner was very poor, that there were adverse entries against the petitioner, some of which were also communicated to the petitioner and in the circumstances, as the continuation of the petitioner in service beyond 50 years was found to be not in public interest, the respondents had no other option except