IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
G. Kalavathi – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 16657 of 2020, W.M.P. No. 20653 of 2020
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Compulsory Retirement - Judicial Officer - F.R.56(2), Hindu Succession Act, Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the petitioner's compulsory retirement in public interest, considering her service records, integrity, and overall reputation in the Judicial Department. The decision-making process satisfied the requirements to invoke F.R.56(2). The court emphasized the need to consider the entire service records of the Judicial Officer while assessing compulsory retirement in public interest, especially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, challenged the order of compulsory retirement in public interest. The decision was based on her service records, integrity, and overall reputation in the Judicial Department. The petitioner contended that a single incident of passing a judgment in a Civil Suit should not be a ground for compulsory retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision-making process satisfied the requirements to invoke F.R.56(2) for compulsory retirement in public interest. The court emphasized the need to consider the entire service records of the Judicial Officer while assessing compulsory retirement, especially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest was justified based on her service records, integrity, and overall reputation in the Judicial Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider the entire service records of the Judicial Officer while assessing compulsory retirement in public interest, especially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity. The decision-making process satisfied the requirements to invoke F.R.56(2) for compulsory retirement.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest was justified based on her service records, integrity, and overall reputation in the Judicial Department.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.MS.No.474 Public (Special.A) Department dated 23.09.2020 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in notification No.113 of 2020 and the O.M in R.O.C.No.4021/2019/b1/Spl.Cell dated 29.09.2020 and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as District Judge with all consequential and other attendant benefits.)
1. The list on hand has been instituted challenging the order of Compulsory retirement in public interest, issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.474 Public (Special.A) Department dated 23.09.2020 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in notification No.113 of 2020 dated 29.09.2020. Further direction is sought for to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential and attendant service benefits.
Petitioner's Case:
2. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 02.03.1998. She was promoted as Sub-Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division) on 16.09.2009. Subsequently, she was promoted as District Judge with effect from 14.09.2015. The petitioner was holding the post of Principle Sub-Judge at Coimbatore for the period between 19.01.2015 and 12.09.2015.
3. One C.S.Arumugham Pillai who owned large extent of properties in prime locality of Coimbatore City had executed a Will dated 29.08.1932 dedicating 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties to the Mahaliamman Temple and Vigneswarar Koil creating life estate to his wife Sadachiammal in respect of 'A' Schedule properties. His only son Manickam Pillai had predeceased leaving behind his parents and his wife Vijayammal. The said Arumugham Pillai died in 1946. The said Vijayammal filed a suit in O.S.No.191 of 1937 claiming maintenance against Arumugham Pillai which was decreed on 26.10.1938 creating a charge on the properties. The Temples filed a suit against the said Vijayammal based on the Will of Arumugham Pillai dated 29.08.1932 in O.S.No.344 of 1967 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore for a declaration of Title to the plaint 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties. 'A' Schedule property consisted of seven items and there were two items in the 'B' Schedule properties. The Suit was dismissed and the Appeal filed in A.S.No.12 of 1977 was also dismissed holding that the subject properties were subject to the charge towards maintenance of Vijayammal vide decree in O.S.No. 191 of 1937 dated 26.10.1938 and hence the said properties had enlarged into absolute property of Vijayammal in terms of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, as she had a pre-existing right. As against the same, the Temple/1" Defendant filed C.A.No.8607 of 1983 before the Supreme Court. Pending the said Civil Appeal, Vijayammal died leaving an unregistered Will dated 30.06.1986 bequeathing her properties in favour of the children of her sister Maragathammal after creating life estate to the said Maragathammal. The said beneficiaries under the Will were brought on record as legal representatives of Vijayammal in C.A.No.8607 of 1983. It has been specifically observed in the Order made in C.A.No.8607 of 1983 that the validity of the Will of the Vijayammal and Sadachiammal dated 08.06.1957 has not been decided. The beneficiaries under the Will who were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased Vijayammal were objected to as total strangers to the family. The competency of Arumugham Pillai to execute the Will, though was observed as a moot question, the Apex Court passed Final Order in C.A.No.8607 of 1983 by consent of counsels appearing for both parties to the effect that a sum of Rs.24,000/- shall be paid to the Temples by the person or persons who are entitled to 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties and the said properties shall stand charged to that extent. It
Patna vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava and others
Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India
All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others
Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and another
Registrar, High Court of Madras vs. R.Rajiah
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer should be based on the entire service records, including adverse entries, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The court ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse entries regarding integrity do not lose their significance and a single adverse entry is sufficient to warrant compulsory retirement i....
The decision to compulsorily retire a judicial officer in public interest is based on the entire service records, especially adverse entries relating to integrity, and requires circumspection in judi....
The order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide if it is ....
Compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is justified based on subjective satisfaction regarding integrity, even with adverse entries, and judicial review is limited to the decision-making process....
The judgment establishes the legal principle that the decision to compulsorily retire a Judicial Officer must be based on a comprehensive assessment of the entire service record, with limited scope f....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.