Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR
M. Shirijha – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Courts-I) Department Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.518, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 20.11.2021 and the consequential order of the second respondent in ROC No.4021/2019/B1/Special Cell dated 03.12.2021 quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner into the service of Tamil Nadu Judicial Service.)
1. The order of compulsory retirement from service in public interest issued in G.O.Ms.No.518, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 20.11.2021, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Civil Judge in December 1999 and posted as District Munsif at Kancheepuram.
3. In the year 2010, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Sub Judge. On 12.08.2015, a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently charges were dropped and the petitioner was reinstated in service. The period of
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 should be based on the entire service records, including adverse entries, and the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The court ....
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....
Point of Law : Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, con....
The legal framework for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in public interest involves subjective satisfaction of the government, limited judicial review, and the consideration of the office....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
