IMPORTANT POINT
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 in public interest for judicial officers. The judgment also emphasizes the high standards of conduct and integrity expected from judicial officers and the limited scope of judicial review in cases of compulsory retirement of judicial officers.

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 suspension was regulated as duty. The petitioner was in verge of promotion to the cadre of District Judge. An Office Memorandum was issued by the Registrar-General, High Court on 20.08.2019. The petitioner submitted her detailed explanation stating that the departmental enquiry was conducted earlier in respect of similar findings in Roc.No.799/2014/VC. The Office Memorandum was relating to the allegation of certain lapses against the petitioner during her tenure as Sub Judge at Perambalur. The petitioner submitted her detailed explanations on 19.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.03.2020, in pursuance of a complaint pertaining to certain allegations of holding dis-proportionate assets. The petitioner submitted her explanations on 24.03.2020 for the Office Memorandum dated 19.03.2020. A detailed enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has submitted her explanations in detail along with the documents. Another charge dated 25.02.2021 was issued based on the very same complaint. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection on 15.04.2021 stating that the charges framed are similar to the one already framed in proceedings dated 12.08.2015. However, another charge memo dated 18.06.2021 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanations on 11.07.2021. The petitioner was asked to submit her written statement of defence. The petitioner on 03.08.2021 requested the respondent to furnish the copy of the enquiry report in the departmental enquiry conducted in Roc.No.799/ 2014/VC. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service on 02.12.2021 and posted as Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Thiruvallur. While she was working in the said post, the order of compulsory retirement in public interest was issued in G.O.Ms.No.518, dated 20.11.2021. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

4. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the manner in which the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and dropping of the charges and allowing the petitioner to compulsorily retire in public interest, would be sufficient to form an opinion that the respondents have adopted short circuit method to sack the petitioner from the Judicial Service. Such a short circuited method to send a Judicial Officer on compulsory retirement in public interest, is in violation of FR 56 (2). The Authority Competent is bound to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by following due procedures. Contrarily, they cannot compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest by invoking FR 56. The departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated for the allegation of disproportionate assets, a detailed enquiry was conducted, the petitioner submitted her written explanatio