IMPORTANT POINT
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 emphasized the significance of integrity and reputation in the judicial service and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.

ORDER :

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 a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent herein in G.O.(Ms) No.48, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 28.01.2022 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and grant the petitioner all consequential monetary and service benefits.)

PETITIONER 'S CONTENTION:

1. The order of compulsorily retirement made in public interest issued under Fundamental Rule 56(2) in G.O.Ms.No.48, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 28.01.2022, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 2003. She was promoted to the post of Senior Civil Judge on 18.09.2015. The Bar Association, Neyveli gave a complaint against the petitioner to the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. The petitioner gave a complaint against one Advocate Mr.Anandaraj on 15.06.2017. The Additional Registrar (IT and Statistics) of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recorded that there was short of 39 cases in disposal, while working in the Eraniel Court regarding the compliance norms. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that the Eraniel Court started functioning only on 04.08.2018 and the transfer of bundles from Padmanathapuram Court was delayed. Further there was lack of cooperation from the Advocates. It was informed to the petitioner on 26.08.2020 that in Annual Confidential Report, it was recorded as “Disposal Below Average” for the period from 04.08.2018 to 31.12.2018. The petitioner submitted her explanation. However, the said explanation was rejected. The petitioner was promoted to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) vide High Court's Notification No.41 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021. The petitioner submitted her representation on 11.02.2021, assigning the reasons for not completing the norms fixed for disposal of cases. Subsequently, the High Court has forwarded the proposal to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. Thereafter, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 28.01.2022, was issued by the Government. Thus the present writ petition came to be instituted.

3. Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, would mainly contend that compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest by not extending the services beyond 50 years is unjust and untenable. There is no sufficient material available on record to form an opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. Regarding the statistics that the petitioner had not reached the norms, explanation was submitted stating that the Court at Eraniel, Kanyakumari District was constituted newly and there was lack of cooperation on the part of the Advocates.

4. The subsequent reviews offered by the learned Principal District Judge (PDJ), Dindigul was not taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee. The services of the petitioner had been recorded as "good", "very good" and "satisfactory". Therefore, the Hon'ble Administrative Committee and Full Court had not considered the entire service records of the petitioner, which is essentially required for retiring the Judicial Officer on compulsory retirement in public interest. In the present case, the order is punitive in nature and stigmatic.

5. The over all performances of the petitioner were not considered, while taking a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. In the absence of sufficient materials to form an opinion as required under FR 56, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

6. The adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Record for the period from 04.08.2018 to 31.12.2018 regarding not reached the norms should have been communicated to the petitioner, within three months as per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Record) Rules