IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement must be based on valid material, and the entire service records of the government servant should be assessed. The court emphasized the need for adherence to the principles of judicial review and the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned in passing orders of compulsory retirement.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the production of the records relating to the second respondent in his order : ROC No. 82698/2020/C1 dated 25.02.2022 and the confirmed order dated 06.11.2020 made in A.No. 255 of 2020 passed by the third respondent herein and quash the same and direct the third respondent and second respondent to pass orders for reinstatement of the petitioner in service under Tamilnadu Judicial Ministerial Service.)

1. The order of compulsory retirement made on public interest under Fundamental Rules 56(2) in proceeding dated 06.11.2020 confirmed by the Appellate Authority in proceeding dated 25.02.2022 are under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Office Assistant on compassionate grounds. He was promoted to the post of Junior Bailiff in the Sub-Court, Udumalaipettai. The departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated in D.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013. The charge against the petitioner was that he was having the habit of sending anonymous letters against the Judicial Officers and the Staff members and he used to threaten those Staff Members under the guise of sending anonymous letters. Domestic Enquiry was conducted. The charges against the petitioner were held proved and the punishment of stoppage of one increment for 3 years without cumulative effect was imposed in both the departmental disciplinary proceedings separately in D.P.Nos. 4 and 5 of 2013 dated 30.04.2015.

3. Mr.S.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings in the year 2015 would be insufficient to invoke FR 56(2) to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed on 18.01.2001 and there were no adverse remarks against him throughout his service except the two departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated in D.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2013. The petitioner has not chosen to prefer an appeal against the punishment imposed. After imposing punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings also, there was no adverse remark against the petitioner for about 5 years till the date of impugned proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent. In the absence of any materials available on record for forming an opinion and to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, the order impugned is untenable.

4. Learned Counsels for the respondents would oppose the said contention by stating that the materials available on record would be sufficient to form an opinion that the petitioner has involved in an act of serious misconduct of threatening Judicial Officers and Staffs under the guise of sending anonymous allegations.

5. The two charges framed against the petitioner are held proved and punishments were imposed and no appeal has been filed. The learned Principal District Judge has made adverse entries while sending proposals to the High Court to compulsorily retire the petitioner under FR 56(2) in Proforma-III. Proforma-III would indicate that the petitioner suffer two charges of stoppage of one increment for 3 years without cumulative effect in proceedings dated 30.04.2015. In the column ‘Lack of Integrity’ it is recorded as ‘Yes, there is lack of integrity’. Except by stating that there is a lack of integrity, there is no prima facie evidence to form an opinion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired by invoking FR 56(2). Question arises whether the punishment imposed in the proceedings dated 30.04.2015 would be sufficient to compulsorily retire the petitioner under FR 56(2)?

6. Fundamental Rights 56 unambiguously stipulates about the Government servants who have completed 50 years of age or 30 years of qualifying service to be retired in the public interest. The object of the scheme of compulsory retirement is to weed out the