IMPORTANT POINT
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 judicial review.

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 relating to the G.O.(Ms.) No.299, PUBLIC (SPECIAL-A), dated 20.04.2022 issued by the first respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in accordance with the present seniority along with all attendant, service and monitory benefits.)

Facts In Brief:-

1. The writ petitioner was appointed as District Judge (Entry Level) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service by mode of Direct Recruitment on 18.02.2011. While the petitioner was working as Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hosur, he was placed under suspension from 31.01.2020 in contemplation of departmental disciplinary proceedings for alleged gross violation of passing an order in bail petition. A charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on 29.06.2020. Enhanced subsistence allowance of 75% was granted to the petitioner with effect from 31.07.2020. The departmental disciplinary proceedings ended with an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect vide departmental disciplinary proceedings dated 16.08.2021. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 29.09.2021 and posted as District Judge (Senior Division) at Karaikkal.

2. Vigilance complaints have been received against the petitioner. The petitioner's case was reviewed at the age of 50 years under Rule 56(2) of Fundamental Rules. Hon'ble Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 07.12.2021 reviewed service records, work done statements, overall performances, quality of judgments and general reputation of petitioner. It was unanimously resolved not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 50 years in public interest. Hon'ble Full Court had resolved to accept the recommendation of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee on 26.02.2022. Resultantly, the first respondent issued Government Order on 20.04.2022 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service by invoking Rule 56(2) of Fundamental Rules.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would mainly contend that there is no material available on record for invoking FR 56(2). The punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for five years was imposed and challenging the said punishment WP No.27122 of 2022 is filed. No adverse remarks have been communicated to the petitioner. In the absence of any such materials available on record, the order of compulsory retirement in public interest is untenable and do not satisfy the requirements of public interest.

4. The entire service records of the petitioner would reveal that he performed his duties diligently. The allegation regarding passing an order in a bail petition, the order of the Supreme Court is capable of interpreting in two ways. The petitioner understood the Supreme Court order in his own way and considered the bail petition in exercise of his judicial power and discretion. There is no allegation of corruption In the absence of any such allegation, mere interpretation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be a ground to issue charge memorandum.

5. Pertinently, in the said criminal case, the FIR itself had been quashed by the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner performed his judicial functions and granted bail in exercise of his judicial discretion. In the event of drawing any inference, there is no possibility for the Judicial Officers to perform their duties. Therefore, the ground for invoking FR 56(2) is untenable. A single incident of imposing punishment, cannot be a ground to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest.

6. Out of four complaints alleged pending before the Vigilance Cell, no complaint was communicated to the petitioner. Eve