Compulsory retirement must be based on substantial evidence and a comprehensive review of an officer's entire service record, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, wherein petitioner was placed under compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.04.2018 A.N. on attaining the age of 50 years in the public interest vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 24.04.2018 and consequential proceeding issued by respondent No.1, vide ROC No.2149/2018-B.Special, dated 25.04.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner entered into the Judicial Ministerial Service as a Copyist on 25.09.1995 and was promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was recruited to the post of Judicial Officer i.e., Junior Civil Judge by transfer on 31.10.2010 and underwent training for a period of four (4) months from 01.09.2010 to 31.12.2010 and posted as Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur at Adilabad District where he joined duty on 01.01.2011. He was posted as II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B., Nagar from 15.04.2015 to 06.12.2015. Later he was posted as XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar from 07.12.2015 to 07.05.2017. Subsequently, he was posted as Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad from 08.05.2017 till 30.04.2018, i.e., till respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 24.04.2018 by the Law (LA, LA&J-Home Courts) for compulsory retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years.

3. Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner and the learned portfolio Judge’s for the respective districts have also appreciated the petitioner’s performance/duties on many occasions. Despite the records being clean and clear, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has made representation dated 21.05.208 before Hon’ble High Court to review the decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court on the administrative side considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected the same on 25.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 26.07.2018 to the Registrar General, FAC Registrar (Vigilance) seeking review of the decision of petitioner’s compulsory retirement. However, the same has been rejected by the Hon’ble Court on the administrative side, vide proceeding dated 16.08.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition (C) No.1213 of 2013 challenging the impugned order before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 22.10.2018 permitted the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition (C) No.1213 of 2018 while granting liberty to petitioner to approach the High Court.

The instant petition has since been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without any reason to compulsory retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years, that too without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing nor putting the petitioner on notice and not providing the material based on which the respondents reached to the conclusion to compulsory retire the petitioner from service.

7. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner is a responsible, honest judicial officer serving the judicial system for more than seven and half years and had an unblemished track record and never found to be performing badly or with lack of integrity. The impugned order has been passed by the respondents without giving any show-cause notice. As such the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the said impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside and the order of compulsory retirement ought to meet the requirements of natural justice and also fairness and reasonableness.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s service between the period 01.09.2014 to 15.12.2014 shows that after reviewing his performance, the Hon’ble Portfolio