O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The compulsorily retirement in public interest issued under Fundamental Rules 56(2) in G.O.Ms.No.1007 Public (Special-A) Department, dated 30.11.2021 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Petitioner's case:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu Judicial Service on 03.04.1996. She was promoted to the Cadre of Senior Judge on 02.05.2008. Subsequently, she was promoted to the Cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) on 01.08.2014 and accorded Selection Grade Scale of Pay vide High Court's Notification No.176/2021 dated

28.06.2021 with effect from 01.08.2019.

3. While awarding Selection Grade Scale of Pay, Vigilance Complaints against the petitioner were in inquiry stage. Meanwhile the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 06.06.2020. Thus, her case was reviewed under F.R.56(2) by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 12.12.2020 and 08.03.2021, as to her continuance in service beyond the age of 55 years and the same was deferred. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Administrative Committee, in the meeting held on 20.09.2021, reviewed the performance of the petitioner and unanimously resolved not to extend the service of the petitioner in public interest, beyond the age of 55 years, subject to approval of the Full Court.

4. The Hon'ble Full Court, in the meeting held on 21.10.2021, had unanimously resolved to accept the resolution of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee and it was resolved not to extend the service of the petitioner in the public interest. Accepting the recommendations of the High Court, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1007, Public Department dated 30.11.2021, issued orders that the petitioner be compulsorily retired from service in public interest under F.R.56(2) with effect from the date of service of Government Order, on payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice.

5. The petitioner submitted two representations on 25.10.2021 and

10.11.2021 to the High Court, requesting to reconsider the decision to compulsorily retire her from service under F.R.56(2). The representations were rejected in view of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Full Court and there being no specific provision for review. She filed a review petition dated 06.01.2022 before the Government of Tamil Nadu. Government of Tamil Nadu had requested for the remarks of the High Court. The Hon'ble Chief Justice placed the matter before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee. After considering the facts and circumstances, the review petition was rejected. The registry informed the same to the Government. Accepting the recommendations of the High Court, the Government rejected the review petition of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.466, Public (Special-A) Department dated 02.07.2022. Consequently, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.A.Gouthaman would mainly contend that on institution of certain vigilance inquiry against the petitioner, the respondents have short-circuited the process and compulsorily retired the petitioner in public interest, without concluding the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner had been granted promotion up to the level of District Judge (Entry Level) and Selection Grade Scale of Pay was awarded to her. When the respondents have considered the service records of the petitioner and granted promotion and awarded Selection Grade Scale of Pay, they cannot turn-around and form an opinion that the petitioner is a dead wood and to be sent out from service by invoking F.R.56(2). The petitioner states that so far she had not been informed with any adverse remarks and her services are meritorious through out.

7. The complaint given by one Gajaraj is only to settle scores, which he was not able to achieve through legal course. Mr.Gajaraj, complainant has implicitly accepted that he was aware of the fact that the criminal appeal 92 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal