Safiya Malik

A petition challenging the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has been dismissed by the Madras High Court. The petitioner, a retired District Judge, contested the decision of the government, which was based on the recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner sought to quash the retirement order and requested the court to allow him to retire voluntarily or on superannuation with all attendant benefits. The court held that the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily was within the discretion of the High Court and was made in the public interest. It further observed that judicial officers are held to higher standards of probity and integrity, and that the petitioner's contentions did not provide sufficient grounds for interference.

The petitioner was appointed as a District Judge (Entry Level) on April 4, 2018. On April 8, 2020, he was placed under suspension pending an enquiry into serious charges. On the same day, he submitted a request for voluntary retirement. However, as a departmental enquiry was in progress, his request was rejected by the High Court on June 3, 2020. A charge memo was issued to him on February 25, 2021, and he submitted his written statement of defense along with preliminary objections on March 7, 2021.

Upon reaching the age of 58, the petitioner’s case was reviewed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 288. The Administrative Committee of the High Court, in a meeting on April 15, 2021, resolved not to continue the petitioner’s services beyond the age of 58 years. This resolution was approved by the Full Court on June 22, 2021. Based on this recommendation, the government issued an order of compulsory retirement, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that the charges against him were based on allegations that his assets were disproportionate to his income and that he had failed to inform the High Court about the acquisition of immovable properties by his wife. He argued that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, did not require him to notify such acquisitions unless they were made using his own resources. He further contended that a circular issued by the High Court requiring judicial officers to report all acquisitions of immovable property was inconsistent with the rules and could not override them.

The petitioner also argued that his compulsory retirement was based on an entry in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, which was recorded as “below average.” He submitted that this entry was approved by the Chief Justice on July 23, 2021, and communicated to him on December 6, 2021—after the decision to retire him compulsorily had already been taken. He contended that this sequence of events violated the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Record) Rules, 2014.

The petitioner further claimed that the procedural directions issued by the State Government regarding compulsory retirement had not been followed in his case.

The respondents, represented by counsel, submitted that Fundamental Rule 56(2) provided discretion to the employer to compulsorily retire an employee if their continued service was not in the public interest. They argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. had introduced a third review for judicial officers at the age of 58 years, in addition to the reviews at 50 and 55 years. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s review was conducted in accordance with this directive, and the decision was made by the High Court based on relevant considerations.

It was further submitted that there were multiple complaints against the petitioner, including allegations that his wife had mistreated lower-grade staff, that he had failed to inform the High Court about the acquisition of at least 25 immovable properties by his wife, and that he had purchased a luxury vehicle without disclosure. The respondents also pointed to unexplained lump sum credits in the petitioner’s salary account.

The court recorded that the power to compulsorily retire a judicial officer is within the discretion of the employer and that judicial review in such matters is limited. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P. (2020) 1 SCC 801, it observed:

"The scope for judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds, vitiated by mala fides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference. The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same as an appellate authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement."

The court also referred to the decision in High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Udaysingh (1997) 5 SCC 129 and previous rulings by the Madras High Court, which held that the scope of interference in such matters is limited to ensuring that the decision is supported by some material.

Regarding the petitioner’s argument about the circular requiring disclosure of immovable property, the court observed:

"This argument of the petitioner overlooks the fact that the petitioner is a judicial officer and he is bound to obey the circulars and the orders issued by the High Court. The circular issued by the High Court in ROC.No.2548/96/C2 dated 01.04.1997 requires the officers to inform the High Court of acquisitions made by the family members. This cannot be said to be in derogation of Explanation to Rule 7. It is only an additional requirement."

On the question of judicial officers being held to higher standards, the court cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P.:

"Judicial service is not like any other service. A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A Judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise."

The court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated any grounds for interference.

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating:

"We do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

Case Title: S. Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Case Number: W.P. No. 23310 of 2022
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan

[Read/Download order]