Writ Petition No. 23837 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

Order

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following retief: to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the "(a) nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to : i. The recommendations of the Administrative Committee communicated to the Petitioner, vide Roc No. 1/ 2O23,B.Spl, ii. iii. dated 31.O 1.2023. G.O Ms.No.l7, General Administration (J&RA) Department a-rrd notification dated O1.O2.2O23 issucd by the l.trespondent. Proceedings in Roc.No.l/2023-8 Spl., dated 04.O4.2023 of ttre 3.d respondent herein and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the provisions of the Telangana State Judicial (Sewice and Cadre) Rules, 2Ol7 atd Telalgana Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of lt,e Constitution oflndia. (b) Consequently to declare that the petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service as District Judge. (c) Further, direct the Respondents to compute and release all the benehts that he would be entitled to monetary seniority etc that flow from out of setting aside the orders impugrred herein ald granting of the relief prayed."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as District Munsif uide G.O.Ms.No.6 1, Law (lJ Cts-C), Department, dirtgd 07.04. 1998 and subsequently, he =rr'r*d*t.t*, 2 (^; PSru &NNRJ WP No.23837 ol 2023 was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on O7.O2.2OO9. While things stood, the petitioner along with six (6) other District Judicial Officers were placed under suspension on

25.08.20 10. Pursuant to the said suspension order, regular departmental enquiry had conducted and the petitioner was found not guilty of the allegations levelled against him and accordingly, the charges framed against him and ot-her Judicial Officers were dropped on 1 1.1 l.2ol4 and reinstated into service. Thereafter, he was promoted as District Judge (Entry tevel), uide order, dated 2O.O2.2017 and his probation as a District Judge was declared satisfactory on 26.05.2019.

3. As matter stood, respondent No.1, issued G.O.Ms.No.17, General Administration (J&RA) Department, dated O 1.02.2O23 stating that petitioner is deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 31.O1 .2023

Afternoon in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Telangana Public Emplo5rment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, the Act, 1984J and Rule 23 of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Ru1e, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules, 2OI7),. 3 PSfu & NNR] wP No.23837 oJ 2023

4. The said G.O. was issued based on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. Subsequently, petitioner filed Review Application, dated 17.03.2023 praying to re-look into entire issue, however the same was rejected by the Administrative Committee uide order, dated O4.O4.2O23, without assigning any reasons, Aggrieved by the said rejection order, petitioner prelerred Writ Petition (Civii) No.612 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court utde order dated, 04.07.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition(C) No.612 of 2023 and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach High Court for the State of Telangana.

5. Mr. Goda Siva, learne d Senior Counsel, representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and maintaining the level of integrity as expected from a member belonging to District Judiciary. That his output both quantitative and qualitative was also not adversely commented by the authorities concerned and the petitioner is a responsible and honest Judicial Officer and serving the judicial system for more than *r, I ' 4 a-. PSru &NNR) WPNo.23837 ol 2023 twenty three 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 without giving any show cause notice

6. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the order passed by respondent No.1 does not contain any reasons except stating that the same is being passed basing on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble High Court and also contended that as per Rule 23 of the Rules, 2O 17, the petitioner was four-rd to be sr-ritable when the Administrative Committee reviewed his performance, r,r,hen the petitioner reached the age of 55 years and continued his service as District Judge.

7. learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per proviso to Scction 3 (1A) of the Act, 1984, the Hon'ble High Court has to assess and make appropriate recommendations well before the petitioner attains the age of 58 years i.e., on 15.01.2023. But, in the instant cd.se, the respondent reviewed the performance of the petitioner on \ ,.Eii{d a8li**:- .Str 5 wp No.23837 ol 2023

31.01.2013, i.e., after the petitioner crosses the age of 58 years, which is in violation of the Act, 1984.

8. karned counsel further contended that the age of retirement of the Judicial Officer has been prescribed as 61 years as per {irst proviso to Section 3(1A) of Act, 1984, which reads as follows: 3(1A) Notwithstdnd.iftg angtlling contained. in fltb-section (7), euery metnber of the Telangana Hlgher .rudicial Service or the Telangana. Strr.te Judiciql Sertice sha.ll retire from sentice ott the aftentoon o.f the ld.st dag of the month in which he qttains the age of si-rtg one gec\rs: Provided tllat qng such rnember of trr,e Telanganq. Stqte Higher Judicial Ser-uice or the And.hro Pradesh Strrte .htdiciql Service nqg be compulsorLlg retired. frorn sentice on the q.fternooa of the last dag of the month in wllich he attains the age of JiJt! gears or Jiftg fiae gears or fiftg eight geqrs or tlirtg three gears oJ qualifging sentice, if he is found not Jit and eligible to be continued. in seraice bg the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on (zn clssessment q.nd eoaluqtion of the reco"d. of such rnernber for his continued. utilitu, uell within time, before he dtttoi'l.s the o.ge of frftg geqrs or Jiftg fiae geqrs or fift! eight geqrs or thirtg three gedrs of quo.lifging sertice."

9. Rule 23 of the Rules, 2017 has bearing in the present context is a-lso extracted hereunder for ready reference. "23. Retirement in public interest": uNotwithstqndlag .Lngthlng contqined in these rules, the Goterllor, on the recomrnendation oJ the Eigh Court contalning the reo-son's in uriting, if he is of tle opinion thot it is in the public interest to do so lla.s the absolute right to retire qng member o! service who hq.s atlqined the qge of 50, 55 or 58 gears bg giutng him notlce ol note less than 3 nonth,s in uriting or 3 montlls pdg and qlloutdnces in lieu thereof.n -l '- 6 (- PSKJ & NNSJ WP No-Baj7 of 2023 1(). Learned Senior counsel furLher contended that from a combined reading of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 alcl Rule 23 of the Rule, 2OI7, it is evident that respondent No.2 lras assessed the suitability ol the petitioner for continuance of service at the age of 5O years as well as 55 years. He also further submitted that respondent No.2 found nothing adverse against the petitioner when they reviewed his assessment at the age 55 years and continued the petitioner into service. However, as a bolt from the blue, while reviewing the petitioner's performance assessment at the age of 58 years, respondent No.2 has opined that petitioner was not of continued utility and it was resolved to recomrnend to the State Government that he shall be retired from service on

31.01.2023, i.e., the last date of the month on which the petitioner l-ras attained 58 years would be 31.O 1.2023. 1 1. l,earned counsel further contended that the first proviso to Section 3(1A) of Act, 1984 and Rule 23 of the Rule, 2017, as discussed above, and a reading of same would indicate that it was necessary for the High Court to assess ald make appropriate recommendations well before the officer attains the age of 58. In the instant case, the petitioner 7 PSKJ & NNRI WP No.23837 oJ 2023 attained the age of 58 years on 15.01.2023. A reading a proper interpretation of proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 would disclose that the exercise of adjudging petitioner's suitability for continuance must have been undertaken well before 15.01.2023. Even on the petitioner's overall performance, the respondents never fould the petitioner was u,anting or lacking in discharging his duties ald not even a singie advisory memo was served on him during his entire ca-reer expect in 20 1O. In fact, the very promotion as a District Judge was given to petitioner by the Hon'ble High Court after respondents dropped the departmental proceedings against him on the issue of mass copying

12. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that retirement of the petitioner is not in the public interest. The entire sen ice record especially the contemporaneous record has not been taken into consideration and also that the petitioner has been granted further promotion which wouid have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if aly. Hence, there is no material to substantiate the action of the respondents in issuing order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years in public interest and the 8 .l- PSK) &NNN wP No.Ba37 ol2023 same is . liable to be dismissed and prays this Court to set aside the impugned order, dated 3l .Ol .2023 issued by respondent No.2 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.17, General Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.O2.2O23 and, G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 24.O4.2018 issued by respondent No.1 and allow the writ petition.

13. Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt- K.Udaya Sri, learned Star-rding Counsel for High Court appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter af{idavit ald submits that pctitioner has to compulsory retire from service with effect from . 3l .O1.2O23 i.e., the last day of the calendar month on his attaining the age of 58 years ald the decision pertaining to the retirement order of the petitioner was passed by the Hon'ble High Court only after reviewing the entire service of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner's allegation that the order of the compulsory retirement is passed without any basis and without assigrring any reasons are in violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 27 of the Constitution of India were strongly denir:d. 9 PSKJ & NNR] wP No.Xa37 oJ2023 L4. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 and Ruie 23 of the Rule, 2017, the Administrative Committee of Hon'ble Judges in its meeting held on 31.0I.2023 at 4.45 PM reviewed the case of the petitioner along with the case of other Judicial Officers, the Administrative Committee after considering the entire service of the petitioner passed a resolution to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service The said resolution is extracted as below: "On considerqtion qnd reaieu.)ing of the sewice record of Sri M.Srinio(Isa Chary, formerlg Chairtnan, Lqtd Reforms Appellate Ifrbuno.l for Ranga Reddg-curn-Il Additional District o,n,d Sessions Judge-c'utn-Il Additionql Metropolitaa Sessions Judge Court, Ranga Reddg District dt L.B.Nagdr, his overall perfortnance d.nd. troct record, the Cornmittee is ol tlLe opinion that the Olficer is not of continued utilttg and is not fit to be continued in ser-vice begond 58 gears. The Committee resolaed in public iiterest to recoturnend to the Govemnent thdt the Offi.cer be retired on 37.07.2023, the la-st dag of calendar tnonth rohich he completes 58 gears of age, in terns oJ litst provlso to Sectlon 3(1A) of the Telqngdfto Publlc Emplogment (Reguldtion of qge of S,lper(I.n.nuo,tion/ Act, 7984 a d Rule 23 of the Telangana s.to.te Judicial Service Rule, 2077 and. be poid pag and qllou)q.n.ce q-s contemplqted under Rule three 'mo'ath.s 23 of the Telangana State .Iudiciql Ser1Jice Rules, 2O77." 15. Learned Senior counsei appearing for respondents contended that in compliance with the said order, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms. No. 17, General Administration (J&RA) Department, dated O7.O2.2023 notifying that the petitioner deemed to have retired from 10 {:l - PSN & NNN wP No-2iA37 ol2023 servlce w.e.f., 31.01.2023 (A.N.) i.e., the last day of the calendar month on his attaining the age of 58 (frfty eight) years in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Act, 1984. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that after receipt of the orders of compulsory retirement, the petitioner made representation requesting the High Court to review its decision pertaining to his compulsory retirement at the age of 58 5'ears and the sarne was placed before the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 17 .O3 .2023. The Administrative Committee after due consideration, rejected the plea of the petitioner and the sarne was also communicated to the petitioner, vide Roc.No. 1/2023-8.Sp1., dated 04.O4.2023.

16. karned Senior counsel appearing for respondents contended G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023 was issued by the Government amending Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2O17, in respect of ?etirement in public interest' and under the said amendment, the aspect of recording reasons by the Committee has been excluded under Rule 23 of the Rule, 2O17 and contended that though ttre said G.O.No.36 was passed on _1O.O6.2023 but the said G.O. is made 11 PSKJ & NNP.,/ wP No-2ia37 ol2023 applicable with retrospective with effect from Ol.Ol.2O23 and the said amendment G.O will be applicable to the present case and as per the G.O Administrative Committee need not to record reasons when passing resolution in respect of compulsory retirement of the judicial officer while reviewing their services.

77. l,earned Senior counsel appearing for respondents drawn the attention of this Bench to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Gupta v. State Of Jharkhandr wherein at paragraph No. 1 5 it u'as held as und er:

75. Refereoce mag also be made to the judgment of this Court in Pgare Mohqn Lql (s-upra) in uhich while dealing with concept of ua.shed oIJ theory, this Court afier dealing urith the entire case lqw on the stbject held q-s follous: "24. In vieu: of the aboue, the lau can be sumtn.rrised to stqte that ln cq.se tllere is q. conflict betu.)een two or ntore jud.gments of this Court, the judgnent of the lqrger Bench is to be followed. More so, the uto-shed off theory does not hqve tndg haoe teleadnce uhile universdl applicatioa. It consideri|ng the c(Ise of gooeflrne,Lt servq.nt Jor further promotion but not in a cq-se ohete the emplogee is being assessed bg the reviewing quthoitA to detertnine whether he is Jit to be retaifted ln seflrice or requires to be given compulsory retirement, q.s the Comtnittee is to cssess his sltito.bilitg t@king into considerotion his nentire service record". l AlR 2o2o supreme court 1175 1,2 o- PSKJ & NNR! WP No.23837 oI 2023

18. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents lurther contended that judicial service is calling of the highest order requiring a stringent standard of commitment, rectitude ald devotion towards duty. The Administrative Committee comprising seven senior most Judges not only reviews on the judicial work front, but also taken into consideration the general information of the candidates that has been gathered through discreet enquires pertaining to his reputation, conduct, probity and integrity before arriving aL a judicious decision, as to whether the oflicer is Iit to be continued in senrlce 1n public interest as an officer or not, for his continuation in the service beyond the age of .{jO, 55 or 58 years. It is a setfled legal position and lr,ell recognized that the High Courts' exercise administrative, judicial and discipiinaqz control over the District Judiciary. Hence, learned standing counsel further submits that the writ petition IS devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

19. Before going into the aspects and facts ofthe case, it is pertinent to extract the remarks of learned Principal \, District Judge awarded by tlle High Court portfolio judge in respect of the petitioner. 13 PSru & NNEJ WP No-23837 ol2023 Remarks of Principal District Judge concerned. Satisfactory Remarks of High Court portfolio judge. Satisfactorv Satisfactory I have not heard adverse again st the officer. Satisfactory Satisfacton, Satisfactory Satisfactory I Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Year 20t3 2014 20 15 201,6 2017 2018 I I 2019 2020 2021 Reputation Reputation of the officer a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character. Reputation of the officer (Integrity/ honest a) Impartiality. b) Character. Reputation of the officer a) Integrity/ honest b) Impartiality c) Character. Reputation of the oflicer a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality. c) Character. Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/ honest b) Impartiality. c) Character. Reputation of the officer a) Integrity/ honest b) Impartiality. c) Character. Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality. c) Character. Reputation of the officer a) Integrity/ honest b) Impartiality. c) Character. Reputation of the officcr a) tntegrity/ honest b) Impartiality. c) Charactcr. Work Review remarks of the petitioner for the last 9 years, which reads as under: Station I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam I Addl.Se&r Civil Judge, Vishak$atnam Period

01.04.2013

30.09.2013 Quantitatively Vcry good Qualitatively Satisfactorv

01.10.2023

31.03.201,4 o1.o4.2014

30.o9.2014 Poor Good Good Good or 10 2014

31.03.201s Satisfactory Satisfactory 1,4 i,)- wP No 23837 ol2023 Civil Arldl.Senior I Jud Vishaka I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam I Addt.Senior Ciqil Judge, Vishakapatnam I Addt.Senior Civil Ju Vishaka VI Addt. District, Ju Kakinacla \1 Addl. District, Ju . Kakinada XXVII Add. Chief judge, CCC, Secunderabad, XX!'I[ Add. Chief judge, CCC, Secunderabad. XXVII Add. Chief judgc, CCC, Secundcrabad. XXVII Add. Chief judee, CCC, Secunderabad. XXVII Add. Chief judge, CCC, Secunderabad. XXVII Add. Chief judge, CCC, Secunderabad. XIII Addl. District Ju RR Disl rict I

01.04.20 15

30.09.2015

01. 10.2015

31.03.2016 01 .o4.20 r 6

30.os.2016 I o1.10.2016 3t.t2.20t6

03.03.2017 30_06.2017 ot.o7.20t7

31.1',2.2017

07.o1.2019

30.06.2019 Cood Good Cood Poo: Poor Goorl Goo<1 Goocl Satis[actory Satis[actory Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Under Cilculation ot.o7.2019

31.12.2019 Very good Under Circrr lation I

01.o1 .2020

30.06.2020 RECORDED DUE TO COVID RECORDDD DUE TO COVID o | .o7 .2020 3t.t2-2020 RECORDET) DUE TO COVID RtJCOtiDlr:D DUE TO COVID

01.01 .2021

30.o6.2021 RECORDED DUE TO COVID RECOIIT)ED DUE TO COVID ot.o7 .2021 I a.oa.2021 RECORDED DUE TO COVID RECORDI'D DUE 'I'O COVID

18.08.2021

31.12.2021 RECORDED DUE TO COVII) RECOIIDIiD DU]J 'fO COVID I SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW

20. Further, in the backdrop of the facts stated above, this Bench leel it necessary to discuss about the settled law in respect of the compulsory retirement is concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of flf. S. Bind.ra u. Union of lftd.ia &Ors2 and also in case of Bishura.no:th Prasad. Singh u, '1e98(71 SCC 310 15 WP No.BA37 oJ 2A23 State of Bihar &Orse while dealing on the issue of compulsory retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 12 it was held as under: '72.Cottlpulsory retlretnent in ser-uice ju.ispntd.ence hd.s tuo meo.flings. Under the aa:rious dlsciplinary ntles, conllrulsory retirement is on€ of the peno.lties inflicted on a d.elinqueat gooernment seraant cansequent upon a Jinding oJ guilt being record.ed in dlsc'lplinary proceedings. Such pen.o,ltg inaok)es s'tigtrrd qnd. cqnnot be inJlicted except bg follouing procedure prescrlbed bg tlle rekaant ntles or consistentlg roith the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penaltg be not occupied bg ang n/.lesl Such compulsory retirernent in the cdse of d goaernment serlr{I.,rt must q'Iso with,stqnd the scruting of Atticle 377 of the Consiitution. Then there are service rales, stch as Rute 56(fl of Fund.q.mentql Rules, uthich confer on the Covemnelt or the appropriate outhoritg, qn qbsolute (but not arbitraryl right to tetire a goaerTunent seroantt on his dttdiniftg d. pdrticulq.r qge or on his hating completed q. certqin number of gears oJ service on fonaation o.f dn opl'rlon that in public interest it is 'r.ecess(rry to compulsorilg rdtire q goaemment serltent. So long as the apttr'lo,r forlnlng basis of the order Jor compulsory retirement tt public interest ts formed borld fide, the opinio4 c<rnnot be ordinarilg ittetered with bg a judicial forurn Such sn ord.er mag be subjected to judicial revieut on aery limited. grouflds such a-s the order belng mala Jide, ba,sed. on no materiq.I or on colTqteral grounds or ho,uing been passed bg an authoritg not competent to do so." 21, Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in case of Sta:te oJ Gujrat a. Umedbhai M. Patel4,

22. In MP Electricity Board v. Shree Baboos the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the service records of the employee where there was nothing adverse ar-td on the contrar;z, the integrity of the employee was 32OO1(21SCC 305 ^2001(3)scc 314 '2002(9) SCC 7O4, 16 PSKJ & NNR] WP No-23a37 oJ 2023 shown to be "Sound". The Supreme Court affirming the order of the High Court while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.

23. Recently again in case of Rajasthan State Road Transpott Corporation and Ors, Vs. BabuLaUangir,o ,n" Hon'ble Supreme Court al. paragraphs 24 it was held as under "24. Haviag tqke'r note of the correct principles l/lhich need to be applied, we can soJelg conclude tlst the ordet of the High Court bo.sed solelg on the judgment in the ca-se of Brij Mohdn Sitngh Chop.o. ulo^s not corect. Ihe High Court could not haae set o.side the order nerelg on the ground thqt servLce record pertaining to the perlod 797&90 being oA and stqle could not be tqken into considerdtion qt (rl,. As per the lqw lqid down in the aforesaid judgments, lt ls clear tltat entire seruice record. is releuqnt for deciding qs to uhether the goaernnent servqnt needs to be edsed out p?emdh$elg. Of course, dt the sqtltre time, subsequen' record is o'lso relevant, c,'1.d immediate past record, preced.ing the date oa uhich d.ecision is to be tq.ken would be of more vqlue, qudlitatiaelg. Whot ls to be examined is the "overqll perJonnance" on the bcsis of uettire service record" to come to the conclusion ds to whether the concerrted. etnplogee ho.s become a deqd.wood a,rd it is public itterest to retire hi'n_ compulsorilg. The Authoritg m.ust cottsid.er o.nd exanni,l.e the oterall effect of the entries oJ the offt.cer concented and rr.ot an isolated entry, as it mag well be in sotne cqses thqt in spite of satlsfactory perforrnq.nce, the Authoritg mag desire to compuLsorilg retire an emplogee in public lnterest, a.s in the opinlon of the sqld authoritg, the post ha,s to be mq.'a,:.ed. bg a more elJicient and dgnamic person and lf there is sullicient mqterlal on record to shou tha:t the emplogee "rend.ered. hirnself o. liqbilttg to the insti'.ltio'r-", there is no occasioa Jor the Court to lnte,.fere in the exercise ol its lirmlted. power oJjudlcial reaieu.n I 62013 (10) SCC 551 17 PSfu & NNN wP No.23837 oJ 2A23 ANALYSIS OF ENTIRE RECORD

24. After considering thc entte factual mqtrk, now the points for consideration are:- a) Whether the procedure followed by the respondents while passing the impugned order of compulsory retlremert Eeets thc requirement as is laid down under SectioE 3(1A) of The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment {Regulation) of Age of Superannuatiou) Act, 1944, more particularly the proviso to the said Sub-Section? b) Whether o!1 ttlerits, there was strong material in the course of evaluation aud assessment of the Ollicer's service record available, compelling the respordents in passiag the impugned. order of cornpulsory retiieErettt as is required under Rule 23 of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre), Rules, 2017. ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE WELL ADVANCE

25. When u.e read the aforesaid pa-ragraphs, what is necessary to be considered is the requirement under Section 3(1A) and the proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984. Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 provides for putting an Judicial Officer on compulsory retirement if he is not found fit and eligible to be continued in service on an assessment of evaluation of the record of such person for his continued utility well within the time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for compulsory retirement applicable under the Rules. 18 PSKJ & NNR] WP No-23837 of 2023

26. Thus, what is required is, there has to be an assessment and evaluation done at the first instance. Such an assessment ar-rd evaluation has to be well within the time before he attains the age of 58, and thirdlyi upon assessment and evaluation he is found not frt and not eligible to be continued in service.

27. What is important to note from the said provision oi Iaw is that the evaluation and assessment has to be done well before the Ofhcer attains age of 58 years. In the instant case, the date of birth of the Officer is 15.O1.1965. Thus, he crosses the age of 58 on 15.Of .2023. In terrns of the aforesaid Rules, the assessment and evaluation had to be done well before 15.O1.2023, which in the instant case seems to have been done only on the evening of 31.03.2O23 that too after the working hours of the day and much after the petitibner had attained the age of 58 years.

28.. It is contended that though the process of sitting of the Committee was on 31.01.2023 i.e., on the last day of the month. In the present case, on perusal of the record placed by learned counsel for the respondent, it shows that I 19 PSKJ & NNB) WP No.2i837 o12023 except calling for the data and placing the note before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, nothing is placed before this Bench to substantiate the contention of the respondents that there was an actual assessment made by the Committee of the Judges much prior to the date of sitting of the Committee. Though it is contended that the entire assessment was made, but the record speaks that the said assessments were made only on 31.01.2023 on the day that too after 4:45 PM on the day when order of compulsory retirement was passed and the petitioner was made to retire on the same day

29. it is contended that according to the petitioner the said entire process was not as per proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 and said proviso has been omitted. Therefore, it has to be interpreted strictly. He further contended that thc method and manner in which the impugned action was taken in accordance w'ith proviso to Rule 23 i.e., Section 3 (1A) of the Act, 1984 was not in consequence with existence law and he contended that the ground that recommended by the Administrative Committee ought not to have been acted at all and that the very recommendation was contr to the I I 20 ..\ PSKJ & NNRT wP No.23837 oI2023 express provision of law Governing the field and as such the action would not stand to the scrutiny of the Court. II/HETHER IS IT OBLIGATORY ON ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHALL CONTAIN REASONS

30. Though prior to the Arnendment of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2O 17, which mandates the Administrative Committee should record reasons in writing while making recommendations to the Governor for compulsory retirement of an employee. Subsequently, by way of Amendment of Telangara State Judicial Serrrice Rules, 2017, uide G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 1C .06 2023, the Administrative Committee was not required to record reasons in writing while making recommendations to the Governor for compulsory retirement and the said amendment is made applicable in retrospective w.e.f. OI .O1.2023.

31. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the said amended RuIe will be applicable to the present case, but this Bench feels that the present I amendment G.O. cannot be applied to the present case for the reason that Jhe resolution of the Administrative Committee 2t PSKI & NNN wP No.23a37 oJ 2oZ3 was passed on 31.01.2023, meanwhile, amended G.O. was issued on 10.06.2O23 and the amended Rules might not have been conceived by the Administrative Committee while passing the resolution for compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service nor was the amended rt.les in force on 3I.OI.2023. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the said amendment will be applicable to the present facts is not sustainable.

32. Basing on the above observations, this Bench is of the opinion that the entire record placed by the petitioner cannot be brushed aside for any reason. The other aspect on which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is that provisionally the Rules would.make it obligatory upon the Administrative Committee while recommending the individual to Governor for passing order of compulsory retirement, the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble Judges should give reasons for continuing the petitioner. In the case on hand, the Administrative Committee without giving any reasons passed resolution ald recommend to the Governor. Basing on the report submitted by the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble Judges, ordered for 22 PSKJ & NNR) WP No.23837 o12023 compulsory retirement of the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natura-l justice.

33. CONCLUSION: al The second aspect which needs fcir consideration is, whether the material available with the respondents which reflected that the Oflicer is not fit and not eligible to be continued in service in public interest. Whether it was the petitioner's non-performance or under performance in the course of discharge of duties or whether the service records, particularly tlee Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) reflect any adverse entries and whether on the assessment of the ACRs and the work review reports of the Officer, the performance of the Officer was reflecting decline in the quality and quantit5r of work. So also, whether there was any decline being reflected in the overall performance of the Officer. b) Even though the impugned order may not reflect so many words which led to the respondents in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner is not being found lit and eligible to be continued in service. Nonetheless, there should be cogent strong materials available in the serrrice records reflecting the same. 23 WP No.na37 ol2023 cl On perusal of the entire ACRs and work review statements of the petitioner placed by him before this Court, the decision ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by both the parties, the point which has to be decided by this Court in the present case is that whether easing out of the petitioner primarily on attaining age of 58 years, continuation of the petitioner requirement as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the entire track record would be looked into and also the past record on which the decision is taken a-lso to be looked into. In the present case it is not in dispute that it is settled law that the solitary incident or remarks ca-nnot be made basis for coming to a conclusion that the individual is unfit to be continued in servrce. d) As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the entire service record has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the entire track record of the petitioner would show that the petitioner reputation was consid.ered on various occasions and that the same was found satisfactory and even on judicial side the entire ACRs would reveal that the petitioner was graded as 'satisfactory' Good'and 1rery good'. Considering the fact that the entire track record of the t- r.. 24 -r) PSKJ & NNR/ WP No.23837 oI 2023 petitioner including Vigilance report and prolile of the petitioner along with resolutions of the learned Administrative Committee, the Bench has no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Administrative Committee appears to be without ar-ry basis and it is based on no mzrterial. SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEU/

34. This bench is conscious about the scope of the judicial review in respect of nature of such cases where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated about the scope of review in such cases where compulsory retirement has been ordered b5, the High Court and the scope of the judicial review has been enumerated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arunkumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and anotherT. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the scope of review and inflicting of compulsory retirement by the High Court against the Judicial Ofhcer and the material which has to be considered by the High Court before passing the compuisory retirement has been reiterated in Arun Kumar Gupta's case (supra) so also 'Washed-off theory." '120201 143 5up..-e court cases355 25 PSKI & NNR] wP No.UA37 oJ 2023

35. No doubt, the previous history of a Government servant should not be completely ignored once he is promoted in past basing the same events as contended by the learned senior counsel lor the respondents and he contended that the washed off theory calnot be applied. And mere promoting the petitioner would not rvash off the past history of the petitioner arrd the learned senior counsel try to impress upon this Bench, citing the incident of initiating of disciplinary proceedings in respect of Mass copying which ultimately led to dropping of proceedings and reinstating the petitioner with all benefits.

36. Further, on perusal of the vigilance report of the petitioner which is part of the record al1 the complaints received by the respondents were closed much long ago, when the High Court itself condoned the entire history of the petitioner now contending that the Wash Theory cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, when there is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of tJ-e promotion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no justification for aIl I aws digging into to the past. 26 PSKJ & NNR! wP No.238j7oI2023

37. Before concluding, it is imperative to look into the judgment of The Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Orsa referring to all the previous decisions on the issue at paragraph 35 has summarized or laid down the situations under which the order of compulsory retirement could be interfered with, held as under : "35. The law relatiftg to compulsory retirement in public i'I.tere.st is no long rcs lntegtd- The proalsions hqd been mqde principallg for weeding out dead. roood.. An order of cotnpulsory retirenent being ,rot penal in nqture c@n be subjected to judicid.l reuieut inter-alia : i. uhen it is based on no nateidl; ii. when lt is qrbitrqry ; iii. whe,f it is wlthout dpplication of nind; and io. uhen there is no eoidence in support ol the co.se-"

38. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jarnindar & Ors any order passed based on no materia-l, the same will be amenable to the judicial review and the same can be interfered by the Appellate Court. This Bench is further conscious about the fact that the decision of compulsory retirement of Judicia-l Ofiicer is not to be examined by the High Court as an Appeilate Court and it can 'zoosltslscc 2zt, 27 PSKJ & NNR! WP No.23837 ol2A23 be interfered only when it is proved by the petitioner or the Court is satisfied that the order is passed with mala fide arid not based on evidence or it is highly arbitrary. We are supported bv the iudgment ol Hon'blc Supreme Court in Rajendra Siugh Verma (Dead) Through Lrs v. Lt. Govera.or of NCT of Delhi & Anre, R.C.Chandel v. High Court OF M.P. & Anrlo ald in Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr v. Chief District. Medical Officer, Baripada & others wherein the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles which has kept in mind while considering the CASE of compulsory retirement in Para No.34 r.l,hich reads as under: '34. So far as the appeals before us are coEcertred, the High Court which has looked into the relevant record and confidential records has opined that the order of compulsory reti.retneut was based Dot merely upon the said adverse remarks but other material as rrell. Secondly, it has also found that the Baterial placed before them does aot justify the conclusiorr that the sald remarks were not recorded duly or prope y. In tb.e circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement sulfers from mala fides or that it is based on uo evidence or that it is arbitrary."

39. This Bench has observed that similar writ petitions are being filed by variolrs officers questioning the " zol{s)ro scc t 'o zorzls;scc s8 " rssz13.1 scc zss 28 PSKI & NNRJ wP No-23837 oJ 2023 decision of compulsory retirement on various grounds. Considering the sarne, this Bench feels it appropriate to reiterate the guidelines laid down by tJle Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions while dealing . with the cases pertaining to compulsory retirement. For the beneht of the High Court, it is advisable to consider the ca5es of judicial officers for extension of service beyond 50, 55 and 58 in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superarnuation) Act, 1984 arld Rule 23 o[ the Telangana State Judicial Service Rule, 2017 for awarding compulsory retirement to the officers whom the High Court intends to The guidelines which are laid down in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are strictly adhered to and for convenience they are reproduced as under:

40. In Baikuntha Nath Das a. District Medical Offtcerl2, at paragraph No.34 it was held as follows: "34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion, (1) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no sligma nor atf3uggestion of misbehaviour. (1992) 2 SCC 299 29 PSKJ & NIIR] WP No.BA37 ol2023 (iil The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public intcrest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala frde or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to bc a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as tfre case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching rnore importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/ character rolls, both favourable and adverse. I[ a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks losc their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into I 30 ru &NNa] wP No-23837 of 2O2j consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference."

41. In State of Guja.rat a, Urnedbhai M, Patell3, at paragraph No. 11 it was held as foilows: '11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into dehnite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus: O Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the ofhcer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (it ) Ordinarill', the order of compulsory rctirement is nol to be treated as a punishment coming uncler Article 3l i of the Constitution. (itil For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record ol the ofhcer. (it ) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (u) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (u4 The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (ui! If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse . entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the oflicer- )....-___,_.- " (2001) 3 scc 314 o l. 31 PSK.I & NNRJ WP No.23837 ol 2023 (uiit) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."

42. Considering the above guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the track record of the petitioner, which is extracted in the above paragraphs, there is no iota of material to support the aforesaid conclusions of ttre Administrative Committee even the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court do not I seem to have been adhered to. In the absence of anv material placed by the respondents, this Bench would be forced to interfere with the frndings of the learned Adrninistrative Committee of the Honlcle High Court issued vide Order ROC No.O1/2023-B.Specia1, dated 31.01 .2023 and consequential proceedings of the respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.17, General Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.02.2023, issued by respondent No. 1 and proceedings in Order ROC No.01/2O23-B, SPL, dated 04.04.2023, issued by respondent No.3 are liable to be quashed.

43. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and consequently the petitioner would be reinstated into seryice i 32 o..; PSKI & NNRJ WP No.23837 ol2023 and he was entifled for monitory benefits from the date of said G.O, dated 31.OI.2O23 till date of his reinstatement and the petitioner may be entitled to all consequential benefits by giving him notional fixation. No order as to costs. I Miscellaneous applications, if arry pending, sha.ll also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL, on this Monday, The Seventeenth Day Of March Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUECOPY// SD/- A. SRINIVAS REDDY ASSI$TANT REGISTRAR \\\_il\ Vsecrtot'.t oFFtcER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To,

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad

2. The Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana, Near Government City college, Madina, Charminar Hyderabad - 500066.

3. The Registrar (Vigilance), The High Court for the State of Telangana, Near Government City college, Madina, Charminar, Hyderabad - 500066. /

4. 11 L.R. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, IVlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

7. One CC to MS GODA RAMALAKSHMI Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SMT. K. UDAYA SRI Advocate IOPUCI 9. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

10. Two CD Copies KKS M\ I HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 ..iTA rF I OB AIN M o .1, .+ ORDER WP.No.23837 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )-,