Sri. Mohd. Yousuf v. feLngina-and the

Order

(per Hon'ble Sri Jwlice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

1. This writ petition is fited challenging the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, wherein petitioner was placed under computsory retirement from service with effect from 30.04.2018 A.N. on attaining the age of 50 years in the pubtic interest vide G.O.Ms.No-26, dated

24.04.2018 and consequential proceeding issued by respondent No.1, vide RoC No.7149 /7018-B.Special, dated 25.04.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner entered into the Judiciat Ministeriat 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 Judiciat officer i.e., Junior Civit Judge by transfer on 31.10.2010 and underwent training for a period of four (4) months from 01.09.2010 lo 31-12.7010 and posted as Junior civiI Judge, sirpur at Aditabad District where he joined duty on 01 .0'l .201 1. He was posted as ll Metropotitan Magistrate, L'B', Nagar from 15.04.2015 to 06.12.2015. Later he was posted as Xlll Metropotitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar from 07.17-7015 to 07'05'2017' 2 \ PSKJ & NNSJ WP No-39255 of 2018

Subsequently. hr: was posted as Junior Civit Judge, Zaheerabad from 08.05.2017 tilt 30.04.2018, i.e., tiil. respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings vider G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 24-04.201g by the Law (LA, LA&J-Home Courts) for computsory retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years.

3. Sri M.Srikanth, [earned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner discharged his duties in a sat.isfactory manner and the rearned portfotio Judge's for the respective districts have atso appreciated the petitioner's performance/duties on many occasions. Despite the records being ctean and ctear, the petitioner was compulsory reitired from service.

4. Aggrieved bv the same, the petitioner has made representation dated 21.05.208 before Hon'bte High court to review the decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The Hon'bte High Court on the administrative side considered the petitioner,s representation and rejected the same on 25.06.201g. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 26.07.201g to the Registrar General, FAC Registrar (vigitance) seeking review of the dec.ision of petitioner,s computsory retirement. However, the same has been rejected by the ( 3 PSKJ & NNR) wP No 39255 of2018 Hon'ble Court on the administrative side, vide proceeding dated

16.08.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner had eartier preferred Writ Petition (C) No'1213 of 2013 chattenging the impugned order before the Hon'bte Apex Court' wherein the Hon'bte Apex Court, vide order dated 22'10'2018 permitted the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition (C) No'1213 of 2018 white granting tiberty to petitioner to approach the High Court' The instant petition has since beeq fited' ioner contendedihat the imPugned

6. Learned counsel for the Peti order was Passed without any reason to comPutsory 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 conctusion to computsory retire the petitioner from serylce.

7. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner is a responsibte' honest judiciat officer serving the judiciat system for more than seven and hatf years and had an unbtemished track record and never found 4 I PSKJ & NNR) WP No.39255 o12018 to be performinq badty 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 sustainabte in law and the said impugned proceedings are liabte to be set-aside ancl the order of computsory retirement ought to meet the requirements of natural justice and atso fairness and reasonableness.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's seryice between the period 01 .09.2014 to 15.12.2014 shows that after reviewing his performance, the Hon'bte portfotio Judge, opined as ,,your disposol is very much apprecioted, keep up the same without sacrificing the quality,,. For the period 2015, the petitioner's statisticat work review statement states ,,both quantitotively os: well as qualitatively os,,Good,,. Hence, the petitioner's performance ctearty shows that for att the years, he received good remarks from the Competent Authority and never received any adverse remarks.

9. The present order of computsory retirement appears to be based on one solitary adverse remark passed in the year 2016 wherein the Hon'ble Portfotio -rudge has opined his remarks on the petitioner that "heord bad obout his honesty, but not known personolly (no 5 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No-39255 ol2O1E material to justify)" - That apart, the petitioner has never received any adverse remarks. On six occasions, the petitioner received the remarks of "Very Good" for the period 01 .07.2012 to 30.06.2012,

01.08.2013 to 31.01 .7014, 01.07.7014 to 31.12.2014, 01.01.2017 to

04.05.2017,01.07.2017 to 31.17.2017, 01.01.2018 to 30.04.2018. On five occasions has received the remarks as "Good", for the period 01 .02.2013 to 31 .07 .2013, 01 .02.2014 to 06.04.2014, 01.01 .201 5 to

30.06.2015, 01.07.2015 to 31.12.7015 and 01 .07.2016 to 31.12.2016 which ctearly shows the petitioner's consistent good performance over the years, both quantitatively and qualitativety. Further, the Annua[ Confidentia[ Report (ACR) for the year 2012 shows that "Ihe Officer is hard working. Honest impartial with integrify. " Further, in the remark column there are no adverse remarks pertaining to the number of leaves availed by the petitioner. The ACR for the year 2013, remarks recorded as "Honest, lmpartiat, Satisfactory" and in General Remarks, it is recorded as "Reached more than the Target". The ACR of the year 2014 recorded as "Good Reputation and Capabte Officer". f n the ACRs for the year 2016, the remarks of the Principat District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District show as the petitioner as Good Officer and the same was atso ptaced before the Hon'ble Administrative/ Portfotio Judge. 6 \ PSI{) & NNR) wP No.39255 oJ 2018 '10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of petitioner's RTA apptication, the Hon,bte Court has provided the detaits of the comptaints received against him and on perusal of the records, it ctearty shows that each of the said complaints have been considered by the, competent Authority and have been closed and none of the said comptaints have been found to initiate any enquiry against the petitioner. Further, the impugned order for compulsority retirement of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was not even provided with the reasons nor given an opportunity to meet the grounds for such compulsory retirement. The vigitqnce profite of the petitioner and ACRs would reflect, that the totatity of relevant materiats were not considered and comptetety ignored by the Administrative committee, deciding to computsority retire the petitioner from service. 11- Learned counsel further contended that in identicat matters the Hon'bte Apex Court has quashed the orders of compulsory retirement in public interest which was found to be in sharp contradiction with service performance as was recorded in the case of ) 7 PSKJ & NNN WP No.39255 ol 2018 Swomi Saran Saksena v. State of llPl . As such, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is clearly perverse.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that five comptaints were made against the petitioner by third persons. However, att of them were found to be basetess and after considering atl the material on record, they were found to be ctosed and no action was proposed against the petitioner and the overatl performance ot the petitioner is clean and ctear. However, the Administrative Committee without appreciating the service records came to conctusion to retire the petitioner from service at the age of 50. The petitioner prays this Court to set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 24.04.2018 issued by respondent No.2 and the consequential proceeding ROC No.2149l2018-B.Speical, dated 25.04.2018 issued by the respondent No.1.

13. Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for High Court appearing for the respondent No.1 has fited counter affidavit and submits that petitioner has been computsority retired from service with effect from 30.04.2018 i.e., the last day of the catendar month on his attaining the age of 50 years and the decision pertaining to the '(19E0) 1 SsC 12 8 \ PSKJ & NNBJ wP No 39255 of 2018 retirement ord€'r of the petitioner was passed by the High Court onty after reviewine; the petitioner's case. Further, the petitioner's altegation that the order of the compulsory retirement is passed without any basis and without adducing any reasons and are violative of the principtes of natural justice and atso viotative'f Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia were strongty denied. she further contended that keeping in view section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Pubtic Emptoyment (Regutation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 by A.t No.42 of 2006 the Administrative committee of Hon'bte Judges rn its meeting hetd on 2g.03.201g -reviewed the case of the petitioner atong with the case of other Judiciat officers which had come up for consideration and the Administrative Committee thereafter passed a resolution deciding to compulsority retire the petitioner from service.

14. ln comptiance with the said order, the Government issued orders vide G.O. Ms. No. 26, Law (LA, LA&J-Home Courts. A2) Department, dated 24.O4.2018, and consequent upon receipt of such orders from the Government r:f Tetangana, the High Court also issueri orders vide Proceedings ROC No. Z14g/ZO1}-B.Speciat dated 25.04.201g, wherein the petitioner was computsory retired with effect from 30.04.201g 9 PSru & NNRJ wP No.39255 oI2018 i.e., the tast day of the calendar month on his attaining the age of 50 (fifty) years in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Pubtic Emptoyment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and granted 3 (three) months satary in lieu of notice in accordance with Rute 23 of the State Judiciat Service Rutes and further contended that petitioner's contention of not granting of an opportunity of hearing to him is unsustainable. Further, it is atso stated that after receipt of the orders of computsory retirement, the petitioner made representation requesting the High Court to review its decision pertaining to his compulsory retirement at the age of 50 and the same was ptaced before the Administrative Committee in the meeting hetd on 20.06.2018. The Administrative Committee after due consideration rejected the ptea of the petitioner and the same was atso communicated to the petitioner on 25.06.2018. Thereafter, again the petitioner submitted another detaited representation for reconsideration of his case and the same was placed before the Administrative Committee and in its meeting held on 08.08.2018' the repeated pteas of the petitioner were again rejected and same was communicated to the Petitioner. _,L., 10 \ PSKJ & NNRJ WP Na39255 ol 2018

15. Learned counse[ for the respondent No.1 further contended that judiciat service is a catting of the highest order requiring a stringent standard of commitment, rectitude and devotion towards duty. The Administrative committee comprising seven senior most Judges not only reviews the judiciat work front but atso takes into consideration the general information of the candidates that has been gathered through discreet enquires pertaining to his reputation, conduct, probitl, and integrity before arriving at a judicious decision as to whether the officer is fit to be continued in service in pubtic interest as an officer for his continuation in the service beyond the age of 50, 55 or 58 years and it is settl.ed tegat position. lt is wel.t recognized that the High courts exercise administrative, judiciat and disciptinary controt over the subordinate judiciary. Hence, [earned standing counsel further submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and prayerJ this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

16. Before eoing into the aspects and facts of the case, it is pertinent to find out whether att the relevant records inctuding ACRs of the petitioner were ptaced before the Administrative Committee which makes the learned Administrative committee to take decision to compulsory rel.ire the petitioner fro, ,u*[". ln this regard, this 11 PSKI & NNRI wP No-39255 ol 2018 Bench feet it necessary to go through the ACR and Vigitance report of the petitioner.

17. This Court had catled the original records and vigilance report of the petitioner and perused the finding of the Administrative Committee meeting hetd on 28.03.2018, wherein subject No.1 and the resotution, reads as under: Review of Cases - Review of cases of Judiciat Officers who are compteting the age of 50,55 and 58 years in the Month of Aprit, 2018 for assessing their continued utility in service beyond 50, 55 and 58 years of age as per Rul,e 23 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judiciat Service Rutes, 2007 as per resotution, dated 20.12.2017 of the Administrative Committee of Hon'ble Judges - Consideration - Reg. Resolution: On consideration and reviewing the service record of Sri l.Aohammed Yousuf , Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad,Medok district who is going to complete 50 years of oge, his over oll performance and track record, the committee is of the opinion that the officer is not of continued utility ond is not fit to be continued in service beyond 50 yeors. The committee resolved in public interest to recommend to the Government thot the officer be retired on 30'04-2018' the 72 \ PSKI & NNR! wP No-39255 of 2018 last dov of the colendor month in which he completes 50 years of age, in terms of first proyiso to Section 3(tA) of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulotion ol oge of Superonnuation) Act ond Rule 23 of A.p. Stote Judiciot Service Rules, 2007 (as adopted by the Government of Telongana) and be poid three months pay and allowonces as contemploted under Rule 23 of A.p. State Judicial Service Rules, 200,t (os adopted by the Government of Telangana). Thereafter, on 08.08.2018, the Administrative committee has once again reviewed rhe decision taken by the Administrative committee and has considered and rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide order Roc No.2149l20rg-B.spt. Dated 16.0g.201g.

18. Further in the backdrop of the facts stated above, this Bench feel it necessary to discussed about the settted raw in respect of the computsory retirement is concerned. The supreme Court as early as in the case of fir.s. Bindra vs. union of rndia &,orsT in paragraph 13 held as under : "13. While v,iewing this cose from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e. want of evidence or material to reoch such o conclusion, we may add that want of any moteriol is olmost equivolent to the next situotion thot from the ovailable '1998(7) SCC 31 0 13 PSKJ & NNN WP No.39255 ol201E moterials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the moterials the outhority should not oltogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The moxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on o sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a solutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not ke'ep the eyes totally closed towords the overall estimation in which the delinguent officer was held in the recent past by those who were superising him earlier. To dunk an olficer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on o mere hunch- Thot doubt should be ol such a nature os would reasonobly ond consciously be entertainable by o reasonable man on the given materiol' llere possibility is hordly sufficient to assume' that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reosonoble man to entertain doubt regording that possibility. Only then there is iustification to ram an officer with the lobel "doubtful integrity".

19. Again in case of "Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar &Ors.",3 white deating on the issue of computsory retirement, the Hon'bte Supreme Court held in paragraph 12 as under: "l2.Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. lJnder the various disciplinory rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being '2001(21scc 305 74 \ PSKJ & NNRJ WP Na3923s ol2018 recordect in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be infticted except by foltowing procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistentty with the principles of natural justice if the fietd for infticting such penaLty be not occupied by ony rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servont must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 3. 1 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such os Rule 56(j) of Fundomental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriote authority, on absoktte (but not orbitrary) right to retire o government servont on his ottoining o particulor oge or on his hoving completed o certoin number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. So long as the opinion t'orming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in publit: interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with bv o judiciol forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very timited grounds such as the order being malaf ide, based on no moteriol or on colloterol grounds or having been possed by on outhority not competent to do so.,,

20. Simitar view, has been taken by the Supreme Court in case of "State of Gujrot Vs. Ilmedbhai hl. patel,,a, where in paragraph 11, the parameters which have been crystattized by the Supreme Court and which are required to be taken note of white considering the case for computsory retirement, has hetd as under: '2001(3)SCC 314 15 WP No.39255 oI 2018 "11. The low relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus : (i) whenever the services of a public serYont are no longer useful to the generol administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinorily, the order of compulsory retirement is not be treated as o punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better odministrotion, it is necessory to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be possed ofter hoving due regord to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries mode in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in possing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken i nto considerotion. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to ovoid deportmental enquiry when such course is mode desirable. (vii) lf the olficer was given o promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidentiol record, that is a foct in fovour of the officer- (viii) Computsory retirement sholl not be imposed as a punitive meosure." 21 . Simitar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'MP Electricity Board Vs. Shree Baboo",5 where taking into consideration the service records of the employee where there was nothing adverse and on the contrary, the integrity of the employee was shown to be "Sound". The Supreme Court affirming the order of the High Court white setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, hetd as under : '2002(9) SCC 7O4, 15 \ PSru & NNRJ wP No.j92s5 of 2018 "1.....The very service record ond the onnual charocter rolt for the year 1991-92 that was ploced before us record his integrity to be sound ond yet the Screening Committee come to the conclusion thot his integrity is also not beyond doubt. There is absolutely not an iota of moterial to support the aforesaid conclusion of the Screening Committee and a conclusion not bosed on any materiols is obviottsly justicioble and could be interfered with by a court of law. This being the position, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, vve are satisfied that the High Court rightty interfered with the order of compulsory retirement and we see no infirmity with the soid order so os to be interfered with by this court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. We therefore dismiss this appeal."

22. The Supreme Court in case of ,,Madhya pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors."6 referring to att the previous decisions on the issue in paragraph 35 has summarized or taid down the situations under which the order of computsory retirement coutd be interfered with, hetd as under :

35. The law reloting to compulsory retirement in pubtic interest is no long res integro. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subjected to judiciat review inter-alia: '2009(1s)scc 221, 17 PSKI & NNN WP No.39255 ol2018 i. when it is based on no moteriol; ii. when it is arbitrary ; iii. when it is without application of mind; and iv. when there is no evidence in support of the case."

73. Recently aga'in in case of 'Raiasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Babu Lat Jangif',7 the Hon'bte Supreme Court hetd in paragraphs 24 as under: "24. Having token note of the correct principles which need to be opplied, we con safely conclude that the order of the High Court bosed solety on the judgment in the case of Brij ttohon Singh Chopro wos not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground thot service record pertaining to the period 1g78-g| being old ond stale could not be taken into'consideration at alt. As per the low loid down in the aforesoid judgments, it is cleor thot entire service record is relevont for deciding os to whether the government servant needs to be eased out Prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is olso relevant, ond immediate post record, preceding the dote on which decision is to be token would be of more volue, quolitatively. Whot is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee hos become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall et'lect of the entries of the officer concerned and not on isoloted entry, os it may well be in some coses that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority moy desire to compulsorily retire on employee in public interest, os in the opinion of the said outhority, the post has to be monned by o more efficient ond dynamic person ond if there is sufficient materiol '2013 (10) scc 551 18 \ PSKI & NNRJ wP No.39255bJ 2018 on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liobility to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise ol it:s limited power of judiciol review."

24. ln the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. Stafe of Jharkhand and others,s in paragraph 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given a broad outtine as to the entries which woutd be retevant for the purpose of formation of an opinion before placing emptoyee/officer for computsory retirement. For ready reference, paragraph-34 of the said judgment reproduced herein under: "34. lt is also well settled thot the t'ormation.of opinion for compulsory r,etirement is based on the subjective satisfoction of the concerned outhority but such sotisfoction must be based on a valid materiol. lt i:; permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid moteriol exists or otherwise, on which the subjective sotisfoction of the administrative outhority is bosed. ln the present matter, what we see is thot the High Court, while holding thot the track record ond service recor'C of the oppellont wos unsotisf octory, hos .selectively taken into considerotion the service record for certoin years only while making extrocts of those contents of the ACR';. There appears to be some discreponcy. We say so for the reason that the oppeuant hos produced the copies of the ACR's which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to lnformotion Act,2005 and o comparison of these two would positively indicote thot the High Court hos not t'oithfully extrocted the contents of the ACRs. " '2012 (3) SCC 580 I L ) 19 PSKJ & NNR.] wP No.39255 of 2O1E

25. Before proceeding further and coming to the conctusion, it is imperative to bring forth the review statement of the petitioner of his entire service, which reads as under: Station Period Junior Civil. Judge Court, Sirpur 01 t01 17011 31t01 17011 Quantitativ Short period - No review Quatitatively Short period - No review Judge Junior Civit Court, Sirpur Civit Judge Junior Court, Si Junior Civit Court, Sirpur Junior Civil Judge Court, Sirpur Judge f Judge Metropotitan rabad, LB Na Civit Judge MetroPotitan Civit Judge Junior Court, Si Junior Civit f Court, Sir Junior Court, Si magistrate, c magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar magistrate, c magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar and as JCJ Cum Xll lv\l\ c berabad, LB Nagar JCJ-Cum-Xlll cvberabad LB Na JCJ-Cum-Xlll l A Cyberabad LB Nagar Metropotitan MetroPolitan abad, LB Na MA f f 01/07/2011 31 t07 17011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 13t01 12017 Poor Satisfactory 01 /02/7017 30/06/2012 Very Good Satisfactory 05/01 /701f 31 /O1 /7013 01t0212013 31 tO7 t2013 Short Period - No Review Goo$ Short Period - No ReviEw Good 01108t2013 31 t01 12014 Very Good Satisfactory 01 t0212014 06/0/.t2014 Good Satisfactory 11 t04/2014 30/06t2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 01/07 t2014 31 11717014 Very Good Satisfactory 01 /01 12015 30t06t2015 Good Satisfactory 01/07 12015 Good Good 01 101 t2016 30t06/2016 Average Satisfactory 01 107 12016 31 / 12/7016 Good Satisfactory 20 PSKJ & NNPJ wP No.39255 ol 2018 01 /01 /2017 04/05/2017 Very Good Average 08/05/2017 30/06/7017 Satisfactory Satisfactory 01 /07 /2017 31 /12/2017 Very Good Good 01 /01 /2018 30/04/2018 Very Good Satisfactory C[ass JCJ-Cum-Xlll A{M Cyberabad LB Nagar Judicia[ First Magistrate, Zaheerabad JudiciaI First Magistrate, Zaheerabad JudiciaI First Ctass Magistrate, Zaheerabad Cta ss

26. lt is also pertinent to extract the reputation of the officer (with justification for the assessment/remarks of Principat District Judge and High Court portfolio Administrative Judge. Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reputation Reputation of the officer. (with justifir:ation for the assessment / remarks) Integrity/ honest lmpartiality a b c Charar:ter. Reputation of the officer. (with j ustification for the assessment/ remarks) a) lntegr ity/ honest b) lmpartiatity c) Character. Reputation of the officer. (with justification for the assessment / remarks) a) lntegrr tyl honest b) lmpartiatity Character. c Reputation of the officer. (with justification for the assessment/ remarks) a) lntegrity/ honest b) lmpartiatity c) Charac ter. Remarks of Principa[ District Judge concerned. The Officer is hardworking. Honest impartia[ with integrity Remarks of High Court portfotio udge. Satisfactory I have, no personal knowtedge. Going by the opinion the then District Judge, Aditabad, the officer is honest. Good reputation No adverse remarks Honest lmpartiaI Satisfactory ImpartiaI Good Honest; lmpartiat; Satisfactor 2016 Reputation of the officer. (with justification for the assessment /remarks) a) lntegrity/ honest b) lmpartiatity c) Character. 27 Honest; PSKI & NNR) WP No.39255 ol 2078 Heard bad about his honest, but not known personally (no materiaI to justify) lmpartiaU Satisfactory Not known; Not known; CONCLUSION: 27. As per the law taid down inthe aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurety- Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is atso retevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is taken, would be of more vatue, qualitativety. What is to be examined is the "overatl performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conctusion as to whether the emptoyee concerned has become a deadwood and it is in the pubtic interest to retire him computsority' The Authority must consider and examine the overatl effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isotated entry, as it may wett be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsority retire an employee in pubtic interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material. on record to show that the employee "rendered 22 PSKJ & NNBJ WP No 39255 of 2018 himself a tiabitity to the institution,', there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its timited power of judiciat rewew.

28. Considering the above judgments of the Hon,bte Supreme Court which are direct[y applicabte to the facts of the present case as seen and from the resotution of the learned Administrative committee which shows that except stating that ..fhe petitioner did not enjoy good reputation" and the resotution reads as ,,On considerotion and reviewing the service record of sri tAohd Yousuf , Junior Civil Judge, Zoheerabad, lliedok District, who is going to complete 50 years of age, his overall performonce and track record, the committee is of the opinion thot the officer is not of continued utility ond is not fit to be continued in service beyond 50 years. The Committee resorved in pubtic interest to recommend to the Government that the Officer be retired on 30.04.201 8", No doubt, as contended by the counsel for the respondents, the services of the petitioner cannot be treated as ordinary government service and that there is nothing to disagree that the effect of an c,rder of compulsory retirement is not an punishment and it does not impty stigma untess such order is passed as a 23 PSKJ & NNN wP No.j925s of 2018 punishment for a proven misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory rutes.

29. The learned counse[ for the petitioner has contended that the seryice record of the petitioner woutd reveal that his service is found to be satisfactory., He has atso contended that the service records and the remarks atso revea[ that the integrity of the petitioner was never in doubt and he argued that it is clear from the entire record that there was no material on record, which would cast aspersions on the petitioner's integrity. And that in his entire service, there is no such instance or act on the part of the petitioner being unbecoming of a judiciat officer nor was his integrity ever doubted at any point of time.

30. Further, the sotitary remark is ambiguous and it is admitted that there is no such material to justify the said statement. The petitioner has an unbtemished seryice and no adverse remarks have ever been made against him and that he was atso considered for the Assured Career Progression Scate-|, which is conferred on judicial officers having ctean record. 24 \ PSP & NNBJ wP No 39255 of 2018

31. On perusat of the entire track record mentioned above, this Bench has no hesitation to hotd that the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner hotds force and has some strength and substance which cannot be brushed aside. rt is atso pertinent to mention that on perusat of the vigitance report and the profite of the petitioner atong with the resolutions of the learned Administrative Committee, the same appears to be without any basis and except stating that on discreet enquires it is found that the petitioner is tiabte to be retired compulsory.

32. on one foot, respondent No.1 contends -that the learned Administrative committee has considered the entire track record and came to such a decision of compulsory retirement. The said decision and finding of tlr,e Adm'inistrative committee is contradicting to the entire track record of the petitioner. Except a stray observation of the Learned administrative Judge of the district, that too without any proof or basis, the decision of the Administrative committee appears to be without any basis and it is based on no materiat, as hetd by the Hon'bte Supreme, Court in the case of Madhyo pradesh State cooperdtive Doiry Federotion & Anr. vs. Rojnesh Kumar tqmindar & JI A 25 wP No.39255 of 2018 Ors (cited 5,hsupra) where an order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subjected to judiciat review inter'atia : i. when it is based on no material; ii. when it is arbitrary; iii. when it is without application of mind; and iv. when there is no evidence in support of the cose."

33. As hetd by the Hon'bLe Supreme Court, the overatl performance and on the basis of entire seMce record has to be taken into consideration. ln the present case, the petitioner has exhibited before this Bench as to his track record which is al.ready extracted in the above paragraphs, which by itsetf speaks about the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, this Bench comes to the conctusion that petitioner's integrity cannot be doubted at and there is absolutety not an iota of material to support the aforesaid conctusion of the Administrative committee. A conctusion not based on any materiats is obviousty not justifiabte and coutd be interfered and interdicted with by a court of [aw. Accordingty, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where this Bench can interfere into the findings of the learned Administrative Committee, as being without I I any material evidence and without any basis and as such the same is liabl,e to be set-aside. PSKJ & HNRJ WP No 39255 oJ 2019

34. The impugned proceedings G.O.Ms.No.26, dated Z4.o4.Zo1B issued by the L.aw (LA, LA&J_Home_Court A2) Department, issued by the respondent No.2 and consequential proceeding vide, ROC No.2149/2O18-B.Speical, dated 25.04.20.18 issued by the respondent No.1 are unsustainable and deserves to be and are accordingly set aside. 35' The writ petition stands atlowed. Consequentty, it is ordered that the petitioner shatt be reinstated into service and he wourd arso be entitted for att consequential benefits. However, so far as monetary part is concerned, the petitioner would not be entitred for any monetary benefits for the intervening period, but the benefits shatl be given to the petitioner by giving him notionit fixation. 36. Al[ misceLtaneous appticat.ions, if any pending, sha. also stand closed. No order as to costs. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness THE HON'BLE THE AcrNG cHrEF JUSTTCE suJoy PAUL on this Friday, the Seventh Day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR ASSI ON OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON,BLE SRt JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY (For His Lordship's Kind perusal) one fair copy to rHE HoN,BLE ,*,1U3r,"a NARSING RAo NANDTKoNDA (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) 11 L.R. Copies. union of tndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company I[:,X:Ril.SSlh:itary, J:i.,:r".:'fittffi;rJS'ns'n' Advocates Association Library. Hish court To, 1 2 J 'rhe Jusrrce, Law Deoartment, Room Nos.

4. I he bgrstia, Generat High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Tetanoana ^Hon,ble ?.19-lh: st"iu oi"nloryl"Elr.o"rn ,Hish Court for rhe , ,. . flr]u:I,S.rnd A F. Ar Hyderabad_500-066,-"," c. tne Secretary to the Government l-egit nffairs, Legislative Affairs and ip"1,n]1. ir+ (Op), A_Btock. rrr .;uft ,ixffi 'f:,-iffi?,'#ii#itfl,1T,',H1::t{?,,i;Ti.H:x i Hii i[ F itl v 8[,,Xtlu 33,i:7,fit"I^,3]1o,,"1 wo CD Copies -d#

9. Ml MP 'l-: ,t l HIGH COURT I \ DATED:0710212025 ORDER WP.No.39255 ol2018 't-A 1l: ii{ P I 14 rlB 2C25 \:)1,, ' \...i.. * .0 _Di_s.1 a-::1i T.i"{ f ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS i Cr& ,.u\"\u