P.Ramaraj v. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Madras – 104 & Ors.

duties to the best of his ability with due diligence and care tothe satisfaction of his superiors. While he was functioning asJudicial Magistrate at Thiruthuraipoondi, the Vedaranyam PoliceStation filed charge sheet against one Mr.Rajagopal and othersunder Section 302 IPC. On a perusal of the case papers as hefound that no murder had taken place, he returned the chargesheet making query as to how Section 302 IPC was invoked in thatcase in absence of murder. It is alleged that on the same day,the authorities altered the section and filed charge sheet u/s307 IPC. So he called for the entire case diary and charge wasshown u/s 506 (2) on the basis of the opinion given by ADP, APP-I. When the case was listed for trial, the District Judge rangup and told him to take evidence in favour of Rajagopal, but hedeclined, which infuriated the District Judge, who wanted to takerevenge against him and for not acting on his word, he instigatedone Ragupathi, an advocate of Mr.Rajagopal and the APP to filecomplaint against him.The petitioner further alleged that in another caseinvolving one Kulandaivelu (A-1) in crime Nos.501/92 and 499/92,registered by the Vedaranyam Police Station and investigated bythe CB-CID for an offence u/s 302 IPC, charge sheet was filed asback as in 1994. However, as the said accused happened to be aninfluential person belonging to a particular community and theUnion Chairman of Vedaranyam for a long period, he was evadingthe process of the court by filing petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C., dueto which committal proceedings were dragging on and afterperusing the case bundle, the petitioner took effective steps forthe appearance of the accused by dismissing the petition filedu/s 317 Cr.P.C. and issued warrant. The accused was forced toappear before the court and so some of the advocates belonging tothe same community at Thiruthuraipoondi did not like the abovestep taken by the petitioner as also the people belonging to thesame community, who were running shrimp farms in Mangrove forestarea, Muthupettai. False cases were lodged by the farm ownersagainst poor people and got them registered by police with theireconomic, political and community influence. Nearly 200 poorpeople had been implicated in six cases and so after perusing thecase bundle the petitioner took cognisance of the cases foroffences under various sections, but did not take cognisance u/s307 IPC and Section 3 (1) of TNPPD Act as there was no materialavailable regarding the said section. This enraged the farmowners and advocates belonging to a particular community, whosupport the farm owners.The petitioner alleges that the aforesaid issues were thebackground for which he was placed under suspension videproceedings ROC No.873/2003/RG/B3 dated 25th Jan., 2006, which wasissued on 26th Jan., 2006, based on the false complaint given bythe abovesaid persons. When the order of suspension was soughtto be served on him, the District Judge and the Chief JudicialMagistrate came along with two battalions of armed police as ifhe was an accused of heinous crimes to be arrested. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unheard of in judicial history in Tamil Nadu. As the petitionerclaims to be a member of a particular community, it is allegedthat the District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate alwaystreated him differently and a Judicial Magistrate facing suchproblem of caste discrimination after 60 years of independence isunfortunate.3. Further case of the petitioner is that on 3rd April, 2006,when he was sleeping alone in his quarters, at about 2.30 p.m., aperson, armed with knife, trespassed into his quarters andshouted at him as to why he was sitting there as he was not inservice and threatened him to vacate and run away from thequarters as otherwise he would kill him. Fearing his life, thepetitioner states that he ran away from the quarters towards theMunsif's Court to take shelter there. However, the personfollowed him and tried to stab him in the court hall itself. Forhis self-defence, the petitioner had to take a chair to protecthimself. He shouted for help and came out of the quarters andgoing round in open space in front of his quarters. It is statedthat the District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, who was also in-charge of Judicial Magistrate's court, who was sitting in thequarters adjacent to his quarters watching the incident throughhis quarters window, but did not come out to help him or to callthe police to give him protection. Though a huge crowd around200 people gathered at the scene of occurrence, but no oneattempted to catch the culprit. It is stated that as repairingwork was going on in the Judicial Magistrate's Court, thejudicial officer in-charge was sitting only in the DistrictMunsif's Court discharging the function of Judicial Magistrateand having been chased by aggressor, the petitioner ran forsafety to the court hall of the District Munsif about 3.30 p.m.,and the culprit followed him armed with knife without anyhesitation and continued to attempt to stab. It is furtheralleged that one person, as mentioned at para-7, entered into thecourt hall and the petitioner requested him to inform the police,but he did not respond even at that point of time. He wasshocked and suffered extreme stress and strain and one advocate,after the occurrence, informed him that the culprit was oneChellapandian from Adirangam village and there were severalcriminal cases pending against him. It is alleged that theaforesaid fact shows that there was pre-arranged plan formurdering him and the culprit Chellapandian was engaged for thesaid purpose. At 5.00 p.m., he along with an advocate, went tothe police station and lodged a FIR there. A complaint was alsoforwarded to the Chief Justice on 12th April, 2006, informingabout the incidence, but Chellapandian, though was arrested, butnot remanded to judicial custody. His arrest was published inthe tamil newspaper on the next day itself and instead of takingaction against Chellapandian, a false complaint was given againstthe petitioner to put him behind the bars. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Lots of allegations have been made against one of theDistrict Judge and some others, including Chief JudicialMagistrate, District Munsif, etc., and certain more incidentshave been narrated. It appears that based on the report of theDistrict Judge, for certain serious allegations, the petitionerwas issued with another charge memo on 24.01.2007, but finally hewas compulsorily retired from service by impugned order dated 13thJuly, 2007.5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken thefollowing grounds to challenge the order of compulsoryretirement:-a) The petitioner requested to furnish documents relied uponby the respondents to retire him compulsorily, but such prayerwas rejected;b) Till he was placed under suspension, his performance wasexcellent and there was nothing adverse against him;c) There is no public interest involved to compulsorilyretire the petitioner from service; andd) Though departmental proceeding was initiated, but withoutfollowing the same to its end, the petitioner was compulsorilyretired from service.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while made similarsubmission, also submitted that the impugned order was passedbecause of mala fide on the part of certain officers. He alsoplaced reliance on one or other judgments of Supreme Court insupport of his plea.Learned Addl. Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of therespondents, while submitted that the order has been passed onthe recommendation of the Full Court of the Madras High Court, itwas further informed that the matter was earlier taken up,discussed and recommendation was made by the AdministrativeCommittee. Apart from this proceeding, the Registry is not in aposition to state the background of compulsory retirement and,therefore, they also produced the original records.7. We have heard the parties, noticed the rival contentions,perused the original records and the judgments referred to by oneor other party.8. The petitioner in the writ petition mainly alleged malafide against number of officers of the Tamil Nadu State JudicialService, including those belonging to superior and subordinatejudiciary. Allegations have been made against individualofficers, whose names have been shown at different paragraphs.Though we have noticed some of the allegations as made, butdeliberately do not give the names of such officers as none ofthem have been impleaded as party respondent by name. Theattitude of the petitioner will be clear from the pleadings. Hehas made lot of allegations against one or other officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ including the District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, DistrictMunsif, etc., but while making such allegations and pleadings,apart from the fact that the parties have not been impleaded asrespondents by name, it has not been pleaded as to whether suchstatements made are true to his knowledge or information derivedfrom any record. In the aforesaid background, we are notinclined to accept any one or other allegation made by thepetitioner against individual officers, but the manner in whichsuch allegation has been made shows the nature of the officer,who could make any sort of allegation without any basis. This isone of the fact we have noticed for determination whether suchtype of officers should be allowed to continue in the judicialservice, even if technically there is any flaw in the proceeding.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on thedecisions as referred below :-a) In the case of M.S.Bindra – Vs – Union of India reportedin 1998 (7) SCC 310, the Supreme Court observed that in thematter of compulsory retirement, for recording doubtfulintegrity, there requires to be some basis to sustain theinference. This was highlighted by counsel for the petitioner tosuggest that there is no basis to sustain any inference againstthe petitioner about his integrity.In the case of M.S.Bindra (supra), the Supreme Court noticedthat the officer, M.S.Bindra, was enjoying high reputationthroughout his service, but suddenly was branded as a person ofunreliable integrity and unfit to be entrusted with any positionof responsibility in the Government service. Taking intoconsideration the aforesaid fact, the Supreme Court held that theconclusion drawn were not borne from the available materials.Whether the petitioner could take advantage of such judgment ornot, for that we have also looked into his past character role,which we will discuss at the relevant stage.b) A judicial officer, whose performance and integrity wasotherwise reported not bad was compulsorily retired on the basisof a single act of granting anticipatory bail in a criminal caseu/s 307 IPC. That was the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary – Vs –State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1999 (3) SCC 396. Havingnoticed that there was no ulterior motive found in theappellant's order, the Supreme Court held that compulsoryretirement was not warranted and, therefore, set aside the order.The case of Madan Mohan Choudhary (supra) was stronglyrelied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, but as it isdependant on the individual facts, we will discuss the case ofthe petitioner at the relevant stage.c) In the case of State of Gujarat – Vs – Umedbhai M.Patelreported in 2001 (3) SCC 314 :: 2001 (II) LLJ 1140, the SupremeCourt observed that the order of compulsory retirement underrelevant provision should not be punitive in nature, though https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ordinarily not to be treated as punishment. Entire records ofservice, including confidential adverse and uncommunicatedentries could be considered, but order not to be passed as short-cut to avoid departmental enquiry. In the said case, havingnoticed the fact, the Supreme Court held that the impugned orderof compulsory retirement was not sustainable.d) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on thecase of Chandra Singh – Vs – State of Rajasthan & Anr. reportedin 2003 (6) SCC 545. That was a case in which departmentalproceeding was pending enquiry and in absence of a specificprovision, the Supreme Court held that an employee cannot be madeto retire during pendency of such departmental enquiry.The aforesaid case was cited to suggest that in view ofpendency of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, hecould not have been retired from service. We have noticed the said judgments, wherein the SupremeCourt, while making certain observation aforesaid, also held thatArticle 235 enables the High Court to assess the performance ofany judicial officer at any time with a view to discipline theblack sheep or weed out the dead wood.10. There are other decisions of Supreme Court on this issueon which learned counsel for the petitioner has not relied, butwe wish to refer those decisions in the present case.In the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma – Vs – State of Bihar &Anr. reported in 1990 (2) LLJ 601 (SC)., the Supreme Courtdecided as to which are the cases where Court could lift the veilof secrecy, if order suggests to be innocuous, but found to havebeen made for other purpose.In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das – Vs – The Chief DistrictMedical Officer, Baripada reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020, while theSupreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse remarks can beconsidered for compulsory retirement, further held thatprinciples of natural justice have no place in the context of anorder of compulsory retirement. The nature of function tocompulsory retire is not quasi-judicial in nature and action hasto be taken on the subjective satisfaction of the Government;there is no room for importing the facet of natural justice. In the said case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), the SupremeCourt further held that the High Court or the Supreme Court couldnot examine the matter as an appellate court and may interfereonly if they are satisfied that the order passed is (a) malafide; or (b) that it is based on no evidence; or (c) that it isarbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form therequisite opinion on the given material, in short, if it is foundto be a perverse order.So far as the adverse entries in the confidential report isconcerned, whether the reporting authority to give specificincidents to enable adequate representation and whether anopportunity to be heard is to be given, where an adverse entry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amounts to censure, fell for consideration before a ConstitutionBench of Supreme Court in R.L.Butail – Vs – Union of Indiareported in 1970 (2) SCC 876. Therein, the Supreme Court heldthat a confidential report is intended to be a general assessmentof work performed by employee subordinate to the reportingauthority and such reports are maintained for the purpose ofserving as data of comparative merit when questions of promotion,confirmation, etc., arise. Such reports are not ordinarily tocontain specific incidents upon which assessments are made exceptin cases where, as a result of any specific incident a censure orwarning is issued and that such warning has to be an order to bekept in personal file of the employee. The Supreme Court furtherproceeded to hold that the rule neither provided for nor requireany opportunity to be given to the employee to be heard beforeany adverse entry is made. It is not equivalent to imposition ofpenalty.In the case of State of Orissa – Vs – Ram Chandra Dasreported in 1996 (5) SCC 331, the Supreme Court held that "theGovernment is entitled to compulsorily retire a Governmentservant, in public interest, with a view to improve efficiency ofadministration or to weed out people of doubtful integrity, orwho are corrupt, but sufficient evidence was not available totake disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as toinculcate a sense of discipline in service. But the Government,before taking such decision to retire a government employeecompulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record ofthe government servant, including the latest report". The saidjudgment was followed by Supreme Court in the case of UmedbhaiM.Patel (supra).In the case of Allahabad Bank Officers Association – Vs –Allahabad Bank reported in 1996 (4) SCC 504, the Supreme Courtheld that "power of compulsorily retiring a government servant isone of the facets of doctrine of pleasure incorporated underArticle 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsoryretirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintainefficiency and initiative in service and also to dispense withthe service of those whose integrity is doubtful so as topreserve purity in the administration. The aforesaid judgmentwas also noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of UmedbhaiM.Patel (supra), wherein at para-11 the following principles weresummarised :-"11. The law relating to compulsory retirementhas not crystallised into definite principles,which could be broadly summarised thus :(i) Whenever the services of a publicservant are no longer useful to the generaladministration, the officer can becompulsorily retired for the sake of publicinterest.(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsoryretirement is not to be treated as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment coming under Article 311 of theConstitution.(iii) For better administration, it isnecessary to chop off dead wood, but theorder of compulsory retirement can be passedafter having due regard to the entire servicerecord of the officer.(iv) Any adverse entries made in theconfidential record shall be taken note ofand be given due weightage in passing suchorder.(v) Even uncommunicated entries in theconfidential record can also be taken intoconsideration.(vi) The order of compulsory retirementshall not be passed as a short cut to avoiddepartmental enquiry when such course is moredesirable.(vii) If the officer was given a promotiondespite adverse entries made in theconfidential record, that is a fact in favourof the officer.(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not beimposed as a punitive measure."The case of compulsory retirement of judicial officers fellfor consideration before Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Singh– Vs State of U.P. reported in 2003 (8) SCC 117. Having noticedsimilar provision like FR 56, the Supreme Court observed asfollows :-"2. At the outset, it is to be reiterated thatthe judicial service is not a service in thesense of an employment. Judges are dischargingtheir functions while exercising the sovereignjudicial power of the State. Their honesty andintegrity is expected to be beyond doubt. Itshould be reflected in their overall reputation.Further, the nature of judicial service is suchthat it cannot afford to suffer continuance inservice of persons of doubtful integrity or whohave lost their utility. If such evaluation isdone by the Committee of the High Court Judgesand is affirmed in the writ petition, except invery exceptional circumstances, this Court wouldnot interfere with the same, particularly becausethe order of compulsory retirement is based onthe subjective satisfaction of the authority."11. In the present case, we have seen the attitude of thepetitioner who was a judicial officer who made variousallegations against officers without impleading them as party andwithout any basis, as noticed above. The allegations are not of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ good taste. One could have understood such allegation ifreference of any evidence would have been given or had it beenstated that such allegations are true to the knowledge of thepetitioner, but the officer did not choose to even say so in theaffidavit.12. From the confidential report of the petitioner for theyear 2000, we find adverse remarks was made by the PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil,which reads as follows :-8Outlook towardsa)Members of the Bar|"Poor"b)Public|9Reputation as toa)Honesty|b)Integrity|"Poor"c)Impartiality|The High Court Judge, who is the Portfolio AdministrativeJudge did not differ with such finding. On the other hand, herecorded that there were some complaints against the petitioner.In the character role of 2002, adverse remarks were recordedas shown hereunder :-1Quality of Judgment/Orderc)Quality of Thought|"Poor"d)Reasoning|e)Conclusion |2Knowledge of Law andProcedure|"Poor"3Promptitude in disposal ofcasesb)Old|"Poor"4Readiness to takeresponsibility|"Poor"5Supervision and Controlb)On Office Staff|"Poor"6Attitude towardsa)Superiors|"Poor"b)Colleagues|"Poor"7Conduct and Dignityb)Outside Court|"Poor" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The aforesaid remarks were made by Principal and SessionsJudge, Tuticorin District, and were endorsed by the Hon'ble HighCourt Judge, who was the portfolio Administrative Judge of thedistrict.13. From the record it appears that the aforesaid adverseremarks were communicated to the petitioner, who maderepresentation against the same. The portfolio AdministrativeJudge of this Court, on re-appreciation of the judgments, etc.,ordered to expunge the adverse remarks recorded against S.No.1(c), (d) and (e), i.e., Quality of thought, reasoning andconclusion and S.No.3 – Disposal of old cases, which wereaccepted. The adverse entries against the rest of the heads,such as "Readiness to take responsibility", "Supervision andControl on office staff", "Attitude towards superiors andcolleagues" and "Conduct and Dignity outside Court" were notexpunged and representation to such effect was rejected videofficial memorandum dated 22nd Jan., 2004.14. For the year 2004, the following adverse entries wererecorded by the District Judge, Cuddalore, which were alsoendorsed and agreed by the portfolio Administrative Judge of thisCourt :-1Quality of Judgment/Orderc)Clarity in thought|Needs improvementd)Reasoning|Needs improvemente)Conclusion|Needs improvement2Knowledge of Law andProcedure|Needs improvement4c)Readiness to takeresponsibility|Needs improvement5Supervision and Controlb)On officer|Not satisfactory6Attitude towardsb)Subordinates|Not satisfactory7Conduct and Dignitya)Inside Court|Needs improvementb)Outside Court|Needs improvement8Outlook towardsa)Members of the Bar|Not satisfactoryb)Public|Needs improvement9Reputation as toa)Honesty|Not satisfactory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b)Integrity|Not satisfactoryc)Impartiality|Not satisfactory10Overall view|Needs improvementAs pointed out, the portfolio Administrative Judge of thisCourt, while agreed with the observation against S. Nos.7, 8, 9and 10, also recorded that the officer should also avoidcomplaints.15. From the Vigilance record it appears that by the timethe officer was compulsorily retired, the following allegationsand complaints were made and were pending :-PlaceR.O.C.No.ComplainantAllegation ResultDM-JMMudukulathur45/2004UmmulPazeera RamanathapuramCorruptionNo actionDM-JMMudukulathur208/2004clubbedwith216/2004clubbedwith468/2004V.MurugeswariMudukulathurK.HabibuNazirErvadiDemandedBribeCorruption FavouritismFileforwardedtoRegistryto placebeforethe A.C.DM-JMMudukulathur273/2004Bar Assn.MudukulathurCorruptionDiscreetEnquiryPendingFormerly DM-JMMudukulathur,now JM,Thiruthuraipoondi703/2004Kaasaraal,KadaladiTk.RamanathapuramDistrictBribeDiscreetEnquiryPendingDM-JMKattumannarkoil CuddaloreDt.708/2004D.Muthukumaraswamy,5/26, SouthStreet,Melankuzhi& P.O.,Udayarpalayam,PerambalurDt.Connectedwith accusedFavouritismDiscreetEnquiryPending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DM-JMKattumannarkoil CuddaloreDt.730/2004Parameswaran & Others– Public ofNo.36,Udayarkudi,KattumannarkoilCorruptionIllegalActivitiesSecretProbePendingFormerly DM-JMKattumannarkoil CuddaloreDt. nowJudicialMagistrateThiruthuraipoondi733A /2004K.DharmalingamPresident,Vahakkalihal Assn.LeaderKattumannarkoilCuddaloreTalukBribeNo actionJudicialMagistrate,Thiruthuraipoondi782/2004AdvocatesAssn.KattumannarkoilCuddaloreDt.Judgmentagainst lawDetailedenquirypendingJudicialMagistrate,Thiruthuraipoondi799/2004clubbedwith825/2004&866/2004K.SeetharamanAdvocate,49, DoubleSt.,Kattumannarkoil Taluk,CuddaloreDt.BribeDiscreetEnquiryPending16. From the allegation made by the petitioner and recordsof service, the following facts emerge :-i) The petitioner has made unnecessary allegations againstone or other officer by name in the writ petition, withoutimpleading such officers as party casting stigma on them andnowhere stated that such statements are true to the knowledge ofthe petitioner or that such statements are based on informationderived from record. On the other hand, such allegations, notbased on record, reflects the nature of the petitioner;ii) There are adverse remarks made against the petitioner bythe Administrative Officer as also the High Court Judge since theyear 2000, but he never improved. Such adverse remarks had beenmade not by one officer but by different Principal District andSessions Judges in different Districts such as Kanyakumari,Tuticorin, Cuddalore, etc., as noticed above;iii) The honesty, integrity and impartiality of thepetitioner was stated to be poor or not satisfactory, which means https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that his honesty, integrity and impartiality were doubted; andiv) There were various complaints made against thepetitioner by different persons, including complaints relating totaking of bribe relating to which matters were pending beforeHigh Court apart from a disciplinary proceeding, which wasinitiated against him.17. It will be evident from the record that the case ofpetitioner for continuance in service/compulsory retirement underFR 56 (2) was considered only when he attained the age of 50years. Prior to attaining the age of 50 years, as the questionof compulsory retirement under the said FR 56 (2) was notapplicable, there was no occasion for the High Court or the StateGovernment to take any action pursuant to the said provisionexcept to initiate departmental proceeding and to take action, iffound to be proved. Therefore, before attaining the age of 50years, even if departmental proceeding was initiated, but onattaining age of 50 years at the time of assessment of all theofficers, who have attained age of 50 years, if the case of thepetitioner was also considered, it cannot be held to be illegal.18. In the case of Umedbhai M.Patel (supra), though theSupreme Court observed that compulsory retirement should not bepassed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when suchcourse is more desirable, but there is no prohibition made underany law to stay the consideration of the case for compulsoryretirement on attaining 50 years of age, as required under FR 56(2).19. From the proceeding of the Administrative Committeedated 3rd April, 2007, it will be evident that in routine mannerthe case of a number of officers, who attained 50 years of age,were considered under FR 56 (2), as done every year by the Court.The case of the petitioner was considered along with 9 others andwhile the names of 5 persons were recommended for continuance inservice beyond 50 years of age and the case of 3 persons weredeferred, name of the petitioner and one other person was notrecommended for continuance in service beyond 50 years of age inpublic interest.20. It is stated that the petitioner, in normal course, wasgranted the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP), but fromthe record it appears that such promotion was granted beforerecording and communicating the last character role for theperiod 2003-04.21. There is nothing on the record to suggest that becauseof mala fide on the part of one or other officer or for wrongplacement of any fact the petitioner was compulsorily retiredfrom service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive advantageof the judgment made in the case of Umedbhai M.Patel or Madan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mohan Choudhary or M.S.Bindra (supra), which were based on theservice record of the respective parties.22. Apart form the judgments cited above, in a recent caseof M.L.Binjolkar – Vs – State of M.P. reported in 2005 (6) SCC224, the Supreme Court held that the order of compulsoryretirement is not punishment. Its purpose and object is to weedout the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest and dead wood fromGovernment service.The case of a judicial officer of Gujarat for extension ofhis probation period fell for consideration before the SupremeCourt in Registrar, High Court of Gujarat – Vs – C.G.Sharmareported in 2005 (1) SCC 132. The service of a probationer wasterminated because of adverse remark. Assessment was made onoverall performance. The Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and JudicialMagistrate (First Class) was given adverse entries like "notindustrious", "less diligent", "below average", "no clarity ofthought and action", "conduct suspicious", etc. The StandingCommittee of the Gujarat High Court considered not onlyperiodical confidential record, but also the overall performance,including complaints raising doubts about his integrity andhaving found the performance unsatisfactory, recommendedtermination of probationary service, which was approved by theFull Court. The Supreme Court, while allowed the appealpreferred by the Gujarat High Court and approved the High Court'saction in terminating the service of such judicial officer, heldthat while service of such officers are to be terminated, theHigh Court should protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived and motivated complaints.Though the aforesaid case relates to extension of probationand not compulsory retirement, but the principle is alsoapplicable, as the question of retention of a judicial officerarises while cases are considered under FR 56 (2).23. In view of the records of service and other facts asnoticed above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugnedorder, G.O. 2 (D) No.457 dated 13th July, 2007, issued from Home(Cts. IA) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu nor inclined togrant relief to the petitioner. There being no merit, the writpetition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is also dismissed. But there shall be no order as tocosts.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.GLN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Madras – 104.2. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts I.A) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 9.1 cc to Mr.S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocate, Sr. 131751 cc to Mr.A. Jenasenan, Advocate, Sr. 13034 W.P. NO. 34351 OF 2007TS (CO)kk 17/3