Judgment · High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 22.07.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P. NO. 16317 OF 2007P.Shanmugam.. Petitioner - Vs -1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras rep. by its Registrar General High Court Chennai 600 104... Respondents Writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondentherein relating to the order of the High Court in ROC No.2A/2006-Con.B2, dated 25th Jan., 2007 and quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to permit the petitioner herein to continuein service till the age of 60 years. For Petitioner : Mr. Venkataramani, SC, for Mr.A.ThiagarajanFor Respondents: Mr. M.Dhandapani, Spl. G.P. for R-1 Mr. T.S.Sivagnanam for R-2ORDERS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The petitioner, who was serving as district Judge-cum-ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam, his case fell for considerationbefore the High court to determine whether he should be allowed tocontinue in service beyond the age of 58 years and upto 60 years andby order ROC No.2A/2006-Con.B2 dated 25th Jan., 2007, as he wasinformed that he was not found fit to continue in service beyond theage of 58 years in public interest and allowed him to retire from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service on attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner preferredthe present writ petition against the said order.2. The background of the petitioner is that he was appointed assecond class Magistrate (Sub Judge (Jr. Division)) on 22nd Feb.,1982; promoted to the cadre of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge – Sr.Division) on 8th June, 1998 and then to the next higher post of District & Sessions Judge on 3rd May, 2000. On 4th Oct., 2000, he wastransferred and posted as II Addl. District Judge, Coimbatore and, thereafter, as Addl. District Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur. From 28th Oct., 2002 to 31st Dec., 2005, the petitionerwas serving as District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam. From 5th Jan., 2006 till attaining the age of 58years he was serving as Addl. District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmitted that the impugned order dated 25th Jan., 2007, has beenissued without any basis, in absence of any adverse remark againstthe petitioner. Though for all purpose the performance of thepetitioner was adjudged 'Good' or 'Satisfactory' and the standard ofjudgment was found to be 'Good', still he was not granted extensionupto 60 years, though it was allowed in favour of others, includingjuniors, without any basis. It was further submitted that exceptfor one year, where a remark 'Shortage of Disposal' is recorded, even such remark was never communicated. Learned senior counselfurther submitted that the petitioner requested the InformationOfficer, High Court of Madras on 7th Feb., 2007, under the Right to Information Act to provide the certain particulars, but curiouslythe particulars were not furnished.

According to the 2nd respondent, Madras High Court, the caseof the petitioner was considered by the Administrative Committee inits meeting held on 10th Jan., 2007, which resolved as follows :-"On considering the remarks recorded in the AnnualConfidential Reports, work done statements and otherrelevant records including the latest vigilancereports relating to the above mentioned officers, itis resolved to allow Thiru P.Jacob Jayakumar, SubJudge, Kallakurichi and Thiru K.Ravikumar, SubJudge, Tiruvarur, to continue in service beyond theage of 58 years. Further considering the Annual ConfidentialReports, work done statements, vigilance reports andall other relevant records and overall performancein respect of Thiru P.Shanmugam, VI AdditionalJudge, City Civil Court, Chennai, it is resolvedthat he is found not fit to continue in servicebeyond the age of 58 years in public interest. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is resolved to retire him from service on hisattaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. The Registry is directed to obtain approval of the Full Court by circulation. "Subsequently, the matter was approved by the Full Court asappears from the note to Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 20th Jan.,2007, wherein the following order has been passed :-"Majority view accepted. Issue proceedingsaccordingly. "Further case of the 2nd respondent is that as certaindisciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner, the Administrative Committee and Full Court, taking into considerationthe Annual Confidential Reports, work done statements, leave availedby the officer, vigilance report, etc., has taken the decision.

As learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that therewas nothing adverse against the petitioner except for the year 2004-2005, which was later on expunged by the High Court; one adverseobservation with regard to shortage of disposal in one quarter of ayear and that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated or pending, to find out the actual fact, we called for the records and perusedthe same. The following fact emerges from the records, as produced by therespondents :-For the last more than 10 years, the service record of thepetitioner is 'Satisfactory'. The unit head or the Hon'bleAdministrative Judge of this Court has either recorded theperformance of the officer as 'Satisfactory' or 'Good'. Only duringone part of year 2000, i.e., 1st Jan., 2000 to 20th April, 2000 and inone part of the year 2002, i.e., 8th April, 2002 to 25th Oct., 2002, aspecific remark was made relating to poor disposal of cases and forthe officer to improve.

From the aforesaid fact it will be evident that there isnothing adverse against the petitioner; his knowledge of law, quality of judgment, conduct inside and outside court, reputation(integrity, honesty and impartiality), on the other hand, are either'Good' or 'Satisfactory'. So far as disposal of cases is concerned, nothing adverse has been reflected in the character role except fora quarter of a year in 2000, which was taken into consideration atthe time of granting him promotion to the higher post.

We have also perused the records of the two other officers, whose cases were also considered along with the petitioner and theywere allowed to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Intheir cases also, the remarks are 'Satisfactory'. In the case ofone of the officer, adverse remarks were communicated for the year2002, such as 'Quality of Judgment – Poor; Knowledge of Law &Procedure – Poor; Readiness to take up responsibility – Poor; Supervision and Control on office staff – Poor; Attitude towardssuperior – Poor' and the representation for expunging the remarkswas rejected. For the year 2003, another adverse remark wascommunicated such as 'Supervision and Control – Has to Improve', buteven in such case, taking into consideration the 'Overall View –Satisfactory', the said officer has been granted extension beyond 58 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years by common proceeding of the Administrative Committee and the Full Court of this Court. With regard to another officer, the disposal chart also showsshortfall, as in the case of the petitioner, but in his case alsoextension was granted beyond 58 years upto 60 years by the commonproceeding of the Administrative Committee and the Full Court.

Though the present case is not a case of compulsoryretirement, but extension of service beyond 58 years, but theprinciple as is followed in the case of compulsory retirement may bemade applicable in such cases. In the case of State of Gujarat – Vs – Umedbhai M.Patelreported in 2001 (3) SCC 314, the principles were summarised by Supreme Court as follows:-"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement hasnot crystallised into definite principles, whichcould be broadly summarised thus :(i) Whenever the services of a public servantare no longer useful to the generaladministration, the officer can be compulsorilyretired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsoryretirement is not to be treated as a punishmentcoming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it isnecessary to chop off dead wood, but the orderof compulsory retirement can be passed afterhaving due regard to the entire service recordof the officer.

A judicial officer, whose continuance in service, in publicinterest, is no longer useful, cannot be allowed extension ofservice.A judicial officer is known for his knowledge of law, qualityof judgment, integrity, behaviour inside and outside court andnumber of disposal of cases (efficiency), etc. If the judicialofficer has no knowledge of law, is not in a position to deliversatisfactory or good judgment, if conduct is not good inside oroutside the court or his integrity is doubtful and disposal of casesis minimal or punished a number of times in departmental proceeding, the question of giving extension of service does not arise.

So far as the present case is concerned, we have alreadynoticed that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner onrecord. The Annual Confidential Reports show performance as"Satisfactory" or "Good", qualify of judgment – "Good/Satisfactory",etc. Therefore, we find no ground made out on behalf of therespondents to justify the decision dated 25th Jan., 2007, or toreject the case of the petitioner for extension of his servicebeyond 58 years.