Telangana High Court
K.V.Kishan Rao vs The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ... on 15 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.29313 OF 2011
ORDER:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or Direction preferably a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 12-8-2011 issued by the respondent No.2 and the Order bearing ROC No.4306/2011-B SPL dated 19.08.2011 issued by the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the aforesaid proceedings and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner n judicial service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard Mr. K.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V.Uma Devi, learned Standing 2 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telanagana appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case are:
Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Civil Judge in the year 1987, promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 1996 and as District Judge in the year 2003. He was appointed as Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar in the year 2003. Complaints were received on the petitioner, it was recorded that there were reports of doubtful integrity and that his conduct was not above suspicion and has to be watched, surveillance be kept on him. In the light of the said facts, taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, adverse remarks and work review of officer, the Administrative Committee of High Court resolved to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 3 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 12.08.2011 and Order in ROC No.4306/2011-B, SPL, dated 19.08.2011 was issued compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.08.2011 on attaining the age of 58 years. The same is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adverse remarks of doubtful integrity were not communicated, that the petitioner was not above suspicion and has to be watched, were misconceived statements. He submitted that the Administrative Committee of High Court, while passing the resolution, has taken into account uncommunicated adverse remarks, undue weightage was given to entries made prior to 5 years before the said date of compulsory retirement. Complaints by disgruntled parties, pseudonymous complaints made were considered. He submitted that enquiries were conducted and the allegations levelled including that of corruption were not proved. He submitted that copies of ACRs were not supplied.
4 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the officer was of high integrity and the number of disposals, qualitatively and quantitatively, rendered were not considered and none of the charges levelled were established. It is submitted that the integrity of officer was good except for one year in which it was stated that his performance has to be watched. He submitted that the entire service record was not considered before compulsorily retiring from service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 1 wherein at paragraph-17 it was held as follows:
"17. The law on the subject of compulsory retirement, especially in the case of judicial officers may be summarized as follows:
17.1. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitive in nature. 17.2. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil consequences.1
(2020) 13 SCC 355 5 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 17.3. While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage.
17.4. Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired.
17.5. The "washed-off" theory does not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity. 17.6. The courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high-powered committee(s) of the High Court."
7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra for the proposition that contemporaneous record must be given more weightage and the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that all the 6 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 complaints were dropped and the allegations remained unsubstantiated. In view of the same, the compulsory retirement order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in the year 1993, it was recorded that there were reports of doubtful integrity of the officer, that the conduct of the officer was not above suspicion and has to be watched. It is submitted that in the year 1998, it was recorded that officer should be kept under watch and surveillance be kept on him. In the year 2008 too, it was reported that his conduct be watched. It was further submitted that petitioner faced a departmental enquiry on allegations of corruption and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 22.07.2009 to 22.04.2010, though reinstated later.
9. It is submitted that the Administrative Committee of High Court took an overall view of the matter, considered the adverse remarks, work review of officer, qualitative and quantitative disposals and the complaints and has compulsorily retired the petitioner from service on attaining 7 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 the age of 58 years in terms of first proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984.
10. Heard the learned counsels, perused the entire record. The Administrative Committee of High Court vide its resolution, dated 17.06.2011, has found the petitioner not fit to be continued in service up to the age of 60 years. The Administrative Committee after considering the entire service record and on an overall review and assessment of the entire material felt that the officer is not found to be of continued utility in service beyond 58 years and compulsorily retired the petitioner. It is settled law that no judicial officer has a right to continue beyond the age of 58 years as a matter of right. The worthiness of the officer is evaluated by the Administrative Committee. The standards for judging the conduct and integrity of a judicial officer are high. We do not find any infirmity in the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court. G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, dated 8 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 of 2011 12.08.2011 and Order in ROC No.4306/2011-B, SPL, dated 19.08.2011, has been issued accordingly. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 15.12.2023 KRR