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
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
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
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.
(2020) 13 SCC 355
5 CJ & JAK, J
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
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
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
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
