2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 07.02.2009. While
25.08.2010. Pursuant to the said suspension order, regular
into service. Thereafter, he was promoted as District Judge
as a District Judge was declared satisfactory on 26.05.2019.
3. As matter stood, respondent No.1, issued
Rule, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules, 2017').
4. The said G.O. was issued based on the
High Court. Subsequently, petitioner filed Review Application,
5. Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for
Judiciary. That his output both quantitative and qualitative
never found to be performing badly or with lack of integrity.
6. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the
and continued his service as District Judge.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that as
58 years i.e., on 15.01.2023. But, in the instant case, the
PSKJ & NNRJ
years, which is in violation of the Act, 1984.
8. Learned counsel further contended that the age of
9. Rule 23 of the Rules, 2017 has bearing in the
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
Governor, on the recommendation of the High Court
containing the reasons in writing, if he is of the opinion
that it is in the public interest to do so has the absolute
right to retire any member of service who has attained the
age of 50, 55 or 58 years by giving him notice of note less
than 3 months in writing or 3 months pay and allowances
in lieu thereof."
PSKJ & NNRJ
10. Learned Senior counsel further contended that
from a combined reading of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of
the Act, 1984 and Rule 23 of the Rule, 2017, it is evident that
respondent No.2 has assessed the suitability of the petitioner
for continuance of service at the age of 50 years as well as 55
years. He also further submitted that respondent No.2 found
nothing adverse against the petitioner when they reviewed his
assessment at the age 55 years and continued the petitioner
into service. However, as a bolt from the blue, while reviewing
the petitioner's performance assessment at the age of 58
years, respondent No.2 has opined that petitioner was not of
continued utility and it was resolved to recommend to the
State Government that he shall be retired from service on
31.01.2023, i.e., the last date of the month on which the
petitioner has attained 58 years would be 31.01.2023.
11. Learned counsel further contended that the first
proviso to Section 3(1A) of Act, 1984 and Rule 23 of the Rule,
2017, as discussed above, and a reading of same would
indicate that it was necessary for the High Court to assess
and make appropriate recommendations well before the
officer attains the age of 58. In the instant case, the petitioner
PSKJ & NNRJ
attained the age of 58 years on 15.01.2023. A reading a
proper interpretation of proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act,
1984 would disclose that the exercise of adjudging petitioner's
suitability for continuance must have been undertaken well
before 15.01.2023. Even on the petitioner's overall
performance, the respondents never found the petitioner was
wanting or lacking in discharging his duties and not even a
single advisory memo was served on him during his entire
career expect in 2010. In fact, the very promotion as a District
Judge was given to petitioner by the Hon'ble High Court after
respondents dropped the departmental proceedings against
him on the issue of mass copying.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that
retirement of the petitioner is not in the public interest. The
entire service record especially the contemporaneous record
has not been taken into consideration and also that the
petitioner has been granted further promotion which would
have the effect of washing off their previous adverse entries, if
any. Hence, there is no material to substantiate the action of
the respondents in issuing order of compulsory retirement of
the petitioner at the age of 58 years in public interest and the
PSKJ & NNRJ
same is liable to be dismissed and prays this Court to set
aside the impugned order, dated 31.01.2023 issued by
respondent No.2 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.17, General
Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.02.2023 and
G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 24.04.2018 issued by respondent No.1
and allow the writ petition.
13. Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for
High Court appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed
counter affidavit and submits that petitioner has to
compulsory retire from service with effect from 31.01.2023
i.e., the last day of the calendar month on his attaining the
age of 58 years and the decision pertaining to the retirement
order of the petitioner was passed by the Hon'ble High Court
only after reviewing the entire service of the petitioner.
Further, the petitioner's allegation that the order of the
compulsory retirement is passed without any basis and
without assigning any reasons are in violative of the
principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14,
19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India were strongly
denied.
PSKJ & NNRJ
14. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that in
terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act, 1984 and
Rule 23 of the Rule, 2017, the Administrative Committee of
Hon'ble Judges in its meeting held on 31.01.2023 at 4.45 PM
reviewed the case of the petitioner along with the case of other
Judicial Officers, the Administrative Committee after
considering the entire service of the petitioner passed a
resolution to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service.
The said resolution is extracted as below:
"On consideration and reviewing of the service record of Sri
M.Srinivasa Chary, formerly Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate
Tribunal for Ranga Reddy-cum-II Additional District and
Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, his overall
performance and tract record, the Committee is of the opinion
that the Officer is not of continued utility and is not fit to be
continued in service beyond 58 years. The Committee resolved
in public interest to recommend to the Government that the
Officer be retired on 31.01.2023, the last day of calendar
month which he completes 58 years of age, in terms of first
proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Telangana Public Employment
(Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and Rule 23 of
the Telangana State Judicial Service Rule, 2017 and be paid
three months pay and allowance as contemplated under Rule
23 of the Telangana State Judicial Service Rules, 2017."
15. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents
contended that in compliance with the said order, the
Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms. No. 17, General
Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.02.2023
notifying that the petitioner deemed to have retired from
PSKJ & NNRJ
service w.e.f., 31.01.2023 (A.N.) i.e., the last day of the
calendar month on his attaining the age of 58 (fifty eight)
years in terms of proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Act, 1984.
Learned Senior Counsel further contended that after receipt
of the orders of compulsory retirement, the petitioner made
representation requesting the High Court to review its
decision pertaining to his compulsory retirement at the age of
58 years and the same was placed before the Administrative
Committee in the meeting held on 17.03.2023. The
Administrative Committee after due consideration, rejected
the plea of the petitioner and the same was also
communicated to the petitioner, vide Roc.No.1/2023-B.Spl.,
dated 04.04.2023.
16. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents
contended G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023 was issued by
the Government amending Telangana State Judicial Service
Rules, 2017, in respect of 'retirement in public interest' and
under the said amendment, the aspect of recording reasons
by the Committee has been excluded under Rule 23 of the
Rule, 2017 and contended that though the said G.O.No.36
was passed on 10.06.2023 but the said G.O. is made
PSKJ & NNRJ
applicable with retrospective with effect from 01.01.2023 and
the said amendment G.O will be applicable to the present
case and as per the G.O Administrative Committee need not
to record reasons when passing resolution in respect of
compulsory retirement of the judicial officer while reviewing
their services.
17. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents
drawn the attention of this Bench to the order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Arun Kumar Gupta v. State Of
Jharkhand 1 wherein at paragraph No.15 it was held as
under:
15. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court
in Pyare Mohan Lal (supra) in which while dealing with
concept of washed off theory, this Court after dealing with the
entire case law on the subject held as follows:
"24. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state
that in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments
of this Court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be
followed. More so, the washed off theory does not have
universal application. It may have relevance while
considering the case of government servant for further
promotion but not in a case where the employee is being
assessed by the reviewing authority to determine whether he
is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given
compulsory retirement, as the Committee is to assess his
suitability taking into consideration his "entire service
record".
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1175
PSKJ & NNRJ
18. Learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents
further contended that judicial service is calling 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 on the
judicial work front, but also taken into consideration the
general information of the candidates that has been gathered
through discreet enquires pertaining to his reputation,
conduct, probity and integrity before arriving at a judicious
decision, as to whether the officer is fit to be continued in
service in public interest as an officer or not, for his
continuation in the service beyond the age of 50, 55 or 58
years. It is a settled legal position and well recognized that
the High Courts' exercise administrative, judicial and
disciplinary control over the District Judiciary. Hence, learned
standing counsel further submits that the writ petition is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
19. Before going into the aspects and facts of the case,
it is pertinent to extract the remarks of learned Principal
District Judge awarded by the High Court portfolio judge in
respect of the petitioner.
PSKJ & NNRJ
Year Reputation Remarks of Remarks of
Principal District High Court
Judge concerned. portfolio judge.
2013 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality
c) Character.
2014 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory I have not heard
(Integrity/honest adverse against
a) Impartiality. the officer.
b) Character.
2015 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality
c) Character.
2016 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
2017 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
2018 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
2019 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
2020 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
2021 Reputation of the officer. Satisfactory
a) Integrity/honest
b) Impartiality.
c) Character.
Work Review remarks of the petitioner for the last 9 years, which reads as
under:
Station Period Quantitatively Qualitatively
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.04.2013 30.09.2013 Very good Satisfactory
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.10.2023 31.03.2014 Poor Good
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.04.2014 30.09.2014 Good Good
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.10.2014 31.03.2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory
Judge, Vishakapatnam
PSKJ & NNRJ
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.04.2015 30.09.2015 Good Good
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.10.2015 31.03.2016 Good Satisfactory
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.04.2016 30.09.2016 Good Satisfactory
Judge, Vishakapatnam
I Addl.Senior Civil 01.10.2016 31.12.2016 Poor Good
Judge, Vishakapatnam
VI Addl. District, 03.03.2017 30.06.2017 Poor Satisfactory
Judge, Kakinada
VI Addl. District, 01.07.2017 31.12.2017 Good Satisfactory
Judge, Kakinada
XXVII Add. Chief 07.01.2019 30.06.2019 Good Under
judge, CCC, Circulation
Secunderabad.
XXVII Add. Chief 01.07.2019 31.12.2019 Very good Under
judge, CCC, Circulation
Secunderabad.
XXVII Add. Chief 01.01.2020 30.06.2020 RECORDED RECORDED
judge, CCC, DUE TO COVID DUE TO COVID
Secunderabad.
XXVII Add. Chief 01.07.2020 31.12.2020 RECORDED RECORDED
judge, CCC, DUE TO COVID DUE TO COVID
Secunderabad.
XXVII Add. Chief 01.01.2021 30.06.2021 RECORDED RECORDED
judge, CCC, DUE TO COVID DUE TO COVID
Secunderabad.
XXVII Add. Chief 01.07.2021 18.08.2021 RECORDED RECORDED
judge, CCC, DUE TO COVID DUE TO COVID
Secunderabad.
XIII Addl. District 18.08.2021 31.12.2021 RECORDED RECORDED
Judge, RR District. DUE TO COVID DUE TO COVID
SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW
20. Further, in the backdrop of the facts stated above,
this Bench feel it necessary to discuss about the settled law in
respect of the compulsory retirement is concerned. The
Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of India
&Ors 2 and also in case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh v.
1998(7) SCC 310
PSKJ & NNRJ
State of Bihar &Ors 3 while dealing on the issue of
compulsory retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
paragraph 12 it was held as under:
"12.Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two
meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory
retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent
government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being
recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty
involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following
procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with
the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such
penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory
retirement in the case of a government servant must also
withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Then
there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of Fundamental
Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate
authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a
government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his
having completed a certain 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 forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in
public interest is formed bona fide, the opinion cannot be
ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order
may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds
such as the order being mala fide, based on no material or on
collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not
competent to do so."
21. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in case of State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel 4,
22. In MP Electricity Board v. Shree Baboo 5 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the service
records of the employee where there was nothing adverse
and on the contrary, the integrity of the employee was
2001(2) SCC 305
2001(3)SCC 314
2002(9) SCC 704
PSKJ & NNRJ
shown to be "Sound". The Supreme Court affirming the
order of the High Court while setting aside the order of
compulsory retirement.
23. Recently again in case of Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs.
BabuLalJangir, 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs
24 it was held as under:
"24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to
be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High
Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan
Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have
set aside the order merely on the ground that service record
pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not
be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down
in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service
record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government
servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the
same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate
past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be
taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What 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 has become a deadwood and it is public
interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must
consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the
officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be
in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the
Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in
public 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 himself a liability to the institution",
there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise
of its limited power of judicial review."
2013 (10) SCC 551
PSKJ & NNRJ
ANALYSIS OF ENTIRE RECORD
24. After considering the entire factual matrix, now the
points for consideration are:-
a) Whether the procedure followed by the respondents while
passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement meets
the requirement as is laid down under Section 3(1A) of The
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation) of Age of
Superannuation) Act, 1984, more particularly the proviso to
the said Sub-Section?
b) Whether on merits, there was strong material in the course of
evaluation and assessment of the Officer's service record
available, compelling the respondents in passing the
impugned order of compulsory retirement as is required
under Rule 23 of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and
Cadre), Rules, 2017.
ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE WELL ADVANCE
25. When we read the aforesaid paragraphs, what is
necessary to be considered is the requirement under Section
3(1A) and the proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Act,1984. Section
3(1A) of the Act, 1984 provides for putting an Judicial Officer
on compulsory retirement if he is not found fit and eligible to
be continued in service on an assessment of evaluation of the
record of such person for his continued utility well within the
time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the
procedure for compulsory retirement applicable under the
Rules.
PSKJ & NNRJ
26. Thus, what is required is, there has to be an
assessment and evaluation done at the first instance. Such
an assessment and evaluation has to be well within the time
before he attains the age of 58, and thirdly, upon assessment
and evaluation he is found not fit and not eligible to be
continued in service.
27. What is important to note from the said provision
of law is that the evaluation and assessment has to be done
well before the Officer attains age of 58 years. In the instant
case, the date of birth of the Officer is 15.01.1965. Thus, he
crosses the age of 58 on 15.01.2023. In terms of the aforesaid
Rules, the assessment and evaluation had to be done well
before 15.01.2023, which in the instant case seems to have
been done only on the evening of 31.03.2023 that too after
the working hours of the day and much after the petitioner
had attained the age of 58 years.
28. It is contended that though the process of sitting
of the Committee was on 31.01.2023 i.e., on the last day of
the month. In the present case, on perusal of the record
placed by learned counsel for the respondent, it shows that
PSKJ & NNRJ
except calling for the data and placing the note before the
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, nothing is placed before this Bench
to substantiate the contention of the respondents that there
was an actual assessment made by the Committee of the
Judges much prior to the date of sitting of the Committee.
Though it is contended that the entire assessment was made,
but the record speaks that the said assessments were made
only on 31.01.2023 on the day that too after 4:45 PM on the
day when order of compulsory retirement was passed and the
petitioner was made to retire on the same day.
29. It is contended that according to the petitioner the
said entire process was not as per proviso to Section 3(1A) of
the Act, 1984 and said proviso has been omitted. Therefore,
it has to be interpreted strictly. He further contended that the
method and manner in which the impugned action was taken
in accordance with proviso to Rule 23 i.e., Section 3 (1A) of
the Act, 1984 was not in consequence with existence law and
he contended that the ground that recommended by the
Administrative Committee ought not to have been acted at all
and that the very recommendation was contrary to the
PSKJ & NNRJ
express provision of law Governing the field and as such the
action would not stand to the scrutiny of the Court.
WHETHER IS IT OBLIGATORY ON ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION SHALL CONTAIN
REASONS
30. Though prior to the Amendment of the Telangana
State Judicial Service Rules, 2017, which mandates the
Administrative Committee should record reasons in writing
while making recommendations to the Governor for
compulsory retirement of an employee. Subsequently, by way
of Amendment of Telangana State Judicial Service Rules,
2017, vide G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023, the
Administrative Committee was not required to record reasons
in writing while making recommendations to the Governor for
compulsory retirement and the said amendment is made
applicable in retrospective w.e.f. 01.01.2023.
31. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
contended that the said amended Rule will be applicable to
the present case, but this Bench feels that the present
amendment G.O. cannot be applied to the present case for the
reason that the resolution of the Administrative Committee
PSKJ & NNRJ
was passed on 31.01.2023, meanwhile, amended G.O. was
issued on 10.06.2023 and the amended Rules might not have
been conceived by the Administrative Committee while
passing the resolution for compulsory retirement of the
petitioner from service nor was the amended rules in force on
31.01.2023. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the
respondents that the said amendment will be applicable to
the present facts is not sustainable.
32. Basing on the above observations, this Bench is of
the opinion that the entire record placed by the petitioner
cannot be brushed aside for any reason. The other aspect on
which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is
that provisionally the Rules would make it obligatory upon
the Administrative Committee while recommending the
individual to Governor for passing order of compulsory
retirement, the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble
Judges should give reasons for continuing the petitioner. In
the case on hand, the Administrative Committee without
giving any reasons passed resolution and recommend to the
Governor. Basing on the report submitted by the
Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble Judges, ordered for
PSKJ & NNRJ
compulsory retirement of the petitioner, which is in violation
of the principles of natural justice.
33. CONCLUSION:
a) The second aspect which needs for consideration is,
whether the material available with the respondents which
reflected that the Officer is not fit and not eligible to be
continued in service in public interest. Whether it was the
petitioner's non-performance or under performance in the
course of discharge of duties or whether the service records,
particularly the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) reflect
any adverse entries and whether on the assessment of the
ACRs and the work review reports of the Officer, the
performance of the Officer was reflecting decline in the quality
and quantity of work. So also, whether there was any decline
being reflected in the overall performance of the Officer.
b) Even though the impugned order may not reflect
so many words which led to the respondents in reaching to
the conclusion that the petitioner is not being found fit and
eligible to be continued in service. Nonetheless, there should
be cogent strong materials available in the service records
reflecting the same.
PSKJ & NNRJ
c) On perusal of the entire ACRs and work review
statements of the petitioner placed by him before this Court,
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by
both the parties, the point which has to be decided by this
Court in the present case is that whether easing out of the
petitioner primarily on attaining age of 58 years, continuation
of the petitioner requirement as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court the entire track record would be
looked into and also the past record on which the decision is
taken also to be looked into. In the present case it is not in
dispute that it is settled law that the solitary incident or
remarks cannot be made basis for coming to a conclusion
that the individual is unfit to be continued in service.
d) As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the
entire service record has to be taken into consideration. In the
present case, the entire track record of the petitioner would
show that the petitioner reputation was considered on various
occasions and that the same was found satisfactory and even
on judicial side the entire ACRs would reveal that the
petitioner was graded as 'satisfactory' 'Good' and 'very good'.
Considering the fact that the entire track record of the
PSKJ & NNRJ
petitioner including Vigilance report and profile of the
petitioner along with resolutions of the learned Administrative
Committee, the Bench has no hesitation to hold that the
decision of the Administrative Committee appears to be
without any basis and it is based on no material.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
34. This bench is conscious about the scope of the
judicial review in respect of nature of such cases where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated about the scope of
review in such cases where compulsory retirement has been
ordered by the High Court and the scope of the judicial review
has been enumerated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Arunkumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and
another 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended
that the scope of review and inflicting of compulsory
retirement by the High Court against the Judicial Officer and
the material which has to be considered by the High Court
before passing the compulsory retirement has been reiterated
in Arun Kumar Gupta's case (supra) so also "Washed-off
theory."
(2020) 143 Supreme Court Cases 355
PSKJ & NNRJ
35. No doubt, the previous history of a Government
servant should not be completely ignored once he is promoted
in past basing the same events as contended by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents and he contended that the
washed off theory cannot be applied. And mere promoting the
petitioner would not wash off the past history of the petitioner
and the learned senior counsel try to impress upon this
Bench, citing the incident of initiating of disciplinary
proceedings in respect of Mass copying which ultimately led
to dropping of proceedings and reinstating the petitioner with
all benefits.
36. Further, on perusal of the vigilance report of the
petitioner which is part of the record all the complaints
received by the respondents were closed much long ago,
when the High Court itself condoned the entire history of the
petitioner now contending that the Wash Theory cannot be
applied to the present facts of the case, when there is nothing
in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of
the promotion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
there is no justification for any laws digging into to the past.
PSKJ & NNRJ
37. Before concluding, it is imperative to look into the
judgment of The Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh
State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. v. Rajnesh
Kumar Jamindar & Ors 8 referring to all the previous
decisions on the issue at paragraph 35 has summarized or
laid down the situations under which the order of compulsory
retirement could be interfered with, held as under :
"35. The law relating to compulsory retirement in public
interest is no long res integra. 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
judicial review inter-alia :
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 case."
38. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhya
Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. v. Rajnesh
Kumar Jamindar & Ors., any order passed based on no
material, the same will be amenable to the judicial review and
the same can be interfered by the Appellate Court. This Bench
is further conscious about the fact that the decision of
compulsory retirement of Judicial Officer is not to be
examined by the High Court as an Appellate Court and it can
2009(15)SCC 221
PSKJ & NNRJ
be interfered only when it is proved by the petitioner or the
Court is satisfied that the order is passed with mala fide and
not based on evidence or it is highly arbitrary. We are
supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through Lrs v. Lt. Governor of
NCT of Delhi & Anr 9, R.C.Chandel v. High Court OF M.P. &
Anr 10 and in Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr v. Chief District.
Medical Officer, Baripada & others , wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down the following principles which
has kept in mind while considering the case of compulsory
retirement in Para No.34 which reads as under:
"34. So far as the appeals before us are concerned, the High
Court which has looked into the relevant record and confidential
records has opined that the order of compulsory retirement was
based not merely upon the said adverse remarks but other
material as well. Secondly, it has also found that the material
placed before them does not justify the conclusion that the said
remarks were not recorded duly or properly. In the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory
retirement suffers from mala fides or that it is based on no
evidence or that it is arbitrary."
39. This Bench has observed that similar writ
petitions are being filed by various officers questioning the
2011(8)10 SCC 1
2012(8)SCC 58
1992(2) SCC 299
PSKJ & NNRJ
decision of compulsory retirement on various grounds.
Considering the same, this Bench feels it appropriate to
reiterate the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various decisions while dealing with the cases
pertaining to compulsory retirement. For the benefit of
the High Court, it is advisable to consider the cases of
judicial officers for extension of service beyond 50, 55 and
58 in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the
Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of age of
Superannuation) Act, 1984 and Rule 23 of the Telangana
State Judicial Service Rule, 2017 for awarding compulsory
retirement to the officers whom the High Court intends to.
The guidelines which are laid down in the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court are strictly adhered to and for
convenience they are reproduced as under:
40. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical
Officer 12, at paragraph No.34 it was held as follows:
"34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It
implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(1992) 2 SCC 299
PSKJ & NNRJ
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming
the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a
government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on
the subjective satisfaction of the government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context
of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean
that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the
High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as
an appellate court, they may interfere if they are
satisfied that the order is passed
(a) mala fide or
(b) that it is based on no evidence or
(c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable
person would form the requisite opinion on the given
material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may
be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before
taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more
importance to record of and performance during the later
years. The record to be so considered would naturally
include the entries in the confidential records/character
rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is
promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse
remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the
promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon
seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed
by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it
uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into
PSKJ & NNRJ
consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis
for interference."
41. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel 13, at
paragraph No.11 it was held as follows:
"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now
crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly
summarized thus:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer
useful to the general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be
treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the
Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead
wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the entire service record
of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall
be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing
such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record
can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as
a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such
course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse
entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in
favour of the officer.
(2001) 3 SCC 314
PSKJ & NNRJ
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive
measure."
42. Considering the above guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking into consideration the
track record of the petitioner, which is extracted in the above
paragraphs, there is no iota of material to support the
aforesaid conclusions of the Administrative Committee even
the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court do not
seem to have been adhered to. In the absence of any material
placed by the respondents, this Bench would be forced to
interfere with the findings of the learned Administrative
Committee of the Hon'ble High Court issued vide Order ROC
No.01/2023-B.Special, dated 31.01.2023 and consequential
proceedings of the respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.17, General
Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.02.2023, issued
by respondent No.1 and proceedings in Order ROC
No.01/2023-B, SPL, dated 04.04.2023, issued by respondent
No.3 are liable to be quashed.
43. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed and
consequently the petitioner would be reinstated into service
PSKJ & NNRJ
and he was entitled for monitory benefits from the date of said
G.O, dated 31.01.2023 till date of his reinstatement and the
petitioner may be entitled to all consequential benefits by
giving him notional fixation. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
__________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 17.03.2025
SHA/YVL
