Telangana High Court
M. Srinivasa Chary vs State Of Telangana on 17 March, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :
HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION NO.23837 OF 2023
Between:
M.Srinivasa Chary,
S/o Late Narasimha Chary,
Aged about 58 years,
occ: Retired District Judge,
R/o H.No.5-2-396/P3, Sri Sai Balaji
Enclave, Injapur, Hayatnagar, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Telangana,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
and two others. ...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 17.03.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No.
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
2
PSKJ & NNRJ
WP No.23837 of 2023
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
+ WRIT PETITION NO.23837 OF 2023
% 17.03.2025
# Between:
M.Srinivasa Chary,
S/o Late Narasimha Chary,
Aged about 58 years,
occ: Retired District Judge,
R/o H.No.5-2-396/P3, Sri Sai Balaji
Enclave, Injapur, Hayatnagar, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Telangana,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
and two others. ...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr.Goda Siva, learned Senior
Counsel representing
Smt.Goda Rama Lakshmi.
^Counsel for the respondent(s): Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned
Senior Counsel, representing
Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned
Standing Counsel for High Court
appearing for respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1)AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1175
2)1998(7) SCC 310
3)2001(2) SCC 305
4)2001(3)SCC 314
5)2002(9) SCC 704
6)2013 (10) SCC 551
7)(2020) 143 Supreme Court Cases 355
8)2009(15)SCC 221
9)2011(8)10 SCC 1
10) 2012(8)SCC 58
11)1992(2) SCC 299
12) (1992) 2 SCC 299
13)(2001) 3 SCC 314
3
PSKJ & NNRJ
WP No.23837 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION NO.23837 OF 2023
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"(a) to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to :
i. The recommendations of the Administrative Committee communicated to the Petitioner, vide Roc No.1/2023-B.Spl, dated 31.01.2023.
ii. G.O Ms.No.17, General Administration (J&RA) Department and notification dated 01.02.2023 issued by the 1strespondent.
iii. Proceedings in Roc.No.1/2023-B Spl., dated 04.04.2023 of the 3rd respondent herein and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the provisions of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2017 and Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(b) Consequently to declare that the petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service as District Judge.
(c) Further, direct the Respondents to compute and release all the benefits that he would be entitled to monetary seniority etc that flow from out of setting aside the orders impugned herein and granting of the relief prayed."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as District Munsif vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Law (LJ Cts-C), Department, dated 07.04.1998 and subsequently, he 4 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 was promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 07.02.2009. While things stood, the petitioner along with six (6) other District Judicial Officers were placed under suspension on 25.08.2010. Pursuant to the said suspension order, regular departmental enquiry had conducted and the petitioner was found not guilty of the allegations levelled against him and accordingly, the charges framed against him and other Judicial Officers were dropped on 11.11.2014 and reinstated into service. Thereafter, he was promoted as District Judge (Entry Level), vide order, dated 20.02.2017 and his probation as a District Judge was declared satisfactory on 26.05.2019.
3. As matter stood, respondent No.1, issued G.O.Ms.No.17, General Administration (J&RA) Department, dated 01.02.2023 stating that petitioner is deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 31.01.2023 Afternoon in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, the Act, 1984') and Rule 23 of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rule, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules, 2017'). 5
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
4. The said G.O. was issued based on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. Subsequently, petitioner filed Review Application, dated 17.03.2023 praying to re-look into entire issue, however the same was rejected by the Administrative Committee vide order, dated 04.04.2023, without assigning any reasons, Aggrieved by the said rejection order, petitioner preferred Writ Petition (Civil) No.612 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition(C) No.612 of 2023 and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach High Court for the State of Telangana.
5. Mr. Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and maintaining the level of integrity as expected from a member belonging to District Judiciary. That his output both quantitative and qualitative was also not adversely commented by the authorities concerned and the petitioner is a responsible and honest Judicial Officer and serving the judicial system for more than 6 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 twenty three years and had an unblemished track record and never found to be performing badly or with lack of integrity. The impugned order has been passed without giving any show cause notice.
6. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the order passed by respondent No.1 does not contain any reasons except stating that the same is being passed basing on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the Hon'ble High Court and also contended that as per Rule 23 of the Rules, 2017, the petitioner was found to be suitable when the Administrative Committee reviewed his performance, when the petitioner reached the age of 55 years and continued his service as District Judge.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Act, 1984, the Hon'ble High Court has to assess and make appropriate recommendations well before the petitioner attains the age of 58 years i.e., on 15.01.2023. But, in the instant case, the respondent reviewed the performance of the petitioner on 7 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 31.01.2013, i.e., after the petitioner crosses the age of 58 years, which is in violation of the Act, 1984.
8. Learned counsel further contended that the age of retirement of the Judicial Officer has been prescribed as 61 years as per first proviso to Section 3(1A) of Act, 1984, which reads as follows:
3(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), every member of the Telangana Higher Judicial Service or the Telangana State Judicial Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty one years:
Provided that any such member of the Telangana State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service may be compulsorily retired from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty years or fifty five years or fifty eight years or thirty three years of qualifying service, if he is found not fit and eligible to be continued in service by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on an assessment and evaluation of the record of such member for his continued utility, well within time, before he attains the age of fifty years or fifty five years or fifty eight years or thirty three years of qualifying service."
9. Rule 23 of the Rules, 2017 has bearing in the present context is also extracted hereunder for ready reference.
"23. Retirement in public interest":
"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."8
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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 9 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 10 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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.
11
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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 12 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 13 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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".1
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1175 14 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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.
15 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 16 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 2 17 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 3 2001(2) SCC 305 2001(3)SCC 314 4 2002(9) SCC 704 5 18 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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."6
2013 (10) SCC 551 19 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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.
20
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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 21 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 22 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 23 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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 24 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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.25
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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 26 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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."
7(2020) 143 Supreme Court Cases 355 27 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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. 28
PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
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 8 2009(15)SCC 221 29 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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. 11 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 9 2011(8)10 SCC 1 10 2012(8)SCC 58 11 1992(2) SCC 299 30 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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.12
(1992) 2 SCC 299 31 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
(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 32 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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.13
(2001) 3 SCC 314 33 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023
(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 34 PSKJ & NNRJ WP No.23837 of 2023 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