Order of compulsory retirement not a punishment, Madras HC while upholding Judicial Officer’s termination

The Madras High Court recently had occasion to observe that there should be no stigma attached to compulsory retirement while upholding a government order compulsorily retiring a judicial officer. As noted in the judgment passed by a Bench of Justices R Subbiah and T Krishnavalli,.“… it is well settled that the order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor a stigma and the principles of natural justice have no role to play in ordering compulsory retirement.“.The Bench was dealing with a plea filed by R Naraja, a former Chief Judicial Magistrate from Tiruvannamalai who had begun his career in the judicial service as a civil judge in 2000. In 2013, he was informed of certain adverse remarks recorded against him in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) concerning his work during a certain period in 2012. However, following a representation seeking reconsideration of these remarks, the adverse remarks were expunged from the ACR in 2014..In 2018, he came to know from a ToI report that he was one of three judicial officers whose services were being terminated following a Full Court resolution not to extend their services. Whereas he made a representation to reconsider this decision, the state government passed an order of compulsory retirement, terminating the service of the judicial officer “in public interest”, based on the Full Court resolution..While challenging the same before the High Court, it was argued for the petitioner (Naraja) that the ingredients for passing an order of compulsory retirement was absent in the case. In this regard, it was pointed out that there was no reference to “compulsory retirement” or “public interest” in the minutes of the Full Court meeting in which the High Court judges had decided not to extend the services of the petitioner. Further, it was contended that the Full Court had not appreciated all of the petitioners’ service records correctly before taking its decision to terminate his services upon his reaching 50 years of age..The State authorities, however, contested these arguments, asserting that the decision to pass an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner was based on subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Full Court based on the materials available on record. The Government counsel argued that it was clear that the petitioner had not cleared the work norms for a certain period and that it cannot be said that the Full Court’s decision was without any materials. The decision to pass an order of compulsory retirement was taken in public interest, it was contended. .The High Court, in turn, ruled against the petitioner, inter alia, noting that the absence of the words “compulsory retirement” and “public interest” in the minutes of the Full Court meeting was not sufficient to vitiate the order of compulsory retirement altogether. On this aspect, the order states,.“… since such words were not mentioned in the impugned G.O. of the first respondent or the order passed by the second respondent, it will not ipso facto render the orders, which are impugned in this writ petition, vitiated. As observed above, the Full Court had laid its hand in exercising its jurisdiction under FR.56(2) and also Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it is well settled that the order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor a stigma and the principles of natural justice have no role to play in ordering compulsory retirement.”.The Court proceeded to note that the scope of interfering with such decisions while exercising writ jurisdiction is limited to ensure that procedural formalities preceding the order of compulsory retirement have been adhered to in the touchstone of principles of natural justice..“In other words, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service cannot be interfered with by this Court, unless such conclusion is based on no evidence or irrelevant material,” the Bench explained. .Applying this principle, the Court found no reason to interfere with the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It observed,.“In the present case, as mentioned above, there are evidences made available against the petitioner based on which the respondents have come to a conclusion to compulsory retire the petitioner from service in the form of service particulars of the petitioner like ACR, work done statement, vigilance enquiry report, leave particulars etc. While so, it cannot be gain said that there are no material at all for the respondents to arrive at a conclusion to pass the order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner.” .In view of these observations, the petition was dismissed..[Read the judgment]