Judicial Officer Bound To Obey Circulars/Orders Issued By High Court: Madras HC Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge

The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a District Judge noting that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had assessed the materials and concluded that his continued service was not in the public interest. The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that unless the material relied on by the administrative committee is shown to be irrelevant, tainted or with malice, the court could not interfere with the same. “the High Court has formulated its own procedure in matters of compulsory retirement and the Administrative Committee consisting of seven senior Judges of this Court assessed the materials available and have come to the conclusion that continuance of the petitioner will not be in public interest. Unless it is shown that such material was totally irrelevant or that the decision is tainted and malice, which is not the case of the petitioner, the decision cannot be interfered with,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition by S Gunasekar, a former District Judge who joined the service at entry level in April 2018. Gunasekar was placed under suspension in 8th April 2020 and sought for voluntary retirement on the same day. Since the process of initiation of departmental inquiry was underway, his request was rejected. A charge memo was issued and his written statement of defence along with a preliminary objection was also filed. Since Gunasekar completed 58 years of age, the case was taken up for review as per the direction of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others where the administrative committee reviewed the case and resolved not to continue his service till 60 years. Thus, the Administrative Committee decided to compulsorily retire Gunasekar. This resolution was approved by the Full Court and the Government issued an order compulsorily retiring him. Gunasekar contended charges were framed against him on the grounds that the assets were disproportionate to his income and that he had failed to inform the same to High Court. He submitted that Explanation to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1973 does not require an employee to notify acquisition or disposal of immovable property by members of the family. He thus argued that the circular of the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court requiring Judicial Officers to inform acquisition of immovable property runs counter to the Rules and cannot prevail over the Rules. He also submitted that his compulsory retirement is based on the entry in his annual confidential report. He submitted that the decision to retire him compulsorily was made even before the communication of adverse entry was made against him and was in violation of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Record) Rules. He also added that the State Government's rules regarding compulsory retirement was not complied with. On behalf of the High Court, it was argued that there were several complaints against Gunasekar and the decision of the Administrative Committee was made even prior to the recording of the adverse remarks. Thus, it was argued that Gunasekar's assumption that his compulsory retirement was relatable to the adverse remarks was incorrect and there was no violation of the State Judicial Service Rules. The court observed that as a judicial officer, Gunasekar was bound to obey the circulars and the orders of the High Court. The court also observed that Gunasekar could not contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The court also noted that to secure higher degree of probity and integrity, the High Court thought it fit to require judicial officers to provide information about the acquisition of assets by their family members even though it is out of their own funds. Thus, finding no reason to interfere, the court dismissed the plea. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Gunasekar, Party-in-person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Balathandayutham, Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr. Karthik Ranganathan for R2 Case Title: S Gunasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 74 Case No: W.P.No.23310 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Judicial Officer Bound To Obey Circulars/Orders Issued By High Court: Madras HC Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of District Judge

Upasana Sajeev

Tags