{"id":222201,"date":"2019-11-16T16:30:56","date_gmt":"2019-11-16T11:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=222201"},"modified":"2019-11-21T12:25:56","modified_gmt":"2019-11-21T06:55:56","slug":"madras-hc-order-of-compulsory-retirement-is-neither-a-punishment-nor-a-stigma-and-principles-of-natural-justice-have-no-role-play-in-ordering-compulsory-retirement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/16\/madras-hc-order-of-compulsory-retirement-is-neither-a-punishment-nor-a-stigma-and-principles-of-natural-justice-have-no-role-play-in-ordering-compulsory-retirement\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC | Order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor a stigma and principles of natural justice have no role play in ordering compulsory retirement"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madras High Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench of R. Subbhiah and T. Krishnavalli, JJ., dismissed a writ petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.<\/p>\n

The present writ petition was filed by a former Chief Judicial Magistrate calling for records relating to the proceedings of the first and second respondent and quashing the same by directing to reinstate him as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.<\/p>\n

Facts of the Case:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. During the course of service, the petitioner was transferred and posted at various places. While the petitioner was in Judicial Service, by a Memorandum by the second respondent he was informed that while recording the Annual Confidential Report as Judicial Magistrate No. III for the period from 02-05-2012 to 16-10-2012, High Court has recorded his reputation as to honesty, integrity and impartiality as \u2018not satisfactory\u2019 and under special remarks column, it was stated that \u201cofficer is to avoid close contact with Advocates\u201d.<\/p>\n

On receipt of the above-stated memorandum, the petitioner made a representation requesting the High Court to review and expunge the said adverse remarks. Later, the second respondent informed the petitioner that on consideration of his representation High Court had expunged the remarks.<\/p>\n

Petitioner through the \u201cTimes of India report<\/em>\u201d came to know that he had been sent out of service at the age of 50 years for misconduct pursuant to a resolution passed by the Full Court.<\/p>\n

On being aware of the same, the petitioner made another representation to the second respondent stating that he had worked as a Judicial Officer in several districts for more than 18 years without any allegations and he has also reached the norms by the High Court. Petitioner had enclosed his work statement along with the representation and requestedthe second respondent to permit him to continue in service.<\/p>\n

Administrative Committee of the High Court resolved to continue the services of the Judicial Officer subject to the approval of the Full Court. Though, full-court unanimously resolved not to extend the service of the petitioner with direction to the Registry to address the State Government to issue necessary orders.<\/p>\n

First respondent passed the order compulsorily retiring<\/strong> the petitioner from service in \u201cpublic interest\u201d.<\/p>\n

Thus, the orders passed by the respondents are under challenge in the present writ petition.<\/p>\n

Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that there are various factors that contribute to a Judicial Officer not being able to achieve the norms for a certain period and that by itself is not a ground to compulsorily retire Judicial Officer. The impugned orders are passed based on total non-application of mind and there is an error of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Sum and substance of the contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:<\/p>\n