The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a district judge..The judge had faced a departmental inquiry on certain complaints. He was also alleged to hold disproportionate income and was accused of failing to disclose certain property acquisitions by his wife as required under a circular issued by the High Court in 1997. A Bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the petitioner is a judicial officer and he is bound to obey the circulars and the orders issued by the High Court.It rejected the district judge's contention that there was nothing in the relevant rules which required him to disclose the property acquisition by his wife if the property was not acquired by his funds. .It proceeded to note that the High Court's Administrative Committee had reviewed the relevant materials and determined that his continued service was not in the public interest. Therefore, it upheld the decision to compulsorily retire him from judicial service. "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 observed..The Court was hearing a plea filed by S Gunasekar, a former district judge who entered judicial service in April 2018. He was suspended on April 8, 2020, and on the same day, he applied for voluntary retirement. However, his request for voluntary retirement was denied since a departmental inquiry had already been initiated. A charge memo was subsequently issued, and he submitted both his written statement of defence and a preliminary objection..Following Supreme Court directions in All India Judges' Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, Gunasekar's case was reviewed upon reaching the age of 58. The Administrative Committee decided against extending his service until 60 years and instead resolved to compulsorily retire him. This decision was approved by the full court, and the government subsequently issued an order enforcing his compulsory retirement.Gunasekar challenged this decision..He contended that, as per the Explanation to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, an employee is not required to disclose the acquisition or disposal of immovable property by family members. He further asserted that the 1997 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court, mandating that judicial officers must report such property acquisitions, contradicts the rules and cannot override them..He also pointed out that his compulsory retirement was based on an entry in his annual confidential report. He argued that the decision to retire him was made even before he was informed of the adverse entry, which he claimed was in violation of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Record) Rules. Additionally, he asserted that the State government’s rules on compulsory retirement were not adhered to.The State countered that multiple complaints were filed against Gunasekar and that the Administrative Committee had made its decision even before the adverse remarks were recorded. Therefore, it was contended that Gunasekar’s assumption - that his compulsory retirement was only linked to the adverse remarks - was incorrect and that there was no violation of the State Judicial Service Rules..The Court observed that judicial officers are evaluated by strict yardsticks and cannot seek to be treated like other government employees. "We do not think it is open to the petitioner, who is a judicial officer to contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even in Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of U.P. supra has pointed out that the judicial officers are more accountable and the yardsticks to be adopted shall be more stricter than the other employees," the Court said.Furthermore, the Court noted that to uphold a higher standard of probity and integrity, the High Court had deemed it necessary for judicial officers to disclose information regarding the acquisition of assets by their family members, even if purchased with their (the family's) own funds.Finding no grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the district judge's plea..The district judge (petitioner) S Gunasekar appeared in person.Special Government Pleader P Balathandayutham and Advocate Karthik Ranganathan appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]
The Madras High Court recently upheld the compulsory retirement of a district judge..The judge had faced a departmental inquiry on certain complaints. He was also alleged to hold disproportionate income and was accused of failing to disclose certain property acquisitions by his wife as required under a circular issued by the High Court in 1997. A Bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the petitioner is a judicial officer and he is bound to obey the circulars and the orders issued by the High Court.It rejected the district judge's contention that there was nothing in the relevant rules which required him to disclose the property acquisition by his wife if the property was not acquired by his funds. .It proceeded to note that the High Court's Administrative Committee had reviewed the relevant materials and determined that his continued service was not in the public interest. Therefore, it upheld the decision to compulsorily retire him from judicial service. "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 observed..The Court was hearing a plea filed by S Gunasekar, a former district judge who entered judicial service in April 2018. He was suspended on April 8, 2020, and on the same day, he applied for voluntary retirement. However, his request for voluntary retirement was denied since a departmental inquiry had already been initiated. A charge memo was subsequently issued, and he submitted both his written statement of defence and a preliminary objection..Following Supreme Court directions in All India Judges' Association & Others v. Union of India & Others, Gunasekar's case was reviewed upon reaching the age of 58. The Administrative Committee decided against extending his service until 60 years and instead resolved to compulsorily retire him. This decision was approved by the full court, and the government subsequently issued an order enforcing his compulsory retirement.Gunasekar challenged this decision..He contended that, as per the Explanation to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, an employee is not required to disclose the acquisition or disposal of immovable property by family members. He further asserted that the 1997 circular issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court, mandating that judicial officers must report such property acquisitions, contradicts the rules and cannot override them..He also pointed out that his compulsory retirement was based on an entry in his annual confidential report. He argued that the decision to retire him was made even before he was informed of the adverse entry, which he claimed was in violation of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Record) Rules. Additionally, he asserted that the State government’s rules on compulsory retirement were not adhered to.The State countered that multiple complaints were filed against Gunasekar and that the Administrative Committee had made its decision even before the adverse remarks were recorded. Therefore, it was contended that Gunasekar’s assumption - that his compulsory retirement was only linked to the adverse remarks - was incorrect and that there was no violation of the State Judicial Service Rules..The Court observed that judicial officers are evaluated by strict yardsticks and cannot seek to be treated like other government employees. "We do not think it is open to the petitioner, who is a judicial officer to contend that he should be treated on par with other Government servants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even in Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of U.P. supra has pointed out that the judicial officers are more accountable and the yardsticks to be adopted shall be more stricter than the other employees," the Court said.Furthermore, the Court noted that to uphold a higher standard of probity and integrity, the High Court had deemed it necessary for judicial officers to disclose information regarding the acquisition of assets by their family members, even if purchased with their (the family's) own funds.Finding no grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the district judge's plea..The district judge (petitioner) S Gunasekar appeared in person.Special Government Pleader P Balathandayutham and Advocate Karthik Ranganathan appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]
