T NAGAPPA MYSORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The petitioner had joined the Karnataka State Judicial Service as a Munsiff on 18.2.1987. He was promoted by selection to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 1997 and as a District and Sessions Judge on an ad-hoc basis during the year 2003. He had served at various places in the State of Karnataka. When he was working as a District and Sessions Judge at Karwar, where he was posted in March 2009, by an order dated 15.5.2009, the judicial work entrusted to the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner made two representations to the second respondent, after he found that his name was recommended for compulsory retirement. However, by a Notification dated 23.6.2009, the petitioner, along with fourteen other Judicial Officers, was permitted to retire in public interest under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (Hereinafter referred to as ' the KCSRs' for brevity) and he was relieved from service on the afternoon of 24.6.2009. He was aged 53 then.

(3.) It is contended that the Notification, by which the petitioner has been permitted to retire, purportedly in public interest, is clearly illegal and is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The KCSRs are framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Proviso to Article 309. They are subject to other provisions of the Constitution of India. In terms of Article 310, a Civil Servant holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Article 311 prescribes the conditions which are to be satisfied before the dismissal of a Civil Servant or removal from service, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The combined reading of Articles 309, 310 and 311 indicates that the Rules made there under are subject to doctrine of pleasure, which itself, is subject to the limitations imposed under Article 311. Therefore, while invoking Rule 285(4) of the KCSRs, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to follow the procedure prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is contended that the impugned Notification is violative of the principles of natural justice.