KUMARANKUTTY Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service. While working as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry as per Ext. P1 order dated 11.10.96. Thereafter, by Ext. P7 order dated 23.6.1998, the first respondent compulsorily retired the petitioner with effect from 30.6.1998 stating that the petitioner was not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years. Ext. P7 order has been passed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judge's Association v. Union of India ( AIR 1993 SC 2493 ) and also under R.60 (aa) of Part I of Kerala Rules and R.7(A) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961. In All India Judges' Association case, the Supreme Court dealt with the age of superannuation of the Judicial Officers as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. E.V. Nayanar argued that Higher Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order like Ext. P7. According to the learned counsel, it is the Governor who is to pass the order of compulsorily retirement against the petitioner. For that purpose, he relied on Art.235 of the Constitution. The above article reads as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Deo Pali Tripathi & Anr. ( 1978 (2) SCC 102 ). In the above case a District Judge was ordered to retire per maturely. The above order was passed on the decision of the administrative committee of the High Court to retire the petitioner therein compulsorily from service. The above decision of the administrative committee was circulated to all the Judges of the High Court. Thereafter, the Governor accepted the recommendation of the administrative committee and passed the impugned order. It was argued in the above case that the order is illegal in as much as it was passed under the recommendations of the administrative committee. While 233 of the Constitution requires consultation by the Governor with the entire High Court and not a committee consisting of a few Judges' of the Court. Dealing with the above aspect, the Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of disciplinary action against the members of the subordinate Judiciary. The Supreme Court also found that the view of the majority of the High Court Full Bench that by leaving the decision of question of compulsorily retirement to the administrative committee, the court had abdicated its constitutional function is not correct But I do not find any thing in the above decision to indicate that Art.235 excludes the District Judges from its operation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.