D KULASEKARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 12/4/2001 passed by the first respondent, namely, the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary in the Home Department.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-The petitioner was initially appointed on 14/12/1974 in the Revenue Department. Subsequently, the petitioner passed B. L. , and was transferred to Law Department with effect from 6/3/1982. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate for recruitment by transfer and being so selected, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate with effect from 10/8/1992. The petitioner, however, retained his lien in the Law Department. On 2/3/1998, the Law Department called upon the petitioner to indicate his willingness to be absorbed in the Judicial Service or to be reverted back to the Law Department. On 27/3/1998, the petitioner requested for three months time to express his willingness. On 14/5/1998, the third respondent, namely, the Secretary to the Government, Law Department, directed the petitioner to express his willingness or otherwise on or before 31/5/1998. On 28/5/1998, the petitioner sent a reply indicating that he was willing to serve in the Law Department after serving for some more time in the Judiciary. On 9. 9. 1999, the petitioner was served with a letter to indicate the period for which he was willing to serve in the Judicial Department. Accordingly, on 27. 10. 1999, petitioner sent his reply indicating that he was willing to serve in the Judiciary for three more years. However, no other communication was served on the petitioner in that context. Subsequently, on 31. 8. 2000, the petitioner expressed his willingness to revert back to the Law Department. However, no formal reply was communicated to the petitioner. While the matter stood thus, on the basis of some complaints sent by an Advocate, the second respondent, namely, the High Court, suspended the petitioner on 8. 2. 2001 under Rule 17 (3) of the Fundamental Rules and subsequently, on 27/2/2001 the second respondent called for an explanation. On 30/3/2001, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked on 22/6/2001 and the petitioner was allowed to rejoin on 25/6/2001. However, on 26/6/2001, an order dated 12/4/2001, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary in the Home Department, was served on the petitioner compulsorily retiring him from service. Review Application was filed on 18/7/2001. However, such Review Application was dismissed on 31/10/2002. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of compulsory retirement.

(3.) THE following contentions have been raised in the writ petition and pressed into service at the time of hearing of the writ petition.