RICHARD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge to the order of compulsory retirement either under fundamental Rule 56(d) or Rule 56(2) of the Judicial Officer had come up before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. THE present Writ Petition is one such case. THE petitioner entered in the Judicial Service as Second Class Magistrate on 4.1.1983. After his postings in various places, both on civil and criminal side, he was promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge on 21.7.2000 and posted at Tuticorin. He was compulsorily retired under fundamental Rule 56(2) by the impugned G.O.(2D) No.331 Home(Courts IA) Department dated 28.11.2001. Review Petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected in G.O.Ms. No.1034 Home ( Courts IA) Department dated 31.10.2002. THE legality of the above orders are questioned in this Writ Petition basically on the following grounds: 1) THE impugned orders are vitiated for non compliance of principle of natural justice. 2) Inasmuch as the similarly placed judicial officers were allowed to continue, the petitioner alone was discriminated 3) No materials are available to pass the order of compulsorily retirement. 4) Having promoted the petitioner on 21.7.2000 and in the absence of any adverse entries in the service records after the promotion, the past records ought not to have been taken into consideration and consequently, the impugned orders are vitiated for want of materials.

(2.) THE recruitment of the officers to judicial service other than the District Judges and the control over the subordinate Courts are dealt with in Chapter VI of the Constitution of India. Article 234 - Recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial service reads as under: Appointments of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Article 235- Control over Subordinate Courts reads as under: THE control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this Article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.

(3.) THE importance of subordinate judiciary was again stressed in All India Judges' Association Vs Union Of India ( 1993 (4) SCC 288 in the following words. -THE Judges do not do an easy job. THEy repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid, i.e., make decisions. Judges, though are mortals, they are called upon to perform a function that is utterly divine in character. THE trial Judge is the Kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the day to day proceedings in the Court. On him lies the responsibility to build solemn atmosphere in dispensation of justice, the personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity, character, conduct, official as well as personal and integrity are the additional aspects which make the functioning of the Court successful and acceptable-