N KANNAKI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in the judicial service of the State and was functioning as Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee, (Civil Judge, Jr. Division). She having attained the age of 50 years, her case alongwith others was reviewed under Fundamental Rules 56 (2) (hereinafter referred to as 'FR' for short). The administrative committee of the High Court, having found the petitioner not fit for continuance in service on attaining age of 50 years, the matter was placed before the Full Court of Madras High Court, which decided to retire her from service in public interest. The recommendation having accepted and communicated, the petitioner has challenged G.O. 2 (D) No.586 dated 3rd Oct., 2006, issued from the Home (Courts I.A.) Department of the State of Tamil Nadu 'by the order of the Governor'.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was a practising advocate at Mayiladuthurai for about 13 years, applied for the post of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in response to advertisement issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1995 and having been selected, was appointed by the 1st respondent and assumed office on 27th Nov., 1995. After training she was posted as Judicial Magistrate No.3 at Thanjavur. She functioned as Civil Judge, Jr. Division/Judicial Magistrate First Class at Thanjavur as 11th Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai then as Judicial Magistrate at Trichirappalli as Principal District Munsif, Periyakulam as Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram as Assistant Editor of the High Court, Madras and as Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee. During her career of service between 27th Nov., 1995 to 10th Oct., 2006, she had discharged her duties sincerely, efficiently and to the best of her ability and most of her judgments stated to have been upheld. She claims that she has good rapport with all the members of the Bar and has always tried hard to keep the decorum and dignity of judicial office.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks as recorded in the character role constitute allegation they are not based on any evidence and no reason has been shown for recording such report. It was further submitted that no departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for any allegation based on vigilance reports and, thereby, she was not given any opportunity to defend herself as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the provision of FR 56 (2) for compulsory retirement is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, if the vigilance reports are taken into account and the order of compulsory retirement has been passed casting stigma, without notice to the petitioner. It was further contended that only the adverse remarks of the last three years, i.e., 2003, 2004 and 2005 should have been considered while reviewing her case under compulsory retirement in public interest. Adverse remarks made for a short period, that too, prior to a period of three years cannot be acted upon for retiring the petitioner in public interest. If the entire period of service is taken into consideration, the period of adverse remarks would become negligible, rendering the order illegal and bad in law.