P SHANMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was serving as district Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam, his case fell for consideration before the High court to determine whether he should be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years and upto 60 years and by order ROC No.2A/2006-Con.B2 dated 25th Jan., 2007, as he was informed that he was not found fit to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years in public interest and allowed him to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition against the said order.

(2.) THE background of the petitioner is that he was appointed as second class Magistrate (Sub Judge (Jr. Division)) on 22nd Feb., 1982 promoted to the cadre of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge - Sr. Division) on 8th June, 1998 and then to the next higher post of District & Sessions Judge on 3rd May, 2000. On 4th Oct., 2000, he was transferred and posted as II Addl. District Judge, Coimbatore and, thereafter, as Addl. District Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Perambalur. From 28th Oct., 2002 to 31st Dec., 2005, the petitioner was serving as District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam. From 5th Jan., 2006 till attaining the age of 58 years he was serving as Addl. District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.

(3.) AS learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner except for the year 2004-2005, which was later on expunged by the High Court one adverse observation with regard to shortage of disposal in one quarter of a year and that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated or pending, to find out the actual fact, we called for the records and perused the same. The following fact emerges from the records, as produced by the respondents :- For the last more than 10 years, the service record of the petitioner is 'Satisfactory'. The unit head or the Honourable Administrative Judge of this Court has either recorded the performance of the officer as 'Satisfactory' or 'Good'. Only during one part of year 2000, i.e., 1st Jan., 2000 to 20th April, 2000 and in one part of the year 2002, i.e., 8th April, 2002 to 25th Oct., 2002, a specific remark was made relating to poor disposal of cases and for the officer to improve. For the year 2005, certain adverse remarks were recorded, which were later expunged by the High Court vide official memorandum dated 25th Sept., 2006. The overall Annual Confidential Report of the officer written by the Head of the Unit as approved by the Honourable Administrative Judge of this Court since 1996, particularly knowledge of law, quality of judgment, disposal of cases, conduct and dignity inside and outside court, reputation (honesty, integrity and impartiality) are quoted hereunder :- So far as leave is concerned, following statement of last five years were produced before the Administrative Committee/Full Court :- Against the head 'complaint, imposition of penalty and general reputation', the information in the chart as were placed before the Administrative Committee and Full Court, nothing was shown against the petitioner. In a separate chart it was only shown that there were certain allegations and complaint made between 2002 and 2005 in almost all of which, after going through the records, the High Court ordered for no action and in three matters only discreet enquiry was ordered, but the officer was never suspended nor any departmental proceeding was initiated.