Y SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. Ramachandra Rao for Sri L. Ravi Chandar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt M. Bhaskara Lakshmi learned Standing Counsel for the High Court and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The writ petition was filed by Sri Y. Satyanarayana who was Subordinate Judge (on deputation as Joint Director of Prosecutions, Directorate of Prosecutions, Andhra Pradesh) challenging the action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring him from service on attainment of age of 58 years and not continuing him in service upto the age of 60 years by issuing G.O.Rt.No.1822 Law Department, dated 23-12-1998 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also having the effect of violating the Directive Principles contained in Article 46 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he is a senior judicial officer in A.P. Judicial Service and belongs to Scheduled Caste. From 1980 he worked in various posts as District Munsiff and was promoted as Subordinate Judge in May, 1988 and thereupon posted on deputation as the Joint Director of Prosecutions. He was sent on deputation to the said post on 15-10-1998. According to the petitioner he has always put duty above self and strained himself to overcome the socio- economic strains and the stresses of life and as a judicial officer has always been with high integrity and there has never been a single adverse remark against him during his career spanning nearly two decades and that the only instance was that he had to face disciplinary proceedings while working at Kandukur as Subordinate Judge. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of the allegation made against him. He was exonerated of all the charges and none of the charges levelled against him were established. When his promotion was overlooked he made a representation on 17-11-1995 specifically bringing to the notice of the authorities that his juniors have been promoted and his case has not been considered for promotion in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and since the same has ended in his acquittal his case ought to have been considered and he ought to have been promoted. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as '1984 Act') was amended by the Act 26 of 1998 by and under the said amendment no member of A.P. Higher Judicial Service or A.P. Judicial Service would retire from service on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. It is pointed out that by and under the provisions of the said Act a member of the said service may be compulsorily retired from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years if he is not found fit and eligible to be continued in the service by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on an assessment and evaluation of the record of such member for his continued utility, well within time before he attains the age of 58 years. It is submitted that in view of the above it is clear that compulsory retirement of a member of the service is an exception carved out of the general rule contained in Section 3. It is submitted that during his entire service spanning for over two decades except in one case referred to here in above, there has never been any complaint against him and no adverse remark has been made against him in his confidential reports. In any event, none having been communicated to him presumption in law could be drawn that there are no adverse remarks against him in his confidential reports. It is submitted that the law requires that assessment and evaluation of the record and continued utility of a candidate be made by the High Court. This requires to be done well within time before a member attains the age of superannuation. It is also necessary to read in the principles of natural justice into the said process as such a decision visits a member with civic consequences. In the instant case if the evaluation/assessment was to his detriment, law requires notice to be given to him so that he may explain his case before suffering the consequences of the decision. Inasmuch as no such enquiry to his notice was held the action of the authorities in deciding to exercise the power under the proviso and consequently compulsorily retiring him from service is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.