G.NARGIS KARIM vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

WP No.35819 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.07.2026
Pronounced on: 09.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WP No.35819 of 2024 and
WMP No.38678 of 2024
G.Nargis Karim
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary,
Home (Courts - I) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The High Court of Judicature of Madras
Rep. by its Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-600 104.
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
st
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1
respondent pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.380 dated 18.07.2023 and quash the same
and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a limited time
frame as deemed fit.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Madhu Balaaji
For Respondents: Mr.S.Arjun Suresh for R2
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.Senthilkumar J.)
st
As against the order passed by the 1 respondent in G.O.Ms.No.380 dated
18.07.2023, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was directly recruited as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on
11.03.2009 and served as Judicial Magistrate II, Nagercoil, Additional District
Munsif, Cuddalore, Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, Judicial Magistrate
No.V, Tiruchirappalli, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli, and as District
Munsif, Katpadi. While the petitioner was serving as District Munsif, Katpadi,
she was placed under suspension vide proceeding dated 09.08.2016 in
nd
R.O.C.No.367/2016/VC/B2 by the 2 respondent for the allegations of
Corruption, misconduct, favouritism and dereliction of duty followed by
disciplinary proceedings which was initiated against the petitioner on
01.03.2018. An explanation was sought on five aspects in which she was
alleged to have indulged in corrupt practices, by the Registrar, (Vigilance) of
this Court in ROC No.367/2016/VC, dated 11.08.2016 and the said explanation
was submitted on 26.09.2016 and further explanation was submitted on
21.11.2016 along with relevant documents. Thereafter, an enquiry was
contemplated and she was exonerated from all the charges levelled against her
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer where the charges were held as
‘Not Proved’ vide an order dated 01.07.2022. Pursuant to the same, the
Administrative Committee had dropped the proceedings which was initiated
against her vide Charge Memo dated 01.03.2018 and thus, suspension was
revoked on 22.07.2022 and the petitioner was reinstated into service and posted
as District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District on
25.07.2022. Further, the entire period of suspension undergone by the petitioner
from 10.08.2016 to 24.07.2022, was treated as duty period vide proceedings of
nd
the 2 respondent dated 11.08.2022.
3. The Deputy Registrar (Admin II) High Court of Madras vide
proceedings dated 19.12.2022, in R.O.C.No.175-A/2009/C2 had sought for
particulars regarding Review of return of Assets and liabilities from the date of
entry into service and also called upon the petitioner on various proceedings
dated 31.12.2010, 31.12.2015 and 31.12.2020, to furnish the details regarding
assets and liability. Thereafter, the petitioner has furnished the said detail as on
04.05.2009 and 29.03.2011 and the same was duly reviewed and recorded. In
this circumstance, the petitioner’s promotion was deferred, taking into
consideration the period of suspension during the disciplinary proceedings. In
this connection, the petitioner made a representation, requesting to expunge or
modify the remarks stated in the Annual Confidential Reports and the same has
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
been rejected by the Additional Registrar (Inspection) in his official
Memorandum in R.O.C.No.2/2017-CON.B2(ACR) dated 29.08.2022. The
petitioner was kept under compulsory wait by the orders of the Madras High
Court with effect from 24.01.2023 vide Notification No.18/2023, in ROC
No.6798-A/2023-B2, dated 23.01.2023. Thereafter the Government Order has
issued G.O.(Ms.)No.380, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 18.07.2023,
ordering compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest under
Fundamental Rule 56(2) [F.R. 56(2)] pursuant to the decision taken by the Full
Court, dated 10.01.2023 approving the resolution of the Administrative
Committee, dated 16.12.2022, where the Registry Complaint page nos.162 and
209 with regard to the service of the petitioner while she was serving as District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinchipadi, Cuddalore District which stands
as the basis for the Administrative Committee to pass the following Resolution:
….(iii) The Committee carefully reviewed the Service Records, work
done statements, overall performance, quality of Judgments and
general reputation of Tmt.G.Nargis Karim, District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore. It is unanimously
resolved not to extend, in public interest, the services of
Ms.G.Nargis Karim beyond the age of 50 years, subject to approval
of the Full Court.
4. The said Resolution was approved by the Full Court, whereby it was
decided not to extend the service period of the petitioner beyond the age of 50
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
years. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before passing the
impugned order, no enquiry was contemplated and no opportunity was given to
the petitioner, thereby there was no fairness by the High Court in taking the
above decision. It is his further contention that there was no complaints pending
against her and in the absence of any complaint, the decision taken under
F.R.56(2) is inappropriate, without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also
contended that there was no reason for the High Court to accept the views of the
Administrative Committee held on 16.12.2022 which was confirmed by the Full
Court through its meeting dated 10.01.2023. By the decision of the Full Court
dated 10.01.2023, it was decided not to extend the service of 11 Judicial officers
out of 13 officers, where the petitioner’s name stood and therefore, her service
was not extended.
nd
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2 respondent submitted that the
action was taken under F.R.56(2) in the public interest, which does not
contemplate an opportunity to be given to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order, pursuant to the decision taken by the Full Court. Since
F.R.56(2) was passed in the public interest, it is for the High Court to decide
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
whether to extend or not to extend service of the writ petitioner. The question as
to whether any allegations or complaints were pending against her is not a
ground to be agitated by the petitioner when F.R 56(2) is invoked. Therefore,
there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Government,
which impugned herein.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and carefully
perused the materials placed on record.
8. To examine the scope of the law, let us refer to F.R. 56(2), which is
extracted below:
 “Compulsory Retirement: Notwithstanding anything contained in
this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that
it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right
to retire any Government Servant by giving him notice of not less
than three months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances
in lieu of such notice at any time after he has attained the age of
fifty years or fifty-five years in the case of Basic Servants, as the
case may be, or after he has completed thirty years of qualifying
service."
9. The guidelines to compulsorily retire a Government Servant in public
interest issued in G.O.Ms.No.623, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
Department, dated 14.07.1983, states that the following types of cases may be
put up before the Review Committee for review:-
“4. (i) In cases where the Government have reasonable
cum believe that an officer is lacking in integrity, this would be
an appropriate ground to consider him for compulsory retirement
irrespective of an assessment of his ability or efficiency in work.
(ii) In cases where Government have reason to believe that
habitually takes bribes but there is no definite proof of a specific
anti corruption, or where the officer has a bad reputation and
where the abundant suspicion against him even though the guilt
may not have established in a criminal case, such case can be
brought up for review. (G.O.(Ms).No.761, Public (Ser.A),
dated:19th March 1973.).
(iii) Cases where an Officer's integrity is not in doubt, but
his physical or mental condition is such as to make him
inefficient for further surrender him unfit to discharge his duties
properly.
(iv) Cases of Officers against whom there are repeated
complaint corruption;
(v) Cases of Government servants who although have done
whom lower grades, are not considered adequate for the
responsibilities of they occupy or will not be able to perform
efficiently in their post for the 3/5 years. (Circular Memo.
No.39541/75-139, Pub. (Ser.M), dated: November 1976.).”
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
10. A plain reading of F.R.56(2) makes it clear that the Principles behind
the scope of the judicial review, which are settled as under:
i. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no
stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
ii. The order has to be passed on forming the opinion that it is in public
interest to retire a Government compulsorily and the order has to be
passed on subjective satisfaction of the Government.
iii. Principle of natural justice has no place.
iv. The High Court can interfere only if it is satisfied that the order of
compulsory retirement has been passed (a) mala fide (b) it is based
on no evidence (c) that it is arbitrary and found to be a perverse.
11. In the present case on hand, the opinion was taken by the
Administrative Committee vide its resolution dated 16.12.2022 where the
Administrative Committee has taken note the Registry complaint as basis which
is referred from Page Nos.162 and 209 and the committee has decided not to
extend the services of the writ petitioner. The resolution which was taken by the
Administrative Committee, was subsequently approved by the Full Court
through its decision dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, the opinion cannot be
questioned, as the decision was taken in the public interest.
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
12. With regard to the opportunity sought by the petitioner, the principles
of natural justice have been dispensed with. Therefore, the question of giving
an opportunity does not arise. The petitioner has not raised any objection with
regard to (a) mala fide (b) it is based on no evidences & (c) that it is arbitrary
and found to be a perverse.
13. Normally in a departmental proceedings, the delinquent should be
given an opportunity, but when a decision is taken under F.R.56(2), the
procedure of giving an opportunity, which is normally followed in the charges
framed under Rule 17(a) or 17(b) of the The Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is dispensed with. The material to be taken into
consideration is the entire service records which will suffice for the
Administrative Committee to evaluate the performance of the writ petitioner.
14. A perusal of the past records of the writ petitioner disclosed that the
petitioner was placed under suspension for some time. The suspension itself
was revoked only on the ground of prolonged suspension. Though the charges
were dropped and the disciplinary proceedings has come to an end, the remarks
were reflected on the service record of the petitioner. Therefore it is at the
instance of the Administrative Committee, where the Service Records of the
Writ Petitioner evaluated and that the above court service record only reflects
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
that the writ petitioner had underwent disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the
claim of granting opportunity while holding an enquiry does not arise, when the
decision is taken under F.R.56(2).
15. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. reported in (2020 (13)
SCC 355 , has held under:
“9. Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule
56(j) it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right
to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the
public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate
authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject
to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the
authority concerned must be of the opinion that it is in public
interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the
correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It
is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion
has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral
grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.
7.A three-Judge Bench in Baikuntha Nath Das v. District
Medical Officer [Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer,
(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521] dealing with the
concept of compulsory retirement laid down the following
principles : (SCC pp. 315-16, para 34)
“34. The following principles emerge from the above
discussion:
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment.
It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on
forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a
government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the
subjective satisfaction of the Government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the
context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean
that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court
or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court,
they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a)
mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is
arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person would form
the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found
to be a perverse order.
(iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case
may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before
taking a decision in the matter — of course attaching more
importance to record of and performance during the later years.
The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries
in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and
adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post
notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their
sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection)
and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be
quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it
uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for
interference.”
16. In the present case, the service record was perused by the
Administrative Committee which reflects the disciplinary action against the
petitioner, hence they have decided not to extend the services of the writ
petitioner. It is the known fact that she was placed under suspension quite a
long period, enquiry was contemplated against her, charges were dropped and
reinstatement was done. However, it is not the case as if the Administrative
Committee has passed an order without taking any opinion or without any
reference from the Full Court and as decision was taken under F.R.56(2) on
public interest. Therefore, the Writ petitioner has not made any grounds to
substantiate her version.
17. In view of the same, the order passed by the Government in G.O.
(Ms.)No.380, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 18.07.2023 is hereby
confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
09-09-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vum
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Government Of Tamil Nadu
Home (courts - I) Department, Fort
St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Registrar General, High Court
High Court Of Judicature Of Madras
Chennai-104.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )

WP No.35819 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
Pre-delivery order in
WP No. 35819 of 2024 &
WMP No.38678 of 2024
09.09.2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 04:33:02 pm )