Compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(2) requires no prior hearing and attracts limited judicial review.

The petitioner, directly recruited as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 11.03.2009, served in various judicial posts and was posted as District Munsif, Katpadi. She was suspended on 09.08.2016 on allegations of corruption, misconduct, favouritism and dereliction of duty, followed by disciplinary proceedings initiated on 01.03.2018.

The Enquiry Officer found all charges “Not Proved” on 01.07.2022; the proceedings were consequently dropped, her suspension was revoked, and she was reinstated. The entire suspension period from 10.08.2016 to 24.07.2022 was treated as duty period.

Subsequently, the Administrative Committee reviewed the petitioner’s service records, including her performance, judgments, general reputation and the relevant Registry complaints. It resolved not to extend her service beyond the age of 50 years in the public interest. The Full Court approved that resolution on 10.01.2023. Pursuant thereto, the State Government issued G.O.(Ms.) No.380, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 18.07.2023, compulsorily retiring the petitioner under Fundamental Rule 56(2).

The petitioner challenged the Government Order, contending that no prior enquiry or opportunity of hearing had been given, that the disciplinary charges had already been dropped, and that there were no pending complaints justifying compulsory retirement.

Whether an opportunity of hearing or a prior departmental enquiry was mandatory before compulsorily retiring the petitioner under Fundamental Rule 56(2).

Whether the absence of pending disciplinary complaints, and the petitioner’s prior exoneration from the charges, rendered the decision to compulsorily retire her illegal or without jurisdiction.

Whether the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was liable to judicial interference on the grounds of mala fides, absence of evidence, arbitrariness or perversity.

The Court applied Fundamental Rule 56(2), which confers on the appropriate authority the power to retire a Government servant in the public interest after the prescribed age or qualifying service, by giving the required notice or pay in lieu of notice.

The Court also referred to the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.623, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.07.1983, under which matters involving doubts regarding integrity, repeated complaints, inefficiency or unsuitability may be considered for compulsory retirement.

Relying on Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299, as quoted in Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 13 SCC 355, the Court held that compulsory retirement is not punitive, carries no stigma, is based on the authority’s subjective satisfaction in the public interest, and ordinarily does not attract the principles of natural justice.

Judicial review is limited to cases of mala fides, no evidence, arbitrariness or perversity; the authority must, however, consider the entire service record, with greater importance ordinarily attached to the later years.

The Court held that the impugned action was not a disciplinary punishment but an administrative decision taken under Fundamental Rule 56(2) in the public interest. Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to a prior departmental enquiry or an opportunity of hearing before the decision was taken.

The Administrative Committee had reviewed the petitioner’s service record, including the fact that she had undergone a prolonged suspension and disciplinary proceedings, and its resolution was subsequently approved by the Full Court.

Although the disciplinary charges had been dropped and the suspension period had been treated as duty, the Court held that these circumstances did not prevent the competent authority from considering the overall service record while determining whether continuation in service was in the public interest.

Since the petitioner did not establish mala fides, absence of evidence, arbitrariness or perversity, the limited grounds for judicial review were not made out.

Finding no mala fides, lack of evidence, arbitrariness or perversity, the Court upheld G.O.(Ms.) No.380, Home (Courts-I) Department, dated 18.07.2023. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.