Dismissed

K.v.Kishan Rao v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Registrar

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/29313/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a retied District Judge challenging his compulsory retirement from judicial service. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Administrative Committee's action after considering the entire service record and adverse remarks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

K.v.Kishan Rao Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^s3e3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29313 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.V.Kishan Rao, S/o.Venkat Rao District and Sessions Judge (Retd) (Formerly Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat at Karimnagar R/o.Plot No.A8, South End Park, Mansoorabad L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Registrar, (Vigilance) Hyderabad

¶12

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Law (LA & J.SC.F), Department, Rep-by its Secretary to Government Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably a writ of mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LA RJ.SC.F) Department dated 12.8.2O1^'1 issued by the Respondent No.2 and the order bearing Roc.No.4306/201 1-B.SPL dated 1 9.8.201 1 issued by the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the aforesaid proceedings and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in Judicial Service with all consequential benefits.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. KIRAN KUMAR, REPRESENTING SRI N. ASHWANI KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. V. UMA OEVI, S.C. FOR TSHC

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON,BLE T^{HE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE}

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SHRT JUSTICE ANTLKUMARJUKANTI}

¶22

VIRIT PETITION^{No.293 13 0F 2()11}

¶23

ORDER:^{(per the Hon'bleSlwi Justice AnilKumarJukantt)}

¶24

This Writ Petition^{is filed seekingthe following relief:}

¶25

"...to issue a^{Writ or Direction preferably a Writ of} Mandamus, declaring^{theG'O'Ms'No93Law} (LAS&J SC.F) Department,^{dated'l2-8-2OI I issued} by the respondent^{No.2 and the Order bearingROC} No.4306/2011-B^{SPL dated 19'O8'2011 issued by} the respondent^{No.1 as illegat, arbitraryand} violative of^{principlesofnatural j ustice and} consequently^{set aside the aforesaidproceedings} and direct the^{respondents tocontinuethe} petitioner n^{judicialservice with alt consequential} benefits and^{pass such other order or orders''"}

¶26

Heard Mr.^{K.Kiran Kumar, Ieamed counsel} representing Mr.^{N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for} the petitioner ald^{Mrs. V'UmaDevi' learned Standing}

¶27

¶28

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No. 29313 ot 201 I

¶29

Counsel for the High Court for the State of Telanagana appearing for respondent No.2.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are:

¶31

Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Civil Judge in the year 19g7, promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 1996 and as District Judge in the year 2OO3. He was appointed as Chairman, permanent Lok Adalat, Karimnagar in the year 2003. compraints were received on the petitioner, it was recorded that there were reports of doubtful integrit5r and that his conduct was not above suspicion and has to be watched, surveillance be kept on him. In the light of the said facts, taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, adverse remarks and work review of officer, the Administrative Committee of High Court resolved to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 5g years in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra pradesh pubric Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 7984. G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LASI^J SC.F) DEp-artment, dated

¶32

C.I & JAI. J W.P.No. 29313 ot 20t t

¶33

¶34

l2.Oa.2ol1 and Order in ROC No.43O6/2O11-8, SPL, dated 19.08.2011 was issued compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.08.201 I on attaining the age of 58 years. The same is under challenge.

¶35

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the were not adverse remarks of doubtful integrity cornmunicated, that the petitioner was not above suspicion and has to be watched, were misconceived statements. He submitted that the Administrative Committee of High Court, while passing the resolution, has taken into accolrnt uncommunicated adverse remarks, undue weightage was given to entries made prior to 5 years before the said date of compulsory retirement. Complaints by disgruntled parties, pseudonymous complaints rnade were considered. He subrnitted that enquiries were conducted and the allegations levelled including that of corn:ption were not proved. He submitted that copies of ACRs were not supplied.

¶36

4 CJ & JATi, J W.P.No. 29313 of 201 I

¶37

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the officer was of high integrity and the number of disposals, qualitatively a-rrd quantitatively, rendered were not considered and none of the charges levelled were established. It is submitted that the integrity of officer was good except for one year in which it was stated that his performance has to be watched, He submitted that the entire service record was not considered before compulsorily retiring from service.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in At'un Kumar Gupta I/s. State of Jharkhand and q.nothert wherein at paragraph- 17 it was held as follows:

¶39

u77. The lou on the subject of compulsory retirement, especially in the case of judicial offiers mag be summarized as follor,us:

¶40

77.7. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitiue in nature.

¶41

77.2. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judiciol offi-cer has no ciuil consecFlences.

¶42

' 120201 r: scc:ss

¶43

CJ & JAK,^J w.P.No 293^{t3 of 201 I}

¶44

¶45

17.3, While^{considering the case of a judicial} officer for compulsory^{retirementtte entirerecord of} the^{judiciot officer should be taken into} consideration,^{though the latter andmore} contemporaneous^{record must be giuenmore} ueightage.

¶46

17.4. Subsequent^{promotionsdo ftot meanthat} earlier aduerse^{record cannotbe tookedinto ttthile} deciding whether^{ajudiciat officer should be} compulsorilg^retired.

¶47

17-5. The "raashed-off^{theory d'oesnot apply in} case of^{judicial officers specially inrespectof} aduerse entries^{relatingto integitg'}

¶48

17.6. Ttrc courts^{should exercise their pou-terof} judicial reuieu-t ttLith great^{circum'strtectiono.nd} restraint keeping^{in uiewtlrc} fact^{that compulsory} retirement of a^{judiciatoJficer is nonnallgdirected} on the recommendation^{of ahigh-pouered} ammittee(s)^{of tLe High Court'"}

¶49

7 Reliance is^{placedupon the judgment of the Honble} Supreme Court^{stated suPra fortheproPosition that} contemPoraneous^{record mustbe} given more^weightage and the entire^{record of the judicialoff,rcer should be taken} into consideration.^{It is further submitted that all the}

¶50

6 CJ & JAK, J w.P.No.29313 of 201t

¶51

complaints were dropped and the allegations remained unsubstantiated. In view of the same, the compulsory retirement order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶52

l,earned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in the year 1993, it was recorded that there were reports of doubtful integrity of the officer, that the coqduct o[ the officer was not above suspicion and has to be watched. It is submitted that in the year 1998, it was recorded that officer should be kept under watch and surveillance be kept on him. In the year 2O0g too, it was reported that his conduct be watched. It was further submitted that petitioner faced a departmental enquiry on allegations of corruption arrd was placed under suspension w.e.f. 22.O7.2OO9 to 22.O4.2OIO, though reinsrated later.

¶53

It is submitted that the Administrative Committee of High Court took an overall view of the matter, considered the adverse remarks, work review of officer, qualitative and quantitative disposals and the complaints ald has compulsoriiy retired the petitioner lrom service on attaining

¶54

¶55

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.293t3 of 201I

¶56

) )

¶57

the age of 58 years in terms of Iirst proviso to Section 3 (1A) of the Andhra Pradesh public Employment (Regulation ofAge of Superannuation) Act, 19g4.

¶58

Heard the learned counsels, perused the entire record. The Administrative Committee of High Court vide its resolution, dated L7.O6.2OL1 , has found the petitioner not fit to be continued in service up to the age of 60 years. The Administrative Committee after considering the entire service record and on an overall review and assessment of the entire material felt that the officer is not found to be of continued utility in service beyond Sg years and compulsorily retired the petitioner. It is settled law that no judicial ofhcer has a right to continue beyond the age of 5g years as a matter of right. The worthiness of the ofhcer is evaluated by the Administrative Cornmittee. The stardards for judging the conduct and integrit5z of a judicial of{icer are high. We do not find any infirmitSr in the resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of High Court. G.O.Ms.No.93 Law (LAS6^J SC.F) Department, dated

¶59

8 CJ & JAK'^J W P.No 29313^of2011

¶60

¶61

t2.Oa.2ol1 and Order in ROC No.43O6l2ol1-8,^SPL, dated 19.08.2011, has been issued accordingly. The^Writ

¶62

Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be^dismissed.

¶63

In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the Writ^Petltlon

¶64

is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous applications, if any^pending, in^this

¶66

Writ Petition shall stand closed

¶67

SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 One CC to SRI N. ASHWANI KUTMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

2 One CC to Smt. V. UMA DEVI, S.C. for^TSHC [OPUC] 3 Two CCs to GP for Law and Legislative Affairs,^{High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶73