The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement of former District Judge S. Gunasekar, affirming that the decision was made in the public interest to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan in W.P. No. 23310 of 2022.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, S. Gunasekar, a retired District Judge, had sought to quash the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Tamil Nadu government through G.O. Ms. No. 743 Public (Special – A) Department dated 23.08.2021, following a recommendation by the Madras High Court. He also challenged the subsequent Notification No. 235/2021 dated 15.09.2021 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court.
Gunasekar was appointed as a District Judge on April 4, 2018, but was placed under suspension on April 8, 2020, pending an inquiry into serious charges. He applied for voluntary retirement on the same day, but the High Court rejected his request due to the ongoing departmental inquiry. Following a review of his service record upon reaching the age of 58, the High Court’s Administrative Committee resolved to compulsorily retire him, a decision later endorsed by the Full Court on June 22, 2021.
Legal Issues Involved
Gunasekar presented multiple legal contentions, including:
Violation of Conduct Rules – He argued that under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, he was not required to disclose his wife’s acquisition of immovable property unless it was purchased using his income.
Adverse Confidential Reports – He contended that his compulsory retirement was based on an adverse entry in his annual confidential report (ACR) for 2019, which he was informed of only after the decision to retire him was made.
Non-compliance with Government Guidelines – He claimed that procedural guidelines for compulsory retirement issued by the Tamil Nadu government were not followed.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Rejecting Gunasekar’s contentions, the High Court emphasized the need for higher standards of probity among judicial officers. The bench observed that judicial officers must maintain the highest standards of conduct and that Gunasekar’s explanation regarding his wife’s property acquisitions and unexplained financial transactions was unsatisfactory.
The court underscored that the decision to compulsorily retire him was made by the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting on April 15, 2021, and subsequently ratified by the Full Court. It was not solely based on the ACR, as alleged by the petitioner.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P. (2020) 1 SCC 801, the High Court reaffirmed that judicial officers are held to stricter standards than other government servants. The court observed:
“A Judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brook no compromise.”
The court further remarked that judicial officers should be held accountable for both their professional and personal conduct. It noted that the judiciary serves as a pillar of democracy, and any compromise in judicial ethics directly impacts public confidence in the legal system.
The bench also observed that the accumulation of immovable properties by Gunasekar’s wife without proper disclosure raised concerns about potential misuse of judicial office. The court stated:
“Judicial independence is not merely about decision-making but extends to the conduct and financial transparency of those who administer justice.”
Furthermore, the court clarified that compulsory retirement does not amount to punitive action but is a mechanism to uphold institutional integrity.
“The power of compulsory retirement is exercised not as a penalty but as a measure to weed out officers whose continuance in service would be detrimental to public confidence in the judiciary.”
Further, the bench held that principles of natural justice do not apply in cases of compulsory retirement, relying on precedent from the Supreme Court. The judgment reiterated that subjective satisfaction of the employer in cases of compulsory retirement is largely immune from judicial interference unless proven arbitrary or malicious.
Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court ruled that Gunasekar’s compulsory retirement was justified in the interest of judicial integrity. The judgment reiterates that judicial officers must meet the highest ethical standards and cannot seek parity with ordinary government servants.
