Chennai, Mar 31 (UNI) The Madras High Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by the former District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district, challenging the order of the Tamil Government to retire him compulsorily from the service.
The Division Bench comprising, Mr Justice S J Mukhopadhaya and Mr Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla, said in their judgement that vigilance records of the petitioner shows that as many as 22 complaints between the period 2000-2004, were related to corruption, misuse and abuse of power. Even for the period between 2003 and 2005, the bench found many complaints and all of them were related to corruption charges.
''Considering the records related to the case of the petitioner, the decision of the Administrative Committee, and as appoved by the Full Court, with which we have no reason to differ, and we hold that such a decision taken by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the State Government was perferably justified and the same does not call for any interference'', the Judges said.
The petitioner B Kulamani, in his writ petition, said that he was appointed as a Civil Judge [Junior Division] on November 27 1995, and he had worked in several places. During his tenure as a District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, he faced some problems, due to difference of opinion with the Bar members of Nanguneri Court, and was placed under suspension and subsequently received a compulsory retirement order by the Government.
The petitioner also submits that the compulsory retirement order issued to him, was in violation of principles of natural justice, as the reasons assigned in the order were filmsy. He was also not afforded an opportunity before the issuance of the impugned order, and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
While dismising the petition, the Bench said the contentions of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity and the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice are all contentions which cannot be permitted to be made and such contentions cannot be appreciated in the case of compulsory retirement.
It is well settled that the decision of a compusory retirement is purely an administrateive one, which is taken based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and so long as such decision was based on relevant materials and judicious consideration, there is little scope fo interference in such a decision, the Bench added.
UNI XR KVV MIR VC2245