Madras High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of District Judge

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of District Judge S. Gunasekar, emphasizing the imperative for judicial officers to adhere to the directives and circulars issued by the High Court. The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising Justices R. Subramanian and G. Arul Murugan, who dismissed Gunasekar's petition challenging his enforced retirement.

Judge S. Gunasekar commenced his tenure as a District Judge in April 2018. However, by April 2020, he was placed under suspension following allegations of misconduct. On the same day as his suspension, Gunasekar submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement. This request was denied due to the initiation of a departmental inquiry into his conduct. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued, to which Gunasekar responded with a written defense and preliminary objections.

Upon reaching the age of 58, Gunasekar's service record underwent a mandatory review by the Administrative Committee of the High Court. This review was in line with the Supreme Court's directives in the All India Judges' Association case, which mandates periodic assessments of judicial officers' performance and conduct. The Administrative Committee, after evaluating the available materials, resolved that extending Gunasekar's service until the age of 60 would not serve the public interest. Consequently, a decision was made to compulsorily retire him from service. This resolution received approval from the Full Court, and the state government subsequently issued an order formalizing his compulsory retirement.

The allegations against Gunasekar were multifaceted, primarily focusing on financial improprieties. It was reported that his wife had acquired at least 25 immovable properties without notifying the High Court, as mandated by the relevant conduct rules. Additionally, the purchase of a luxury BMW car and unexplained substantial credits into his salary account raised further suspicions. These actions were perceived as violations of the expected standards of integrity and transparency required of judicial officers.

In his defense, Gunasekar argued that, according to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules of 1973, there was no obligation for an employee to report the acquisition or disposal of immovable property by family members. He contended that the High Court's circular, which required judicial officers to disclose such acquisitions, was inconsistent with these rules and, therefore, should not be enforceable.

The High Court, however, refuted this argument. The bench emphasized that judicial officers are distinct from other government servants and are held to a higher standard of conduct. The court stated that the High Court possesses the authority to establish procedures and issue circulars to ensure the integrity and probity of the judiciary. Therefore, judicial officers are obligated to comply with these directives, irrespective of the general conduct rules applicable to other government employees.

The bench further elucidated that the requirement for judicial officers to disclose assets acquired by their family members is designed to uphold transparency and prevent any potential conflicts of interest or perceptions of impropriety. This measure aims to maintain public confidence in the judiciary by ensuring that judicial officers and their families do not engage in undisclosed financial dealings that could compromise their impartiality or integrity.

In affirming the decision of the Administrative Committee, the High Court underscored that unless it is demonstrably proven that the materials relied upon for the decision were irrelevant, tainted, or motivated by malice—a claim that Gunasekar did not substantiate—the court would not interfere with the administrative decision. This stance reinforces the principle that internal administrative decisions, especially those concerning the conduct and integrity of judicial officers, are to be accorded due deference, provided they are based on relevant and credible evidence.

This ruling serves as a poignant reminder of the elevated ethical standards expected of judicial officers. It highlights the necessity for strict adherence to institutional directives aimed at preserving the sanctity and trust vested in the judiciary. By upholding the compulsory retirement of Judge S. Gunasekar, the Madras High Court has reinforced its commitment to maintaining the highest levels of integrity within its ranks, thereby ensuring that the judiciary remains beyond reproach and continues to command public confidence.