Telangana HC reinstates judge, sets aside compulsory retirement order

The Telangana High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a trial court judge, calling the punishment unduly harsh and disproportionate. The court sustained two misconduct charges but ordered his reinstatement without back wages or consequential benefits

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justices P Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda has set aside a 2018 compulsory retirement order against a trial court judge, ruling that the punishment was “unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate”. The court ordered his immediate reinstatement without back wages.

---

The petitioner joined the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service as a junior civil judge in 2013. The case stems from a March 18, 2014, incident when police intercepted his official vehicle at a check post for election-related screening under the Model Code of Conduct.

Following friction with the officers and subsequent complaints, the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings, framing six “Articles of Charge”. An inquiry officer in August 2016 found two charges proved regarding his rude conduct towards police, while clearing him of four other allegations, including the alleged detention of toll staff and unauthorised absence from court.

However, the disciplinary authority overrode the clearance on the remaining four charges and recommended compulsory retirement, which the State government executed on January 4, 2018. The bench highlighted that the allegations involved no charges of corruption, lack of integrity, moral turpitude, abuse of office or dishonest motive. The court found no cogent reasons or independent material supporting the disciplinary authority’s decision to overturn the inquiry officer’s exoneration on the four charges, deeming those findings unsustainable.

The court sustained the two charges concerning the check-post incident, stating that as a judicial officer, he was expected to cooperate with police performing official duties rather than react discourteously. The bench noted that he was a young probationary officer serving at his first posting after completing only initial training.

Emphasising that setting aside the penalty does not excuse the conduct, the bench observed that a judicial officer’s behaviour – both on and off the bench – must strictly conform to standards of dignity, restraint and civil courtesy. Holding that denial of back wages and the years spent out of service serve as adequate punishment for the established misconduct, the court directed his reinstatement to his original post without monetary or consequential benefits for the non-service period.