Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition challenged and found that there is no interference in disciplinary action if the evidence is showing unsatisfactory conduct in the judicial service. The petitioner of the said matter, Mr. V. Jayakumar, former JMFC was made to retire under Rule 13A of Kerala Judicial Service Rule, 1991. In that rule, it was mentioned that the judicial officers are bound for compulsory retirement at the age of 50. And the rule mentioned that the Judicial Officers are not entitled to work further and the court observed that compulsory retirement was issued by the Committee of Judges headed by the Chief Justice of High Court. Thus the Committee found the petitioner not entitled to work and issued the order on the basis of the petitioner’s performance. This was the cause of action of the said case and the counsel for petitioner challenged the said order and raised many grounds against the said order given by the Committee.
One of the contentions made by the counsel is that he made a reference to the Kerala Services Rules which mentions officer holding post in Kerala Judicial Service shall retire at the age of 60 and with an option at the age of 58. The counsel said that this could be a subject to review. Another contention was that no material was provided to the said petitioner regarding the alleged delinquency which made him to retire at the age of 50. The court observed all the contentions made by the counsel and referred a verdict given by the hon’ble SC in the matter of Maya Mathew V. State of Kerala which gave birth to the doctrine “generaliabus specialia derogant” (special things derogate form general things) and said that Kerala Services Rules is a general rule whereas a Special Rule is applicable for the Judicial Services and thus rejected the contention made by the counsel. The court for further clarity verified the petitioner’s work during his Judicial Service.
The court found that when he was acting as a Munisiff-Magistrate he used to pronounce judgements without any proper evidential records and used to avoid Civil matters and adjourned them stating inappropriate reasons. The court also found that the petitioner used to dispose Criminal matters u/s 239 of Cr.P.C without any proper hearing and providing proper notice to the Public Prosecutors. And also used to do the same things u/s 498 of Cr.P.C without relevant reasoning. Thus, the court found the petitioner indifferent and having lack of devotion towards specific matters. The divisional bench comprising of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice V.G. Arun held that "We do not think there is any scope for interference...The interference of judicial review was held to be possible only if it is found to be arbitrary capricious, malafide or overlooking and ignoring any relevant material. This court as has been held in the cited decision is not sitting in judgment over the decision of the Full Court"
86540
103860
630
114
59824