Telangana High Court Reinstates Judge, Quashes 2018 Compulsory Retirement Order

A division bench of the Telangana High Court in Hyderabad has set aside a 2018 compulsory retirement order against a trial court judge, describing the punishment as "unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate." The bench, comprising Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda, ordered his immediate reinstatement without back wages or consequential benefits.

The judicial officer had joined the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service as a junior civil judge in 2013. The disciplinary matter originated from an incident on March 18, 2014, when police intercepted his official vehicle at a check post for election-related screening under the Model Code of Conduct.

Following friction with police officers and subsequent complaints, the High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings and framed six "Articles of Charge." In August 2016, an inquiry officer found two charges proved concerning his rude conduct toward police personnel, while clearing him of four other allegations, including the alleged detention of toll staff and unauthorized absence from court.

However, the disciplinary authority overturned the inquiry officer's exoneration on the four charges and recommended compulsory retirement. The State government subsequently executed the compulsory retirement order on January 4, 2018.

In its ruling, the High Court noted that the allegations involved no accusations of corruption, lack of integrity, moral turpitude, abuse of office, or dishonest motive. The bench found no cogent reasons or independent material supporting the disciplinary authority's decision to overturn the inquiry officer's findings on the four exonerated charges, deeming those findings unsustainable.

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

Emphasizing that setting aside the penalty does not excuse the conduct, the bench stated that a judicial officer's behavior both on and off the bench must conform strictly to standards of dignity, restraint, and civil courtesy. The court held that the denial of back wages and the years spent out of service serve as adequate punishment for the established misconduct, directing his reinstatement to his original post.