Justice AS Supehia, Justice RT Vachhani, Gujarat High Court
Single Uncommunicated Adverse Remark Or Doubtful Integrity Is Enough To Retire Judicial Officer Compulsorily: Gujarat High Court
|The writ petition before the Gujarat High Court was filed assailing the Notification compulsory retiring a District Judge, from service at the age of 58 years and 6 months.
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order of compulsory retirement of a District Judge and held that a single uncommunicated adverse remark in the entire service record or doubtful integrity is enough to retire a Judicial Officer compulsory in public interest.
The writ petition before the High Court was filed assailing the Notification compulsory retiring a District Judge, from service at the age of 58 years and 6 months.
Expounding on the law governing the compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer, the Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R. T. Vachhani held, “The Order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The compliance of principles of natural justice is not necessary. A single uncommunicated adverse remark in the entire service record or doubtful integrity is enough to retire a Judicial Officer compulsory in public interest. Any promotion or grant of higher pay scale / selection grade cannot have any impact on the order of compulsory retirement. The Full Court, on the collective wisdom of all the Judges and considering the general reputation of an employee, without any tangible material against him/her, may compulsorily retire a Judicial Officer in public interest and judicial review of such order is permissible only on very restricted grounds.”
Advocate BJ Trivedi represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The exercise of evaluation of the potential of the Judicial Officers in the entire country before attaining the age of 50 years or 55 years was undertaken in view of a communication on October 14, 2008. A Committee of 3 Judges of the Gujarat High Court was constituted to scrutinize the performance and evaluation of the Judicial Officers, which included the petitioner. The Committee, in the case of the petitioner, who had completed 58 years of age on November 22, 2008, prepared a report wherein the integrity of the petitioner was reported to be doubtful.
Accordingly, it was opined that he should be retired under the provisions of Rule 21 of the Judicial Rules. The Report of the Standing Committee was further placed before the Full Court, and the decision was accepted. Thus, after scrutiny of the entire service record of the petitioner by the High Court in 3 stages, it was concluded that he should be retired in public interest.
Reasoning
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that 14 complaints received by the High Court were ordered to be filed. Before the petitioner was ordered to retire, he was facing a preliminary inquiry relating to corrupt practices; however, it was closed.
The Bench was of the view that the impression of the Judicial Officer is premised on the perception by the High Court, after careful circumspection and deliberation, and it would be on preponderance of probability for entertaining a doubt about the integrity of an official which is based on substance, matter, information etc. Therefore, in such circumstances, an opinion formed by the High Court cannot be interfered with for the reason that it is formed without any material, it held.
The Bench further said, “ The impression of the Judicial Officer is premised on the perception by the High Court, after careful circumspection and deliberation, and it would be on preponderance of probability for entertaining a doubt about integrity of an official which is based on substance, matter, information etc. Thus, in view of the settled legal proposition, this Court cannot delve into the wisdom of the Full Court of the High Court, which has formulated the opinion of assessment/valuation by considering multiple factors of service record of the petitioner, more particularly in wake of the fact, that the petitioner has not alleged patent illegality or mala fide on the decision making process adopted by the High Court."
Thus, in light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: K M Bhut v. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No.10772 of 2009)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates BJ Trivedi, Jignasa B Trivedi
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, Advocate Hamesh C Naidu, AGP Aakash Gupta