A Single Adverse Remark, Doubtful Integrity Is Enough: Gujarat High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer

The Gujarat High Court upheld the compulsory retirement of a 58-year-old judicial officer, noting that while such an action was not a punishment, the court can't interfere with the "wisdom" of the full court and exercise judicial review when the judicial officer had himself not alleged patent illegality or malafides regarding the decision making process. 

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachchani in its order observed that order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It however observed that "a single un-communicated adverse remark in the entire service record or doubtful integrity" is enough to retire a Judicial Officer compulsorily in public interest. It further said,

"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. In the present case, it is true that 14 complaints received by the High Court, were ordered to be filed. However, filing of such complaints may not ipso facto wipe out the subjective satisfaction and deliberation of the High Court, which has been arrived at by careful scrutiny and filtration at three stages. Before the petitioner was ordered to retire, he was facing a preliminary inquiry being Vigilance complaint No.291 of 2008 relating to corrupt practices, however, it was closed in view of the Notification. We may reiterate that sometimes it would be very tough to gather concrete or material evidence to prove the doubtful integrity and make it part of the record, and it would be impracticable for the Reporting Officer or the competent controlling officer writing the Confidential Report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence". 

The court observed that the entire exercise of the High Court stems out of special circumstances doctrine. The opinion of the Administrative Committee, and the perception formed about the integrity of the Judicial Officer cannot be tinkered with by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it is sanctioned further by the Standing Committee and the Full Court, the court added.

"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. Therefore, in such circumstances, opinion formed by the High Court cannot be interfered for the reason that it is formed sans any material. The satisfaction and the recommendation of the Administrative Committee, Standing Committee and Full Court of the High Court cannot be interfered with unless it is tainted with patent illegality, breach of procedure causing prejudice to the Judicial Officer, or it is a grave disproportionate measure," the court held. 

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in R.C.Chandel vs. High Court of M P & Anr. (2012), the high court said that "any breach of the pristine standards/values" will invite scrutiny from the High Court.

It observed that any Judicial Officer, whose conduct/reputation/behaviour is found impinging these standards can either attract disciplinary proceedings or compulsory retirement in public interest, depending upon the extent of breach.

"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," the high court said. 

Background

The court was hearing a judicial officer's plea, who served as a District Judge from 2004 until May 20, 2009, challenging a May 19, 2009 notification compulsorily retiring him from service at the age of 58 years and 6 months (Date of Birth being 22.11.1950). 

The petitioner argued that no complaints have been entertained against the petitioner and there was no material available with the respondents to compulsory retire the petitioner from service.

It was submitted that the Confidential Reports (CRs) of the petitioner from March, 1994 till he was made to retire was “very good” and the CRs, on the contrary, revealed that he was an excellent Judicial Officer.

It was argued that petitioner was never intimated about anything adverse with regard to his work or conduct and his entire career was spotless and unblemished. 

It was argued that the petitioner was retired in the guise of public interest without following Rule 21(2) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 which mentions that the Judicial Officer can be compulsory retired, after he has been considered at least three times–when he is about to attain the age of 50 years, 55 years and 58 years. It was submitted that at the age of 50 years, the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Joint District Judge and hence, it can be presumed that there was nothing adverse against him.

The high court on its administrative side, submitted that pursuant to a 2008 letter by the then Chief Justice of India to all high courts to evaluate the potential of Judicial Officers on attaining the age of 50/55/56/57/58 and 59 years, a Specially Constituted Committee comprising of 3 judges of the high court undertook necessary exercise. 

The committee submitted its report on 4 judicial officers including the petitioner. The committee had considered the entire material, including a representation by the petitioner to the High Court on 29.12.2008 informing that since he was keeping ill-health and some physical problems, which causes inconvenience to him by looking to his age, he may be transferred.

It was submitted that the Specially Constituted Committee on 06.05.2009 had, after considering the service record of the petitioner, including vigilance complaint, opined that integrity of the petitioner is also reported to be doubtful.

It was submitted that the Specially Constituted Committee also opined that on an overall assessment of the petitioner's performance and on evaluation of his potential for useful service in future, it would be in public interest to retire him from service.

It was also submitted that High Court had received 14 vigilance complaints and 8 administrative complaints against the petitioner and out of these vigilance complaints, 13 complaints were ordered to be filed, whereas in one, a preliminary inquiry was ordered to be held on 12.08.2008. Report of the Specially Constituted Committee was accepted by the Standing Committee; thereafter the report was placed before the Full Court which accepted the decision. Upon recommendation of the High Court, the Notification was issued by the State Government. 

The court thus dismissed the plea. 

Case title: K M BHUT v/s HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates BJ Trivedi and Jignasa B Trivedi

Counsel for Respondent: Senior advocate Shalin Mehta, Advocates Hamesh C Naidu and AGP Aakash Gupta

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 117