Compulsory Retirement Order Passed In Public Interest Not Punishment: Gujarat High Court Upholds Premature Retirement Of Judge

Upholding the premature retirement of a judicial officer in 2016, the Gujarat High Court observed that an order of compulsory or premature retirement made in public interest or in the interest of administration is not a punishment. 

The court dismissed a plea moved by a former judicial officer challenging a 2016 notification notifying his premature retirement, who was serving as an Ad-hoc Additional District Judge at Nadiad, Kheda. The petitioner was retired prematurely, in public interest, on attaining the age of 53 years. 

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice LS Pirzada in their order observed:

"An Order of compulsory/premature retirement in public interest or in the interest of administration is not a punishment. The compliance of principles of natural justice is not necessary; hence, the requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice before premature retirement is not necessary. A single uncommunicated adverse remark in the entire service record, or a doubtful integrity is enough to retire a Judicial Officer compulsorily in the public interest".

The court further observed that any promotion or grant of a higher pay-scale/selection grade cannot have any impact on the order of compulsory retirement.

It observed that 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.

The court said that even filing of complaints against the Judicial Officer may not by itself wipe out the subjective satisfaction and deliberation of the High Court, which has been arrived at by careful scrutiny and filtration at different stages.

"We may reiterate that sometimes it would be very difficult to gather concrete or material evidence to prove doubtful integrity and make it part of the record, and it would be impracticable for the Reporting Officer or the competent controlling officer preparing the Confidential Report to provide specific instances of shortfalls supported by evidence. The entire exercise of the High Court arises from the doctrine of special circumstances. The opinion formed by the Administrative Committee, which undertakes the task of gathering information from various sources, and the perception formed of the integrity of the Judicial Officer, cannot be tinkered with by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when the opinion is further sanctioned by the Standing Committee and the Full Court". 

The court said that the impression formed regarding the Judicial Officer is based on the High Court's perception after careful circumspection and deliberation.It said that in such circumstances, the High Court's opinion cannot be interfered with on the ground that it is formed without any material.

"The satisfaction and recommendation of the Administrative Committee, Standing Committee, and Full Court of the High Court cannot be interfered with unless tainted by patent illegality, breach of procedure causing prejudice to the Judicial Officer, or a grossly disproportionate measure," the court added. 

The plea challenged the notification which was based on a decision of a three-judge Committee constituted to scrutinize the performance and evaluation of Judicial Officers which included the petitioner. 

The committee in its report had said that 18 judicial officers–after considering their service records, like Annual Confidential Report, disposal, complaints, vigilance complaints, departmental inquiry etc.,–are required to be retired prematurely in public interest except one who had already retired on reaching the age of superannuation during the process.

Thereafter the high court recommended the state government  to prematurely retire the Judicial Officers by giving three months' pay in lieu of notice.

The bench on perusing the petitioner's entire service record from 2001 to 2015 said that  except for 2005 and 2007, the disposal of the petitioner has been assessed as “Good” and “Very Good”, and for the rest of the years it is either “Just Adequate” or “Adequate” (2008 to 2010).

The bench said that there was one vigilance complaint against him, which was ordered to be filed.

The court said that the petitioner was aware of such assessment, and it was communicated to him. It said that the Committee after considering the overall assessment as per the norms, which is fixed for the judicial officers ranging from poor to excellent, very good and outstanding as in its subjective satisfaction, has found an opinion to prematurely retire him from service.

"The petitioner was made aware of all the assessment, hence at this stage, we cannot substitute the subjective opinion of the Scrutiny Committee or the Full Court," the bench added. 

Case title: JAYESHKUMAR KRISHNAKANT ACHARYA v/s  HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR

Click Here To Read/Download Order