Gujarat High Court: In a writ petition challenging the notification dated 19-5-2009 (‘impugned notification’) by which the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from judicial service, the Division Bench of AS Supehia* and RT Vachhani, JJ, declined to interfere with the direction of the Specially Constituted Committee and the Full Court of this Court. The Court also held that the perception of integrity of judicial officer formed by the Committee cannot be interfered with by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there is patent illegality, breach of procedure or it is a disproportionate measure.
Background
The petitioner was aged 58 years and 6 months and had been serving as a District Judge from 2004-2009 when he came to be compulsorily retired by the impugned notification.
The petitioner contended that all his Confidential Reports (‘CRs’) revealed that he was an excellent judicial officer. He had never been intimated of anything adverse regarding his work or conduct and his entire career was spotless and unblemished.
Respondent 1, the Gujarat High Court , submitted that in pursuance of a letter addressed by the Chief Justice of India to the various High Courts, a Specially Constituted Committee (‘the Committee’) had considered the service record of the petitioner, including the vigilance complaints against him and opined that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. Accordingly, the Committee had opined that considering the overall assessment of performance of the petitioner and evaluation of his potential for useful service in the future, it was in public interest to retire him from service.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the Committee had scrutinised the service record and vigilance complaints regarding the petitioner and had opined that the petitioner had earned a good grading and had shown good disposal till his transfer to Rajpipla after which he had made a representation requesting a transfer citing physical problems and ill health. The Committee had therefore recommended that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired under Rule 21 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 Thus, after scrutiny of entire service record by the High Court in 3 stages, it was concluded that the petitioner may be retired in public interest.
The Court further noted that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. A single uncommunicated adverse remark in the entire service record or doubtful integrity is enough to retire a judicial officer in public interest. The compliance of principles of natural justice is not necessary. The Court further noted 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 was permissible only on very restricted grounds.
The Court observed that in the instant case, the petitioner was facing preliminary inquiry relating to corrupt practices which were closed in view of the impugned notification. The Court stated the perception formed of the integrity of the petitioner by the Committee on the basis of information from various sources cannot be tinkered with by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when such opinion is further sanction by the Standing Committee and the Full Court. Judicial interference is permitted on the limited grounds of patent illegality, breach of procedure causing prejudice to the judicial officer or that it is a grave and disproportionate measure.
Thus, the Court held that the wisdom of the Full Court, which is based on assessment of various factors of service records of the petitioner, cannot be delved into or interfered with.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
[K.M. Bhut v. High Court of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3005, decided on 25-7-2025]
*Judgement authored by: Justice AS Supehia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: BJ Trivedi, Jignasa B Trivedi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate, Aakash Gupta, AGP, Hamesh C Naidu, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
