Gujarat HC dismisses former judge’s plea: ‘Single adverse remark or doubtful integrity enough to justify compulsory retirement’

A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice LS Pirzada, in its order of Tuesday, said, “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… 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. Any promotion or grant of a higher pay-scale/selection grade cannot have any impact on the order of compulsory retirement.”

In its report dated March 23, 2016, the committee had opined that 18 judicial officers, after considering their service records, such as Annual Confidential Report, disposal, complaints, vigilance complaints, and departmental inquiry, among others, are required to be retired prematurely in public interest.

The order states that the committee recommended the Gujarat government to “prematurely retire 18 Judicial Officers by giving three months’ pay in lieu of notice”, in “effective implementation of the provision of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2005”.

The division bench held that the decision reflected the “collective wisdom of the judges”. “… An opinion formed by the High Court cannot be interfered with on the ground that it is formed without any material,” the order states. The court ruled that it “cannot delve into the wisdom of the Full Court of the High Court, which has formed its opinion after assessing and evaluating multiple factors of the service record of the petitioner, more particularly in wake of the fact that the petitioner has not alleged patent illegality or mala fide in the decision-making process adopted by the High Court.”