Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani dismissed a writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer, holding that the decision taken by the High Court's Full Court cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution absent patent illegality, mala fides, or procedural breach. The Court concluded that the opinion formed by the Administrative Committee, Standing Committee, and Full Court regarding the officer's doubtful integrity was sufficient to invoke Rule 21 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Court directed that the writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement be dismissed.

The petitioner, a former District Judge, filed a writ petition assailing the notification dated 19.05.2009 issued by the Government of Gujarat, which compulsorily retired him from service at the age of 58 years and 6 months, based on his date of birth as 22.11.1950. The petitioner had served as a District Judge from 04.11.2004 until his compulsory retirement on 20.05.2009.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Order Restraining Former Directors from Competing: "No Question of Any Breach of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act"

Represented by his counsel, the petitioner argued that his retirement lacked legal justification. He submitted that he had been promoted as District Judge with effect from 01.05.2003 and that there were no pending complaints or adverse entries against him. His confidential reports from March 1994 until retirement consistently rated his performance as "very good," demonstrating a record of excellence. He further submitted that throughout his judicial career, he had not been intimated of any adverse remarks or disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner detailed his work record, stating that he handled 1573 days of judicial work, with 853 days on the civil side and 720 days on the criminal side. His average disposal rate was stated to be 666% per year. While posted at Mehsana from 01.03.2007 to 28.03.2008, he disposed of significant numbers of Motor Accident Claims, and during his tenure in the evening court, he concluded numerous pending matters.

It was submitted that the petitioner had made a request dated 29.12.2008 to the High Court for a transfer due to health issues. The petitioner contended that this communication should not have been treated as a basis for compulsory retirement. He also raised procedural concerns under Rule 21(2) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, which mandates that the service of a judicial officer must be reviewed at least three times—when they reach the ages of 50, 55, and 58 years. According to the petitioner, no such evaluations occurred at the appropriate times, and he was compulsorily retired without prior assessment or notice.

It was further contended that the retirement order was invalid as it was issued in the name of the Governor of Gujarat and not His Excellency the Governor, and that no material relied upon for the decision had been provided to him under the RTI Act.

In response, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing for the High Court of Gujarat, submitted that the compulsory retirement followed a national directive issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India dated 14.10.2008, instructing all High Courts to evaluate the potential of Judicial Officers upon attaining certain age milestones, to weed out those found indolent, infirm, or possessing doubtful integrity.

Pursuant to this directive, a Special Committee of three Hon’ble Judges was constituted, which on 06.05.2009 evaluated the service records of four judicial officers, including the petitioner. The Committee considered the petitioner’s application dated 29.12.2008 requesting a transfer due to ill-health, and also reviewed his vigilance record. The Committee found that the petitioner's integrity was reported to be doubtful. On this basis, it recommended that he be compulsorily retired under Rule 21 of the Judicial Rules.

The report of the Special Committee was subsequently accepted by the Standing Committee on 12.05.2009 and thereafter by the Full Court on 14.05.2009. Acting on the High Court’s recommendation, the State Government issued the notification dated 19.05.2009, ordering the petitioner’s compulsory retirement.

It was submitted that 14 vigilance complaints and 8 administrative complaints had been received against the petitioner. Although 13 vigilance complaints were filed without action, Vigilance Complaint No.291 of 2008 had resulted in a preliminary inquiry. It was contended that compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor requires adherence to the principles of natural justice.

On the question of authority, it was clarified that the Governor acts on the advice of the State Government, and there was no illegality in the issuance of the retirement notification. The respondents relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions affirming that even uncommunicated adverse entries, or overall perception of doubtful integrity, suffice to justify compulsory retirement in public interest.

The Court recorded that "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 were undertaken in view of the communication dated 14.10.2008 written by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to all the High Courts." It noted that the evaluation exercise was conducted in accordance with Rule 21 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, which permits retirement of judicial officers in public interest upon reaching the ages of 50, 55, and 58 years.

The Court observed that "the Committee had undertaken necessary exercise of scrutinizing the service records of the petitioner." It quoted the report: "This Officer had earned good gradings and had shown good disposals till his transfer to Rajpipla... The integrity of this officer is also reported to be doubtful... it would be in public interest to retire Mr. KM Bhut from service."

The Court observed that "after scrutiny of the entire service record of the petitioner by the High Court in 03 stages, it was concluded that he should be retired in public interest." The Court further stated that "the process, which has been adopted by the High Court, has not been challenged or questioned by the petitioner."

It reiterated that compulsory retirement does not cast a stigma and does not result in forfeiture of retirement benefits. "The order of compulsory retiring an Officer or Government Servant in public interest is neither stigmatic nor it has any effect on re-employment of such persons."

The Court cited multiple judgments of the Supreme Court, including Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., and Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor of NCT Delhi, to support the proposition 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."

Regarding the petitioner's complaint about lack of material, the Court cited precedent that "sometimes it would be very tough to gather concrete or material evidence to prove the doubtful integrity... 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 rejected the argument that the Governor must personally sign the retirement order, holding that "Notification is always passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court, and there is no violation of the Rules."

The Court ultimately stated: "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 Court directed that "the present writ petition fails. The same is hereby dismissed."

It upheld the decision of the High Court's Full Court to compulsorily retire the petitioner from judicial service under Rule 21 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

The Court affirmed that "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."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Order Restraining Former Directors from Competing: "No Question of Any Breach of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act"

It held that "any Judicial Officer, whose conduct / reputation / behavior is found impinging the [required standards] can either attract disciplinary proceedings or compulsory retirement in public interest, depending upon the extent of breach."

The Court concluded by holding that it "cannot delve into the wisdom of the Full Court of the High Court... 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."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. B.J. Trivedi, Advocate with Ms. Jignasa B. Trivedi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu, Mr. Aakash Gupta, Assistant Government Pleader

Case Title: K.M. Bhut v. High Court of Gujarat & Anr.

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 10772 of 2009

Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice R.T. Vachhani