Bombay High Court
Anant Ramrao Mahajan vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 7 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-OS:202-DB
WP-3334-2019.doc
BDP-SPS-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3334 OF 2019
PANDIT
Date: 2025.01.07
19:09:43 +0530
Anant Ramrao Mahajan ]
Age 58 years, R/o 304, Building ]
No.56/A, Chintamani Judges, H.S.]
Pratiksha Nagar Bus Depot, ]
Sion (Koliwada) Mumbai 400022 ] .... Petitioner.
V/s
1] The State of Maharashtra ]
[Summons to be served on the ]
Learned Government Pleader ]
appearing for State of Maharashtra]
under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the ]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] ]
]
2] Secretary, ]
Department of Law and Judiciary, ]
State of Maharashtra ]
[Summons to be served on the ]
Learned Government Pleader ]
appearing for State of Maharashtra]
under Order XXVII, Rule 4 of the ]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] ]
3] Honorable High Court of ]
Judicature at Bombay on ]
Administrative Side, Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 032 ]
[Summons to be served on the ]
Honorable Registrar General of ]
High Court of Judicature of ]
Bombay on its Administrative Side] ...Respondents.
---
Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh with Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma, Ms.
Harpreet Kaur Sethi & Mr. Snehil Rai i/b Global Juris, Advocates for
1/16
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2025 00:43:11 :::
WP-3334-2019.doc
the petitioner.
Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
-----
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL JJ.
Date on which the arguments were heard: 22/10/2024
Date on which the judgment is pronounced: 07/01/2025
JUDGMENT (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.)
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner, a judicial officer is aggrieved by the order dated
31/07/2018 passed by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Mantralaya,
Mumbai thereby accepting the recommendation of the Review
Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated
05/07/2018 and directing his premature retirement in public interest.
By the said order, the petitioner was paid salary and allowances for a
period of three months by dispensing with the notice period of three
months.
WP-3334-2019.doc
3] Facts in brief are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a
judicial officer on 19/11/1997. During the course of service, he was
promoted and started discharging duties on the post of Principal
District Judge. By a Notification dated 02/08/2017 the petitioner was
appointed as a Registrar, Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on
deputation. His services were thereafter repatriated by order dated
12/04/2018. On 28/06/2018 however the aforesaid Notification
dated 12/04/2018 came to be cancelled. In the Gradation List of
District Judges as on 01/01/2018 he was placed at Serial No.1. His
consent for being considered for appointment as a Judge of the High
Court was taken alongwith an undertaking of his spouse. It is shortly
thereafter that on 31/07/2018 the impugned order seeking to
prematurely retire the petitioner came to be issued.
4] Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the Review Committee was not justified in
arriving at a conclusion that it was not in public interest to continue
the petitioner in judicial service. Referring to the Annual Confidential
Reports of the petitioner from the year 2000-2001 and onwards it was
WP-3334-2019.doc
submitted that the petitioner's service record was excellent without
any adverse entries therein. His Annual Confidential Reports for a
period of five years prior to the issuance of the impugned order ought
to have been taken into consideration by the Review Committee. By
ignoring the recent Annual Confidential Reports which indicated good
service on record, the Review Committee preferred to take into
consideration his old records while assessing the petitioner's
performance. In fact, the Annual Confidential Report for the year
2014-15 was prepared when the President of the Industrial Court was
on leave from February, 2015 till his retirement. It was further
submitted that the disposal record of the petitioner was excellent and
that stray entries indicating average and unsatisfactory disposal in the
past could not have been taken into consideration. In fact, the Review
Committee proceeded to recommend the premature retirement of the
petitioner without considering the service record of the petitioner in
its entirety. Stray incidences as regards complaints made by some
members of the staff and Lawyers' Association in the past appeared to
have weighed with the Review Committee while making its
recommendation. In fact, on being satisfied with the good service
WP-3334-2019.doc
record of the petitioner his consent for being considered for elevation
as a Judge of the High Court had been taken which consent had also
been given by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner's
integrity was not doubtful and that there were no adverse remarks
communicated to him at any point of time, the recommendation made
by the Review Committee was totally unjustified considering the good
service record of the petitioner. The aspect of the petitioner leaving
his Head Quarters frequently appeared to have weighed with the
Review Committee without considering the fact that the petitioner was
required to attend various work- shops, Lok Adalats and other similar
activities. To substantiate his contention that the recommendation of
the Review Committee dated 21/07/2018 followed by the order dated
31/07/2018 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice called for
interference, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in
Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1999) 3 SCC
396, Nand Kumar Verma vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , (2012) 3
SCC 580, High Court of Judicature of Patna Through Registrar
General vs. Shyam Deo Singh and Others , (2014) 4 SCC 773, Swami
Saran Saksena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 12 and the
WP-3334-2019.doc
decision of Allahabad High Court in Avinash Chandra Tripathi vs.
State of U.P. and Another delivered in WRIT - A No.33451 of 2016 on
31/05/2018. It was thus submitted that considering the overall
service record of the petitioner the decision to prematurely retire the
petitioner ought to be set aside and appropriate relief be granted to
the petitioner.
5] Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.3
- the High Court of Bombay through the Registrar General opposed
the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the Review Committee
considered the entire service record of the petitioner and after arriving
at a subjective satisfaction, it was of the view that in terms of Rules 17
and 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 (the Rules of
2008, for short) read with Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Service
(Pension) Rules 1982 (the Rules of 1982, for short) it was in public
interest to retire the petitioner prematurely. The review of services of
a judicial officer is permissible on attaining the age of 50 years, 55
years or 58 years as the case may be. Referring to the minutes of the
meeting of the Review Committee dated 05/07/2018 it was submitted
WP-3334-2019.doc
that the entire service record of the petitioner alongwith his disposal
record of cases was taken into consideration before making any
recommendations as required. Assuming that the service record of the
petitioner for the period prior to his premature retirement was good,
that alone could not be the reason for recommending the petitioner's
continuation in service. The Review Committee was entitled to
consider the entire service record of the petitioner while making its
recommendation. Referring to the decision in Arun Kumar Gupta vs.
State of Jharkhand and Another (2020) 13 SCC 355, it was submitted
that "the washed off theory" was not applicable in the case of
premature retirement of a judicial officer as his entire service record
was required to be taken into consideration. This aspect was
reiterated in Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC (GD) Om
Prakash (2022) 5 SCC 100. It was further submitted that the nature
of various complaints received against the petitioner pertained to his
arrogant behaviour as well as his conduct being unbecoming of a
judicial officer. Complaints had been received from the Bar
Associations of Nashik and Akola. Despite counseling, there was no
improvement in the behaviour and conduct of the petitioner. In the
WP-3334-2019.doc
light of the fact that there was sufficient material available on record
which enabled the Review Committee not to recommend the
continuation of petitioner's services, there was no case made out to
interfere in this regard. There were no allegations of malafides made
by the petitioner nor was it shown that the impugned order was either
perverse or highly irrational. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would not sit in appeal
over the decision of the Review Committee. To substantiate his
contentions, learned Senior Advocate also placed reliance on the
decisions in Baikuntha Nath Das and Another vs. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada and Another (1992) 2 SCC 299, State of
Orissa and Others vs Ram Chandra Das (1996) 5 SCC 331, Ram Murti
Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 1 SCC 801 and
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Banwar Lal Lamror and
Others (2021) 8 SCC 377. It was thus submitted that there was no
case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ
petition was liable to be dismissed.
6] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
WP-3334-2019.doc
with their assistance we have gone through the entire documentary
material placed on record. Before considering the submissions as
urged in support of the grounds raised in the writ petition, it would be
necessary to refer to certain settled principles that can be deduced
from various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.
The Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Gupta (supra) has
considered the law governing compulsory retirement of a judicial
officer. It has held that an order of compulsory retirement is not
punitive in nature, it implies no stigma nor does it suggest of any
misbehaviour by the concerned servant. Such order has to be passed
after formation of an opinion that it would be in public interest to
retire the government servant compulsorily. Such order is passed on
the subjective satisfaction of the Government and principles of natural
justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory
retirement. The distinction between services rendered by a judicial
officer as compared to services rendered by a government servant
engaged in other wings of the society has been explained. The case of
a judicial officer was required to be examined by treating him to be
different from other wings of the society as he served the State in a
WP-3334-2019.doc
different capacity. It has noticed that such case is considered by a
Committee of Judges duly constituted by the Chief Justice. After due
deliberation, a final decision is taken by the Full Court. There was
not much scope to make any allegation of non-application of mind or
malafides in such situation. While considering the case of a judicial
officer for compulsory retirement, the entire service record of the
judicial officer is required to be taken into consideration though the
latter and more contemporaneous record must be given due
weightage. The Court ought to exercise the power of judicial review
with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that
compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the
recommendation of a High Power Committee of the High Court.
Reference was made to the decision in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State
of Jharkhand and others (2010) 10 SCC 693 wherein it was held that
an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor is it
stigmatic unless it is imposed as a punishment for proved misconduct.
In R.C. Chandel vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another,
(2012) 8 SCC 58 it was observed that the view of the Committee of
Judges is recommendatory in nature and that it is for the Full Court to
WP-3334-2019.doc
either accept such recommendation or take a different view of the
matter.
7] Under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2008 an absolute right has been
conferred on the Hon'ble Governor to act on the recommendation of
the High Court and take a decision to retire any member of the
judicial service after he attains the age of 50 years, 55 years or 58
years as the case may be in public interest. Rule 10(4) of the Rules of
1982 provides for premature retirement of a government servant in
public interest after giving three months notice or three months pay
and allowances in lieu of such notice. The power to prematurely
retire a judicial officer as conferred by the aforesaid Rules is not under
challenge. It is further to be noted that the petitioner has not alleged
any malafides against the members of the Review Committee while
challenging its recommendation to prematurely retire the petitioner.
Thus the limited scope available while examining the petitioner's
challenge is whether all relevant material has been taken into
consideration by the Review Committee while making its
recommendation and whether the recommendation of the Review
Committee is of such a nature that the same defies all logic and that it
WP-3334-2019.doc
is so unreasonable that it is required to be termed as perverse.
8] Perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee
dated 05/07/2018 indicates that the entire service record of the
petitioner was taken into consideration. In the Annual Confidential
Report of 2004-05, the petitioner's behaviour was noted as "Erratic
behaviour, uncontrolable temper, needs counseling urgently". Similar
remarks were found in the Annual Confidential Report of 2005-06. In
the Annual Confidential Report of 2007-08 it had been noted that it
was doubtful if the petitioner could shoulder additional/higher
responsibility. The Annual Confidential Report of 2008-09 refers to
the complaints received from Bar members about the petitioner's
temperament after which the petitioner was counselled. A "Positively
good" report for 2009-10 was modified to "Good" by the concerned
Committee which continued for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14. As regards the Annual Confidential Report of 2014-15, it
was noted that the petitioner was in the habit of leaving his Head
Quarters on every second and fourth Saturday and holidays. His
relations with colleagues, superiors, members of the staff, litigants and
public were not cordial. There is again reference to complaints
WP-3334-2019.doc
received from the Bar Associations of Nashik and Akola which were
considered by the Administrative Judges Committee in December,
2008 and January, 2010. A complaint was made by about 200
members of the Bar Association of Akola about insulting treatment by
the petitioner. A resolution also had been passed by the Labour Law
Practitioners Association against the conduct and behaviour of the
petitioner when he was the President of the Industrial Court. It was
after considering the totality of the service record that the Review
Committee was of the considered view that it was not in public
interest to continue the petitioner in judicial service.
9] From the aforesaid minutes of the Review Committee it can be
seen that the entire service record of the petitioner was taken into
consideration. The fact that the complaints of various nature relating
to the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner were referred to
coupled with the fact that a doubt was expressed as to whether the
petitioner could shoulder additional/higher responsibility. There were
also complaints not only from the members of the Bar but also from
members of the staff as well as public in general. It appears that
despite the petitioner being counselled, no improvement in his
WP-3334-2019.doc
behaviour and conduct was noted as per the decision of the
Administrative Judges Committee. Even the conduct and behaviour of
the petitioner when he was the President, Industrial Court was noted.
Considering the material that was considered by the Review
Committee and which finds place in the minutes of its meeting dated
05/07/2018, it cannot be said that the recommendation made by it
was on the basis of irrelevant considerations or in the absence of any
material whatsoever. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the
sufficiency of material taken into consideration by the Review
Committee. Once it is shown that there was material on record which
prompted the Review Committee to recommend non-continuation of
the petitioner's service in public interest after the age of 58 years, the
scope for interference would be rather limited.
10] It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's
service record shortly prior to his premature retirement was good.
His consent had been taken for considering his name for elevation as a
Judge of the High Court. Despite this, he was prematurely retired.
As stated above, it is the entire service record of the judicial officer
WP-3334-2019.doc
that is required to be taken into consideration as held in Arun Kumar
Gupta (supra). Merely on the basis of the recent service record, the
observations made during earlier period of service do not stand
washed off. Moreover, the decision to prematurely retire a judicial
officer does not carry with it any stigma. Hence absence of any
serious allegations against the petitioner or the absence of adverse
entries would not be very relevant in this context. It is the overall
suitability of a judicial officer that is required to be taken into
consideration while arrving at decision as to whether the services of
such judicial officer deserve to be continued beyond the age of 50
years, 55 years and 58 years as the case may be. As observed in Ram
Murti Yadav (supra), the standards of probity, conduct and integrity
that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a carrerist in another
job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. The petitioner has not
alleged any malafides while assailing the recommendation of the
Review Committee or ultimate decision taken to prematurely retire
him from service. After considering the ratio of the decisions relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find that any
exceptional case has been made out for this Court to interfere in
WP-3334-2019.doc
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In Shyam Deo Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has held that in the
formation of opinion for the purposes of continuation in service,
limited judicial review is permissible. Only in a rare case where the
decision taken is unsupported by any material or the same reflects a
conclusion, which on the face of it cannot be sustained would judicial
review be permissible. In Nand Kumar Verma (supra), the Supreme
Court interfered with the order of compulsory retirement on the
ground that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was found
not to be based on sufficient or relevant material. The material on
record in the present case is found to be sufficient to sustain the
recommendation of the Review Committee and acceptance of that
recommendation by the Hon'ble Governor. In that view of the matter,
we do not find any merit whatsoever in the challenge raised by the
petitioner to the decision to prematurely retire him from service. The
writ petition therefore stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no
order as to costs.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.]
