Gujarat High Court
Jayeshkumar Krishnakant Acharya vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 17/09/2025
Pronounced On : 30/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20426 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JAYESHKUMAR KRISHNAKANT ACHARYA
Versus
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ASIM PANDYA SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. ANKIT SHAH(6371)
for the Petitioner
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. HAMESH C
NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. G H VIRK GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI
AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service of Rule on behalf of the State. The present petition
emanates from the Notification dated 18.07.2016 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
the Legal Department notifying the premature retirement of
the petitioner, who was serving as an Ad-hoc Additional District
Judge at Nadiad, Kheda. The name of the petitioner stands at
Sr. No.11 of the Notification.
2. The petitioner has been retired prematurely, in public
interest, on attaining the age of 53 years.
3. The High Court on its administrative side undertook an
exercise for examining the performance of the Judicial Officers
of the State of Gujarat by verifying the service records, such as
Annual Confidential Reports, disposals, complaints, vigilance
complaints, departmental inquiry etc. and accordingly, a
Committee of three Hon'ble High Court Judges was formed
which had undertaken necessary exercise of verification of the
service records, and ultimately, the Committee filed its report,
wherein it was found that 18 Judicial Officers, including the
present petitioner, were required to be prematurely retired.
The Committee submitted its report dated 23.03.2016 before
the Chamber and Chamber meeting was held on 14.07.2016
and the report of the Committee was accepted and
accordingly, the names of 18 Judicial Officers, including the
petitioner, were recommended to the State Government to
retire them prematurely under the provisions of Rule 21 of the
Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (for short "the Rules
of 2005") by giving three months pay in lieu of notice. The said
recommendations were accepted, and the Governor approved
the same, and ultimately, it culminated into the issuance of
Notification dated 18.07.2016, approving recommendations of
the High Court for prematurely retiring the petitioner from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
service.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya with Mr.Ankit
Shah, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the
impugned Notification dated 18.07.2016 is without authority of
law, since the same was not passed on the recommendations
of the High court ( i.e on the aid and advice of the High Court
to the Governor( not to the Government) as required under
Rule 21(1) of the Rules of 2005. He has also referred to the
provision of Rule 20 of the Rules of 2005 and in juxtaposition,
has read the definition of the Government and the Governor,
which is incorporated in Rule 2(b) and 2(c) respectively. It is
submitted that, since the Notification was issued by the State
Government, though it was in the name of the Governor, the
Governor had no occasion to examine the recommendation
sent by the High Court. Thus, it is urged that the petitioner
could not have been retired prematurely in the absence of the
Governor in his personal capacity.
5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya further
submitted that, at the outset, subjective satisfaction of the
High Court is premised on an incorrect entry recorded in the
month of June, 2012 as 'poor'. It is further submitted that in
fact, the petitioner was not assessed for the quarter ending of
June, 2012. However, the High Court while considering his
service record for the quarter of June, has considered the entry
as poor. It is thus, urged that the subjective satisfaction of the
Committee as well as the High Court once it is found to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
incorrect and the entire exercise of assessing the other service
records of the petitioner from the year 2001 to 2015, is
required to be ignored and the decision taken by the High
Court on the basis of the overall assessment, is illegal and
contrary to the record, which would be fatal for the notification
dated 18.07.2016 prematurely retiring the petitioner from
service. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya has further
submitted that in fact, for the month of December of 2015, the
petitioner is assessed as 'excellent' in disposing the cases and
if the overall assessment in disposal is concerned, it cannot be
said that the petitioner was a deadwood and inefficient officer.
6. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya has further
submitted that the petitioner ought to have been offered an
opportunity of hearing or a bare minimum notice before
prematurely retiring him from service to carve out his case by
pointing out the gradings or the disposals, and he could have
offered his explanation to the satisfaction of the High Court
and in absence of such notice or hearing, subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Scrutiny Committee, the full
Court can be said to be erroneous. It is submitted that the
petitioner is not alleging any malafide or any illegal exercise of
power but the submission of the petitioner is only confined to
the assessment of the disposal of the present petitioner on an
incorrect entry incorporated for the month of June, 2012.
Learned senior advocate Mr. Asim Pandya has also referred to
the norms or guidelines issued by the High Court and he has
submitted that the disposal of the petitioner would be
inadequate, just adequate or good and hence, the subjective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
satisfaction recorded by the Committee can be said to be
erroneous, which has led to the premature retirement of the
petitioner. Learned senior advocate Mr. Asim Pandya has
submitted that there was no vigilance complaint or any
departmental inquiry against the petitioner during his service
tenure and one vigilance complaint which was received against
the petitioner, was ordered to be filed.
7. Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya has also placed
reliance on Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court the
judgment in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs.
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others reported in (1991
Supp (1) SCC 600) in support his termination. Thus, it is
urged that the present writ petition may be allowed by setting
aside the Notification dated 18.07.2016, prematurely retiring
him from service.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-
HIGH COURT
8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior
advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, appearing for the High Court, while
placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated 25.07.2025
passed in Special Civil Application No.10772 of 2009, has
submitted that this Court has already delved into the similar
facts and issues regarding prematurely retiring the Judicial
Officers from service on attaining the age of 55-58 years. It is
submitted that in view of the communication dated 14.10.2008
issued by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India to various High
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Courts, an exercise was undertaken to weed out the Judicial
Officers who were dead wood, and accordingly, a Committee
was formed to verify their service record.
9. With regard to the allegation about the lack of authority
by the Governor in issuance of the impugned Notification,
learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta has referred to the
provisions of Article 163 of the Constitution of India, read with
the Gujarat Government Rules of Business, 1990 (for short,
"Rules of 1990"), more particularly Rule 8, and has submitted
that as per the aforesaid provisions, the Notification has been
issued in the name of the Governor, after the approval of the
Hon'ble Chief Minister, and hence, it cannot be said that the
same was without authority of law. He has submitted that the
assessment with regard to compulsory retirement of the
employees on attaining the age of 50-55 years is to be
channelized to the Chief Minister and the decision of the
Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office under the Rules of Business is
ultimately, of the Governor.
10. It is submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta, that
as per Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1990, "All orders or
instruments made or executed by or on behalf of the
Government of the State shall be expressed to be made by or
by order of or executed in the name of the Governor". It is
submitted that this is not the case where the Governor has to
incorporate his/her personal wisdom and the decision has to be
taken personally by verifying the files of each and every
officer. It is submitted that the entire exercise was already
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
undertaken by the High Court on its administrative side that
too by the Committee comprising of three Hon'ble Judges and
ultimately, the report of the Committee was accepted by the
Chamber and such recommendations were forwarded to the
State Government. He has submitted that the Notification
cannot be set aside on the technical ground raised by the
petitioner for the first time in the writ petition. It is submitted
that the Review Committee of the High Court has considered
the entire service record of the petitioner and threadbare
scrutinized and assessed his performance in all the quarters
and ultimately, the Committee has opined that during the last
5 years of service, the petitioner had performed inadequately
and poorly and accordingly, he was made to retire prematurely
on reaching the age of 53 years. Thus, it is urged that the
present writ petition may not be entertained and be rejected.
11. Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta has submitted
that in fact, the overall service record of the petitioner reveals
that his disposal was adequate, just adequate and in some of
the quarters of the year 2013, was poor. It is further submitted
that the Committee scrutinizes the record of more than 150
judicial officer before arriving at a conclusion that a particular
judicial officer is required to be prematurely retired from the
service. It is further submitted that overall disposal of the
matter was degrading and hence, in public interest, steps were
taken by the High Court by considering the confidential reports
as well as the overall assessment of the disposal. Learned
senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta has further submitted that in
fact, he has pointed out to the communication dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
22.10.2013 issued by the learned Principal District Judge
conveying the re-assessment of his judicial work for the
quarter 01st April, 2012 to 15 th May, 2012, which was assessed
as poor and the High Court has not assessed for June , 2012
and, the original assessment as poor has remained as it is.
12. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State has
submitted that though there is limited role of the State in the
present matter, however, he has pointed out the error of the
vigilance complaint being V.C. No.651 of 2014 and has
submitted that the said allegations were not against the
petitioner but against another judicial officer and it appears
that there is some error in considering the vigilance complaint
no.651 of 2014.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
13. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties at length and also perused the documents,
as pointed out by them.
14. The facts, which are established on record, are that vide
Notification dated 18.07.2016, the petitioner, who was serving
as an Additional District Judge has been prematurely retired
from service on attaining the age of 53 years.
15. 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 was 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 was expressed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
therein that the Service Rules can be suitably amended to
provide for the assessment of such officers, on attaining the
age of 50 or 55 years in addition to 58 years in light of the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of All India Judges
Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors reported
in 2002 (4) SCC 247 in order to weed out those Judicial
Officers, who are found to be indolent, infirm, or with doubtful
integrity. Accordingly, the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of High
Court undertook the necessary exercise of evaluation of all the
Judicial Officers of the State, who have completed 50 years, 55
years, or 58 years of age, as required under Rule 21 of the
Judicial Rules.
16. Accordingly, the Committee of 03 Judges of this Court
was constituted to scrutinize the performance and evaluation
of the Judicial Officers, which included the petitioner.
Ultimately, the Committee in its report dated 23.03.2016
opined that 18 Judicial Officers, after considering their service
records, such as Annual Confidential Report, disposal,
complaints, vigilance complaints, departmental inquiry etc.,
are required to be retired prematurely in public interest except
one who has already retired on reaching the age of
superannuation during the process. Accordingly, the report
was placed before the Chamber, and a meeting was held on
14.07.2016, and after considering the report submitted by the
Committee consisting of three Hon'ble Judges, for effective
implementation of the provision of Rule 21 of the Rules of
2005, recommended the Government of Gujarat to
prematurely retire 18 Judicial Officers by giving three months'
pay in lieu of notice.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
18. Ultimately, such recommendations were accepted, and
the Notification dated 18.07.2016 was issued by the
Government of Gujarat, Legal Department, in the order and in
the name of the Governor of Gujarat.
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE HIGH COURT AND
SCOPE OF EXERCISE OF POWERS BY THE GOVERNOR :
19. The first and foremost contention, which is raised before
us challenging the aforesaid Notification, is that the same is
without authority of law, as the Governor was not supplied with
the recommendation and instead, the same was supplied to
the State Government. We have examined the vigor of the
submission in light of the relevant Rules, and legal precedent.
Indubitably, the Notification dated 18.07.2016 is issued "By
Orders and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat," signed by
the Deputy Secretary, Legal Department.
20. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired by invoking
the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2005, which reads as
under : -
"Rule - 21. Addition of certain service for purpose of pension.
An Advocate appointed as a Civil Judge or a District Judge shall be
entitled to reckon, as service qualifying for superannuation pension,
the actual period of practice put in by him at the Bar not exceeding
three years or seven years respectively.
Provided that the benefits of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension)
Rules, 2002 shall continue to apply to the Judicial Officers
appointed prior to the date of commencement of these Rules unless
they opt otherwise.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules the
Governor shall, on the recommendation of the High Court, if he is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
of the opinion that, it is in the public interest so to do, have the
absolute right to retire any member of the service who has attained
the age of 50 years, by giving him notice of not less than three
months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of
such notice.
(2) Whether a member of the service should be retired in public
interest under sub-rule (1) shall be considered at least three times,
that is, when he is about to attain the age of 50 years, 55 years and
58 years.
Provided that nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed as
preventing consideration of a member of the service at any time
other than those mentioned therein."
21. Thus, a plain and simple reading of the provisions of Sub-
rules (1) and (2) of Rule 21 abundantly clarifies that the
Governor has the absolute right to retire any Judicial Officer, or
any member from service, who has attained the age of 50
years, on the recommendations made by the High Court. As
per Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 2005, the term
"Government" means "the Government of Gujarat" and the
term "Governor" means "the Governor of Gujarat." As per Rule
4 of the Rules, the appointing authority for the cadre of District
Judges and Civil Judges is the Government of Gujarat, and for
the cadre of Senior Civil Judges, it is the High Court.
22. It is not in dispute that the Chamber accepted the Report
of the Committee and, thereafter, in its meeting held on
14.07.2016, resolved to recommend the premature retirement
of the writ petitioner to the Government of Gujarat. Pursuant
thereto, the Notification came to be issued.
23. Article 166 of the Constitution of India permits the
Governor to delegate powers, unless and until an occasion
arises wherein the Governor himself/herself would have to take
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
a decision. The provisions of Article 163 and 166 are as under:
-
"163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor
(1)There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister
at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of
his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this
Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them
in his discretion.
(2)If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a
matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this
Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of
the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of
anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question
on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his
discretion.
(3)The question whether any, and if so what, advice was
tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired
into in any court.
166 : Conduct of business of the Government of a State
(1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be
expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the
name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner
as may be specified in the rules to be made by the Governor,
and the validity of an order or instrument which is so
authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground
that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the
Governor.
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient
transaction of the business of the Government of the State,
and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in
so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor
is by or under this Constitution required to act in his
discretion.
24. It is not in dispute that a decision taken by any Minister
or Officer under the Rules of 1990, framed under Article 166(3)
of the Constitution of India, is deemed to be the decision of the
Governor. Such powers are conferred under the Rules of 1990,
more particularly Rule 8 thereof, which reads as under : -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
"8. The Council shall be collectively responsible for all
advice tendered to the Governor whether by an individual
minister on a matter appertaining to his portfolio or as a result
of discussions at a meeting of the Council or howsoever
otherwise."
25. Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1990, which reads as
under : -
"12. All orders or instruments made or executed by or on
behalf of the Government of the State shall be expressed to
be made by or by order of or executed in the name of the
Governor.
13. Every order or instrument of the Government of the State
shall be signed either by a Secretary, an Additional Secretary,
a Special Secretary, a Joint Secretary, A Deputy Secretary, an
Under Secretary, an Assistant Secretary or a Section Officer or
by such other officer as may be Specially empowered in that
behalf by the Government and such signature shall be
deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or
instrument."
26. Thus, all orders or instruments made or executed by or
on behalf of the State Government are mandatorily required to
be made in the name of the Governor. It is further stipulated
that every order or instrument of the State Government may
be signed by a Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Special
Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, an Under
Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or a Section Officer, or by
such other officer as may be specially empowered in that
behalf by the Government. Such signature shall be deemed to
be the proper authentication of such order or instrument.
27. The Apex Court in the case of the State of M.P. and
Others vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 305, has held
as under: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
"10. Coming to the first question, from a bare look at the order
which was served on the respondent, it is implicitly clear that the
said order has been executed in the name of the Governor and
has been duly authenticated by the signature of the Under
Secretary to the Government and therefore the bar to judicial
enquiry with regard to the validity of such order engrafted in
Article 166(2) of the Constitution will be attracted. The order
which is expressed in the name of the Governor and is duly
authenticated cannot be questioned in any court on the ground
that it is not made or executed by the Governor. The signature of
the concerned Secretary or Under Secretary who is authorised
under the authentication rules to sign the document signifies the
consent of the Governor as well as the acceptance of the advice
rendered by the concerned Minister. It is not the case of the
respondent and Mr. Jain appearing for the respondent in this
Court did not urge that the order in question is not an order within
the meaning of Article 166(2) of the Constitution. But according to
Mr. Jain under the Rules the Governor being the authority to
sanction and the Governor not having sanctioned, the prohibition
contained in sub Article (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution
cannot be attracted and the courts power to examine is not taken
away. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Jain,
appearing for the respondent.
13. This being the position and the order initiating the
departmental proceeding having been signed by the Under
Secretary to the Government by Order of the Governor, the same
is immune from attack on the ground that it is not an order
executed by the Governor as provided under Article 166(2) of the
Constitution. As such the Tribunal was wholly incompetent to
examine the legality of the same. In fact Article 166(2) of the
Constitution has not been looked into at all by the Tribunal. In our
opinion the Tribunal was wholly in error in quashing the order on
the ground that the Governor has not executed the same. In view
of our conclusion on the first question though the appeal is bound
to succeed, but we think it proper to examine the second question
also."
28. The Apex Court, while examining the provisions of Article
166(2) of the Constitution of India, has held that an order
expressed in the name of the Governor and duly authenticated
cannot be questioned in any court on the ground that it was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
not made or executed by the Governor. The signature of the
concerned Secretary or Under Secretary, who is authorized
under the Authentication Rules to sign the document, signifies
both, the consent of the Governor and the acceptance of the
advice rendered by the concerned Minister.
29. In the case of State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Hon'ble
Mr.Justice (Retd.) Ramesh Amritlal Mehta & Ors. (2013) 3
S.C.C. 1, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, the Apex
Court, while examining the provisions of the Gujarat Lokayukta
Act, 1986, and powers conferred to the Governor under Article
163 of the Constitution of India, has held thus:
"41. Thus, where the Governor acts as the Head of the State,
except in relation to areas which are earmarked under the
Constitution as giving discretion to the Governor, the exercise of
power by him must only be upon the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers, for the reason that the Governor being the
custodian of all executive and other powers under various
provisions of the Constitution is required to exercise his formal
constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the aid
and advice of his Council of Ministers. He is, therefore, bound to
act under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of
the Constitution. (Vide Pu Myllai Hlychho v. State of
Mizoram [(2005) 2 SCC 92 : AIR 2005 SC 1537] .)
XXXXXXXX
44. ......................Article 166(3) of the Constitution further
bestows upon the Governor the power to make rules for more
convenient transactions of business of the Government of the
State and also for the purpose of allocating among the Ministers
of State such business. There are several ways by which, a
power may be conferred upon the Governor, or qua the
Governor, which will enable him to exercise the said power by
virtue of his office as Governor. Therefore, there can be no
gainsaying that all the powers that are exercisable by the
Governor by virtue of his office can be exercised only in
accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
except insofar as the Constitution expressly, or perhaps by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
necessary implication, provides otherwise.
30. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Registrar (Admin), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Vs. Sisir Kanta
Satapathy, 1999 (7) S.C.C. 725 has held thus:
"15. On going through the judgments of this Court right
from Shyamlal v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 369 : (1955) 1 SCR
26] down to High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Ramesh
Chand Paliwal [(1998) 3 SCC 72 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 786] one
cannot but reach one conclusion regarding the power of the High
Court in the matter of ordering compulsory retirement. That
conclusion is that the High Courts are vested with the disciplinary
control as well as administrative control over the members of the
judicial service exclusively, but that does not mean that they can
also pass orders of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or
termination from service while exercising administrative and
disciplinary control over the members of the judicial service.
Undoubtedly, the High Courts alone are entitled to initiate, to hold
enquiry and to take a decision in respect of dismissal, removal,
reduction in rank or termination from service, but the formal order
to give effect to such a decision has to be passed only by the
State Governor on the recommendation of the High Court. It is
well settled again by a catena of decisions of this Court that the
recommendation of the High Court is binding on the State
Government/Governor (vide para 18 in Inder Prakash Anand
case [(1976) 2 SCC 977 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 372] )."
31. Thus, the conspectus of the foregoing discussion is that,
if the action of the Government and the order/Notification is
duly authenticated in accordance with Article 166(2) and the
Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of 1990, a conclusive and
irrefutable presumption arises that the decision was duly taken
in accordance with the concerned Rules. The recommendation
of the High Court is binding on the State Government /
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Governor. The exceptions carved out in the main clause of
Article 163(1) of the Constitution, permit the legislature to
entrust certain functions to the Governor to be performed by
him, either at his discretion, or in consultation with other
authorities, independent of the Council of Ministers. In the
present case, as noted hereinabove, the petitioners have not
challenged the decision of the Full bench or the findings of the
Committee comprising three Hon'ble Judges. The three
members Committee of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court, and
the Full bench had examined the service record of the
petitioners and thereafter, his case for premature retirement
was recommended to the State Government. As per Rule 4 of
the appointing authority for the cadre of District Judges and
Civil Judges, is the Government of Gujarat. Hence, the High
Court had sent the recommendation to the State Government,
and ultimately after the recommendation has been accepted
and approved by the Governor the Notification has been issued
in his order and name. We do not find any infringement of any
Rules or the provisions of Articles 163 and 166 of the
Constitution in the entire process and hence, the Notification
issued in the name of the Governor of Gujarat, cannot be set
aside on the ground canvassed before us. Reliance placed on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.D.Goel vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh through its Registrar General, 2017
(16) S.C.C. 390 by the petitioners will not even remotely apply
to the facts of the present case, since in the said case, the
Governor, who was the appointing authority, retired a Sub-
Judge Officer retrospectively, after the High Court passed an
order of compulsory retirement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PREMATURE
RETIREMENT :
32. It is not in dispute that the Committee has examined the
entire service record of the petitioner from 2001 to 2015. We
have also perused the same. It reveals that except for the year
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). There is one vigilance complaint against him, which is
ordered to be filed. The petitioner is also seeking setting aside
of the impugned action of compulsory retirement on the
ground that his assessment of the judicial work for the quarter
ending June, 2012, though was not assessed, and it is
incorrectly shown as poor. The petitioner was aware of such
assessment, and it was communicated to him also. Before us
the High Court has contended that it was assessed as 'poor' in
part. Out of four quarters in the year 2012, the performance
for two quarters is 'just adequate' and for one quarter it is
'good'. 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.
33. We may, at this stage, refer to the legal precedent on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
issue of compulsory/premature retirement, as enunciated by
the Apex Court in following cases.
(1) Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 2
S.C.C. 305,
The Apex Court was dealing with the decision of the
compulsory retirement of an Officer of 58 years of age on
complaint. The Full Bench of the Apex Court, after considering
the array of judgements, has held that in absence of any
allegation of bias and mala fides against the High Court,
opinion formed by the High Court cannot be interfered with.
The judgement is primarily on the issue of timely preparation
and recording the entries in the CR, in order to see that the
Judicial Officers can improve their performance. The Apex
Court has also held that compulsory retirement of an Officer or
Government servant does not cause any stigma as the
Government servant is entitled to pension actually earned and
other retiral benefits.
It is also held that so long as the opinion formed on the
basis of the order of compulsory retirement in public interest is
found bona fide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered
with by a judicial forum and the said order may be subject to
judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being
mala fide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or
having been passed by the authority not competent to do so. It
is further observed that the object of compulsory retirement in
public interest is not to punish or penalize the Government
servant but to weed out the worthless, who have lost their
utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or
promoting stagnation.
(2) Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board &
Ors., (2009) 13 S.C.C. 758 :
The Apex Court has held that the principles of natural
justice are not required to be complied with and even adverse
entries in the CR (Confidential Report), including non-
communicated entries may be taken into consideration, while
compulsory retiring the Judicial Officers in public interest. The
relevant paragraphs are as under:
"16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
would contend that the principles of natural justice are not
required to be complied with in a case of compulsory retirement,
particularly, when no mala fide is alleged. Allegation against the
delinquent was not only that he lacked integrity but also unfit to
be retained in service. Those comments, in our opinion, are
stigmatic in nature.
It is also not a case where there had been a steady decline in the
performance of the employee.
17. *** *** ***
18. ... ... ... Thus, when an order suffers from malice in law,
neither any averment as such is required to be made nor strict
proof thereof is insisted upon. Such an order being illegal would
be wholly unsustainable."
(3) Nawal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2003) 8
SCC 117:
The Apex Court, while examining the scope and power of
retiring the Judicial Officer by way of compulsory retirement,
has recorded thus:
"2. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their
functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State.
Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should
be reflected in their overall reputation. Further nature of judicial
service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of
persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such
evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is
affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional
circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the same,
particularly because order of compulsory retirement is based on the
subjective satisfaction of the Authority.
10. Case of Bharthari Prasad is also of the same nature. His
confidential reports reveal that various allegations were made and
various inquiries were held against him. In confidential report for the
year 1975-76, the District Judge observed disposal of cases to be poor
and judgment of average quality. For the years 1978-79 and 1980-81,
the disposal was observed to be below standard. Once he was
charged for the omission while delivering the judgment of conviction
in the absence of the accused and also discharging the bail bonds and
sureties, which was in violation of Section 353 Cr.P.C. For this, he
was asked to be careful in future. For the year 1994-95, District Judge
remarked his integrity to be doubtful and overall assessment as poor.
Representation of the appellant against these remarks was also
rejected. For the year 1997-98, the District Judge awarded adverse
remarks against him. The District Judge also requested for his
transfer from Allahabad to another station. The appellant was later on
transferred from Allahabad. It is also stated that the appellant did not
comply the orders of transfer but even after receiving the orders of
transfer, he continued to decide cases. The matter was later on
considered by the Administrative Committee."
The Apex Court has considered the judgement of Full
Bench in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief
District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr., (1992) 2
S.C.C. 299 and held as under:
"34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:
(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies
no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the
opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the
government.
(iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an
order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial
scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court
would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may
interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or
(b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the
sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on
the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be)
shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a
decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to
record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so
considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential
records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government
servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse
remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is
based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a
Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated
adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That
circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere. Interference is
permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect
has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.
8. Appellant Nawal Singh was appointed in 1972. In Confidential
Reports for the year 1975-76, 1976-77, it has been mentioned that his
judicial work needs improvement. For the year 1980-81, his judicial
work was of average quality. For the year 1984-85, the District Judge
has rated him as good officer. For the year 1986-87, there were
complaints about his integrity. For this purpose, reference was made
to cases wherein he had granted bail in serious offences. However,
with regard to doubtful integrity, the representation of the appellant
was accepted and it was substituted by holding that no reason to
doubt the integrity of the officer. Again, for the year 1990-91, it has
been stated that with regard to the interim orders/injunctions, he was
directed to be more scrupulous; it was stated that integrity was
doubtful and over all assessment was poor. On his revision, adverse
remarks with regard to his integrity were expunged by holding that
the appellant was suspended during the relevant year pending the
departmental enquiry touching his integrity but he was exonerated by
the Administrative Committee. Again, there are instances indicating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
that various inquiries were held subsequently. It is not necessary to
refer to the same. His application for revoking the suspension was
also rejected. However, later on, order of suspension was revoked.
9. *** *** ***
10. *** *** ***
11. Hence, it is apparent that the Screening Committee after
examining the past records of service; character roll and other
matters relating to the appellants opined that they were not suitable
for continuing in service beyond the age of 58 years.
12. From the facts narrated above, even if we were to sit in appeal
against the subjective satisfaction of the High Court, it cannot be said
that the orders of compulsory retirement of the appellants are, in any
way, erroneous or unjustified. Further, it is impossible to prove by
positive evidence the basis for doubting integrity of the judicial
officer. In the present day system, reliance is required to be placed on
the opinion of the higher officer who had the opportunity to watch the
performance of the concerned officer from close quarters and
formation of his opinion with regard to overall reputation enjoyed by
the concerned officer would be the basis.
13. It is to be reiterated that for keeping the stream of justice
unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers
after specified age/completion of specified years of service provided
under the Rules is must by each and every High Court as the lower
judiciary is the foundation of judicial system. We hope that the High
Courts would take appropriate steps regularly for weeding out the
dead-wood or the persons polluting justice delivery system."
(4) R.C.Chandel Vs. High Court of M P & Anr.(2012) 8 SCC 58
In the cases, where the District Judge was granted
selection grade and super time scale, it was held that the same
do not wipe out the adverse entries which have remained on
record and continued to hold the field, it was held thus:
"26. It is true that the appellant was confirmed as District Judge in
1985; he got lower selection grade with effect from 24.03.1989; he
was awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and he was also given
above super time scale in 2002 but the confirmation as District Judge
and grant of selection grade and super time scale do not wipe out the
earlier adverse entries which have remained on record and continued
to hold the field. The criterion for promotion or grant of increment or
higher scale is different from an exercise which is undertaken by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
High Court to assess a judicial officer's continued utility to the
judicial system. In assessing potential for continued useful service of
a judicial officer in the system, the High Court is required to take into
account the entire service record.
Overall profile of a judicial officer is the guiding factor. Those of
doubtful integrity, questionable reputation and wanting in utility are
not entitled to benefit of service after attaining the requisite length of
service or age.
27. *** *** ***
28. *** *** ***
29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the
Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their
function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of
their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office
that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a
person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He
must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant
enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before
whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and
uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected
of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse
that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are
drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards
and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife,
must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is
dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive
and rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process
have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial
functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty."
(5) Rajendra Singh Verma dead through LRS & Ors. Vs.
Lt.Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., (2011) 10 S.C.C. 1.
The Apex Court, after considering the array of
judgements on the issue and also on the issue of the
compulsory retiring the Judicial Officer while considering his
grading of doubtful integrity, has held thus:
"162. In view of the two three Judge Bench decisions of this Court
mentioned above the contention that adverse remarks relating to
integrity regarding which no opportunity of making representation
was provided or pending representation was not considered and,
therefore, orders of compulsory retirement were bad in law cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
accepted. Therefore, the said contention is hereby rejected.
XXX XXX XXX
189. The argument that material was not supplied on the basis of
which "`C' Doubtful Integrity" was awarded to the appellants and,
therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside
has no substance. Normally and contextually word `material' means
substance, matter, stuff, something, materiality, medium, data, facts,
information, figures, notes etc. When this Court is examining as to
whether there was any `material' before the High Court on the basis
of which adverse remarks were recorded in the confidential reports of
the appellants, this `material' relates to substance, matter, data,
information etc. While considering the case of a judicial officer it is
not necessary to limit the `material' only to written complaints or
`tangible' evidence pointing finger at the integrity of the judicial
officer. Such an evidence may not be forthcoming in such cases.
190. As observed by this Court in R.L. Butail Vs. Union of India and
Others, (1970) 2 SCC 876, it is not necessary that an opportunity of
being heard before recording adverse entry should be afforded to the
officer concerned. In the said case, the contention that an inquiry
would be necessary before an adverse entry is made was rejected as
suffering from a misapprehension that such an entry amounts to the
penalty of censure. It is explained by this Court in the said decision
that making of an adverse entry is not equivalent to imposition of a
penalty which would necessitate an enquiry or giving of a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the concerned Government servant.
Further in case where the Full Court of the High Court recommends
compulsory retirement of an officer, the High Court on the judicial
side has to exercise great caution and circumspection in setting aside
that order because it is a complement of all the judges of the High
Court who go into the question and it is possible that in all cases
evidence would not be forth coming about doubtful integrity of a
Judicial Officer.
191. As observed by this Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana
through R.G. Vs. Ishwar Chand Jain and Another, (1999) 4 SCC 579,
at times, the Full Court has to act on the collective wisdom of all the
Judges and if the general reputation of an employee is not good,
though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be
given compulsory retirement in public interest and judicial review of
such order is permissible only on limited grounds. The reputation of
being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the
conduct of an officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.
Sometimes there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it
part of the record. It would, therefore, be impracticable for the
reporting officer or the competent controlling officer writing the
confidential report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
by evidence.
192. Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the integrity would
be based on formulations of impressions which would be result of
multiple factors simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the
perceptions may differ in the very nature of things there is a difficulty
nearing an impossibility in subjecting the entries in the confidential
rolls to judicial review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an
employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material
against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The
duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question
of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an
absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the
integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that
opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a
constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the
High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with
great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the
parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions. When the
appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory
retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest, the writ Court
under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere
with the order.
XXX XXX XXX
194. From the admitted facts noted earlier it is evident that there
was first a report of the Inspecting Judge to the effect that he had
received complaints against the appellants reflecting on their
integrity. It would not be correct to presume that the Inspecting
Judge had written those remarks in a casual or whimsical manner. It
has to be legitimately presumed that the Inspecting Judge, before
making such remarks of serious nature, acted responsibly. Thereafter,
the Full Court considered the entire issue and endorsed the view of
the Inspecting Judge while recording the ACR of the appellants. It is a
matter of common knowledge that the complaints which are made
against a judicial officer, orally or in writing are dealt with by the
Inspecting Judge or the High Court with great caution. Knowing that
most of such complaints are frivolous and by disgruntled elements,
there is generally a tendency to discard them. However, when the
suspicion arises regarding integrity of a judicial officer, whether on
the basis of complaints or information received from other sources
and a committee is formed to look into the same, as was done in the
instant case and the committee undertakes the task by gathering
information from various sources as are available to it, on the basis of
which a perception about the concerned judicial officer is formed, it
would be difficult for the Court either under Article 226 or for this
Court under Article 32 to interfere with such an exercise. Such an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
opinion and impression formed consciously and rationally after the
enquiries of the nature mentioned above would definitely constitute
material for recording adverse report in respect of an officer. Such an
impression is not readily formed but after Court's circumspection,
deliberation, etc. and thus it is a case of preponderance of probability
for entertaining a doubt about integrity of an official which is based
on substance, matter, information etc. Therefore, the contention that
without material or basis the adverse entries were recorded in the
ACR of the appellants cannot be upheld and is hereby rejected.
XXX XXX XXX
218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be
held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming
their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor
can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of this
Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such
assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of
multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor
should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or
deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or
asserted. In the very nature of things, it would be difficult, nearing
almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the
Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when
the Court is convinced that some real injustice, which ought not to
have taken place, has really happened and not merely because there
could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about
the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court. Viewed thus,
and considered in the background of the factual details and materials
on record, there is absolutely no need or justification for this Court to
interfere with the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the three
appeals fail and are dismissed. Having regard to the facts of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs."
(6) High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Lamror, (2021) 8 S.C.C. 377. In this case, the Apex Court has
held as under:
"7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8 The moot question is whether it was open to the High Court to
substitute its view for the one recorded by the Administrative
Committee, which commended to the Full Court of the High Court,
pursuant to which the order of compulsory retirement came to be
issued.
9 Indeed, the High Court on judicial side could have done so, if it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
found that there was absolutely no record or material whatsoever as
referred to in the recommendations made by the Administrative
Committee, or that the Committee relied on irrelevant material, or
that apposite material was overlooked and discarded. Further, the
High Court's view would have been acceptable if it found patent
illegality, breach of procedure causing prejudice to respondent no.1,
or imposition of a gravely disproportionate measure. We notice that
the Administrative Committee, in its Report, had adverted to the
entire service record, including the pending disciplinary enquiry
regarding integrity of respondent no.1.
10 It is settled position in law that the competent authority is
supposed to consider the entire service record of the judicial officer
and even if there is a solitary remark of lack and breach of integrity,
that may be sufficient for a Judicial Officer to be compulsory retired
as expounded in Tarak Singh Vs. Jyoti Basu reported in (2005) 1 SCC
11 The High Court took notice of this judgment, but still ventured to
examine the entire record by itself, overlooking the thorough
examination conducted by the Administrative Committee, which was
affirmed and commended to the Full Court. It was not open to the
High Court to substitute its own view for the satisfaction arrived at by
the Full Court of the High Court regarding the necessity or otherwise
of the respondent no.1 continuing in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial
Services. It was also not open to the High Court to re-write the annual
confidential reports by taking over the role of inspecting or
confirming authority.
12 Suffice it to note that the disciplinary enquiry was pending
against respondent no.1 which raised questions about his integrity.
Past service record of respondent no. 1 was found to be sub-par and
short of the exacting standard expected from a judicial officer.
13 It is also noticed from the record that the disciplinary enquiry
came to be dropped in lieu of compulsory retirement of respondent
no.1. That was a composite recommendation made by the
Administrative Committee and commended to the Full Court of the
High Court. The two being inseparable, and the solitary remark about
integrity with the service record being sufficient in law to proceed
against the judicial officer, we fail to comprehend as to how the
conclusion reached by the competent authority can be said to be
arbitrary or manifestly wrong."
CONCLUSION
33. Thus, the law on compulsory retirement of a Judicial
Officer is no longer res integra. An Order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
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. Any promotion or grant of a
higher pay-scale / selection grade cannot have any impact on
the order of compulsory retirement. 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. Even the filing of complaints
made against the Judicial Officer may not ipso facto 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Constitution, more particularly when the opinion is further
sanctioned by the Standing Committee and the Full Court. The
impression formed regarding the Judicial Officer is based on
the perception by the High Court, after careful circumspection
and deliberation, and it would be based on the preponderance
of probability when entertaining a doubt about the integrity of
an officer, which is based on substance, matter, information
etc. Therefore, in such circumstances, an opinion formed by
the High Court 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. In view of settled legal precedent
regulating the premature/compulsory retirement of the Judicial
Officers exclusively falls within the domain, supremacy and
subjective satisfaction of the High Court.
34. All aspects of the decision, deliberation, and satisfaction
of the High Court emanate exclusively from the overall
reputation of Judicial Officers. As held by the Apex Court in the
case of R.C.Chandel (supra), "Judicial service is not an
ordinary government service and the Judges are not
employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function
is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of
their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The
office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge
must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable
independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel
secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come,
would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any
consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is
much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that
since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who
are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high
standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge,
like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of
the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it.
For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, justice
system and the judicial process have to be strong and every
Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity,
impartiality and intellectual honesty."
35. Any breach of the pristine standards/values as
enumerated above will invite scrutiny by the High Court, and
any Judicial Officer, whose conduct / reputation / behavior is
found impinging the same can either attract disciplinary
proceedings or compulsory retirement in the public interest,
depending upon the extent of the breach. 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 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.
17. The judgment of Delhi Transport Corporation (Supra)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20426/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner will not come
to his rescue, as it exclusively operates in a different realm of
assessing the termination of service of an employee on the
principle of lifting the corporate veil. In the present case, as
held by us, the order of premature retirement is not a
punishment order and hence, there would not be requirement
of following the principles of natural justice. The parameters
for examining a punishment order of termination of service
due to unsuitability or loss of confidence or misconduct cannot
be equated with the parameters while examining the order of
premature retirement of a Judicial Officer.
37. On an overall appreciation of the facts and law, we are
not inclined to interfere with the impugned Notification dated
18.07.2016, by which the petitioner was prematurely from
service. The present writ petition fails, the same is accordingly
dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to
costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Jaimin Prajapati/1
