Guj HC: Single adverse remark enough for judge’s compulsory retirement

The Gujarat High Court has called upon the judges to be “honest to the core with high moral values”, and said even a single adverse remark against a judge in his entire service record or question over his integrity was sufficient ground for his “compulsory retirement”. A bench of Justices AS Supehia and LS Pirzada stated in its order pronounced on Tuesday that even issuing a show-cause notice to such a judicial officer was not necessary as compulsory retirement in public interest does not amount to punishment.

Dismissing the contention of petitioner JK Acharya, an ad hoc sessions judge who was compulsorily retired along with 17 other sessions judges in November 2016 by the High Court’s full court, the HC also said every judge must discharge his judicial duty with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty as he holds an office of public trust.

“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 HC bench said. It said the requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice to such a judicial officer is not necessary.

The court said that the judges of the High Court’s full court may compulsorily retire a judicial officer on the basis of his/her general reputation even without any tangible material against him/her, and judicial review of such an order is permissible only on very restricted grounds.

Acharya was compulsorily retired along with 17 other sessions judges as part of the High Court’s policy at that time to evaluate judges at the ages of 50 and 55, and retire those whose performance was not found satisfactory. Acharya had challenged the decision as well as the actions of the state government and the governor in implementing it.

The court said that an order of compulsory/premature retirement in the public interest or in the interest of administration is not a punishment. It noted that the decision of the high court’s full court to compulsorily retire a judicial officer in the public interest reflected the “collective wisdom of all the judges” and highlighted the importance of “subjective satisfaction and deliberation” 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,” it noted. It said that 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,” it said. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the order underlined the high ethical standards expected from judges. “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... For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, the justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty,” the top court had noted.