The order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply stigma unless it is passed to impose a punishment for proved misconduct. The duty of the High Court to periodically assess the performance of judicial officers to determine their fitness for continuance in judicial service is crucial. Timely writing, reporting, and reviewing of the annual confidential reports is essential.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order at annexure 'Q' dated 3rd October, 2011, retiring the petitioner in public interest, invoking the powers under Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 read with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008, be quashed and set aside, and that the petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity and full back-wages.

2. It is common ground that Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 read with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 has been invoked to pass the impugned order.

3. This Petition was filed on 7th May, 2012 and the impugned order recites that the State Government being fully empowered to pass an order in public interest, having been satisfied that it is necessary and in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner has passed the same order. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Judge, Family Court, Nagpur. She had completed the age of 51 years on 30th September, 2011. In the public interest, she was retired by dispensing with the requirement of three months' notice. The petitioner has, thus, been retired by sanctioning and disbursing her dues for this period together with all allowances.

4. The petitioner joined the judicial service as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 23rd October, 1990. She states that prior to that, she graduated in law in the year 1984 and registered herself as an advocate of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. She started practicing law and after her appearance at the examination and fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria, she was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class on 23rd October 1990. While in service, she completed her post graduation in law in the year 1999. She rendered services sincerely and honestly and to the best of her ability. On account of her hard work and devotion, she earned a substantive promotion as Civil Judge, Senior Division on 5th June, 2000. She earned yet another promotion on 28th May, 2001, which was ad-hoc in nature. The petitioner was given a regular promotion in the cadre of District Judge on 20th March, 2002. Thus, she has been working in the cadre of District Judge and while working, she improved upon her academic qualifications. She was conferred with a doctoral degree by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad in the year 2009. She has also been improving her qualifications as set out in para 5 of the petition.

5. It is her grievance that till August, 2011 she was never communicated any adverse remarks in her confidential reports, save and except the confidential report for the year 2007-08. That was communicated to her in August 2011. It is only when she was served with the impugned order that she obtained the requisite information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She has then set out the details of her confidential reports and from inception. These details are set out in para 6 at pages 4 to 7 of the paper book.

6. She would submit that the confidential reports being more than 10 years old, in her belief they are not relevant for the purposes of the present state of affairs or the impugned order.

7. The petitioner states that it was in the very first year after her promotion on ad-hoc basis as District Judge, that her confidential reports were graded as "Average" for the year 2001- 02. She states that although the five Judges' committee has rated her confidential reports to be "Average" in the year 2001-02, the reporting authority had assessed her performance as "Very Good". The petitioner states that even this remark of "Average" and which is adverse, would not be of any significance once she was promoted on regular basis in the cadre of District Ju