The court affirmed that compulsory retirement of judicial officers in public interest, based on performance evaluation and integrity assessments, does not require a show-cause notice and is subject to limited judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present petition emanates from the Notification dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Legal Department notifying the premature retirement of the petitioner, who was serving as the 8^th Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc). The name of the petitioner stands at Sr. No.9 of the Notification.

2. The petitioner, who was serving as an 8th Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), was retired prematurely in the public interest on attaining the age of 52 years and 09 months.

3. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.2.

4. The High Court on the 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, and departmental inquires etc. and accordingly, the Committee of three Hon’ble High Court Judges was formed, which had undertaken the necessary exercise of verification of the service records, and ultimately, the Committee filed its report dated 23.03.2016 wherein it was found that 18 Judicial Officers, including the present petitioner, were required to be prematurely retired. The Committee submitted its report before the Chamber, and a 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 in the issuance of a Notification dated 18.07.2016 approving the recommendations of the High Court for prematurely retiring the petitioner from service.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned Notification dated 18.07.2016 is without authority of law since the same was passed on the recommendation made by the High Court to the Government of Gujarat and not to the Governor. He has referred to the provisions 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 issued by the State Government, though it is 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.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati at the outset has pointed out the details of the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner and has submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner was not an efficient Judicial Officer or a “dead wood”. Hence, the notification is required to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that though there were some vigilance complaints against the petitioner, they all were filed and hence the same also could not have been considered by the High Court on its administrative side for prematurely retirement of the petitioner.

7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati has also referred to the details produced by the High Court on its affidavit-in-reply and has submitted that there is some discrepancy in sofar as recording of the confidential report in the year 2015 is concerned, as the same is not reconciled with the contents of paragraph 19 of the affidavit. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, while referring to the affidavit-in- rejoinder filed by the petitioner dated 10.03.2017, has submitted that in fact the petitioner wa