Compulsory retirement of judicial officers requires robust evaluation of performance and integrity; procedural compliance ensures validity of notifications issued under the Governor's name.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

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 Judicial Officer in the State of Gujarat. The name of the respective petitioner stands at Sr. No.15 of the Notification.

2. The petitioner, who was serving as an Additional District Judge was retired prematurely in public interest on attaining the age of 56 years and 09 months.

3. 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 inquiry etc. and accordingly, the 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 23.06.2016 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 service.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Marshall, 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 the 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. In support of his submissions, he has referred to the decisions of the Apex Court 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 and in the case of P.D.Goel vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Registrar General , 2017 (16) S.C.C. 390.

5. In this regard, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Marshall has referred to the contents of the affidavit filed by the High Court. He has further pointed out the service details of the petitioner and has submitted that in fact, there was no adverse remarks in the Confidential Report of the petitioner and he was an excellent Judicial Officer. He has pointed out remarks from 1996 to 2015. He has submitted that the petiti