'Single adverse remark against judge enough, show-cause not necessary for compulsory retirement': Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has said that judges must be “honest to the core with high moral values,” making it clear that even one adverse remark in a service record, or even suspicion over a judge’s integrity, is sufficient to justify compulsory retirement.

A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and LS Pirzada, while rejecting a plea by JK Acharya – an ad hoc sessions judge who was among 18 compulsorily retired judicial officers in November 2016 – said: “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.”

The bench stressed that compulsory retirement is not a penalty and therefore does not necessitate issuing a show-cause notice. “The requirement of issuance of a show-cause notice to such a judicial officer is not necessary,” the court observed.

The judges also underlined that the decision of the high court’s full court, which represents the “collective wisdom of all the judges,” rests on subjective satisfaction following detailed scrutiny at multiple levels. They further noted that judicial review of such orders is permissible “only on very restricted grounds.”

Acharya had contested the 2016 decision that saw him and 17 others removed under the high court’s policy of evaluating judges upon reaching 50 and 55 years of age, with those found unsatisfactory in their performance being retired. He also challenged the subsequent implementation of this order by the state government and the governor.

The order pointed out that, at times, it may be impossible to compile concrete proof of a judge’s doubtful integrity: “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 bench clarified that promotions or the grant of higher pay scales do not shield a judicial officer from compulsory retirement if doubts exist about their honesty. “Any promotion or grant of a higher pay-scale/selection grade cannot have any impact on the order of compulsory retirement,” the court stated.

Reiterating principles earlier laid down by the Supreme Court, the Gujarat High Court said the post of a judge demands impeccable character. “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 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,” the Supreme Court had observed.

The high court added: “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.”

It further observed that compulsory retirement decisions fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court. “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,” the bench remarked.

With inputs from PTI