1 wp-113-07gr.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2007 ALONG WITH CAW/2842/2010 Prakash s/o Govindrao Thombre .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashra, through Principal Secretary, Bombay High Court. .... Respondents Ms. Chandana Salgaonkar for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Nitim Jamdar for respondent no.2. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : October 13, 2011 P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner, who was a Judicial Officer, takes exception to the order by which he has been compulsorily retired from service on completion of the age of 54 years. The case of the Petitioner is that he has a clean record and that adverse remarks have 2 wp-113-07gr.sxw not been communicated to him and he has been retired. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. What is stated in para 3 of that affidavit, in our opinion is relevant. Para 3 reads as under ; “3 I say and submit that the petitioner has made wrong statement, in paragraph No.4 of the petition, to the effect that review was conducted in the year 1996 and the petitioner was found to be fit to work as the Additional District & Sessions Judge. It appears that he has laboured under wrong impression that his case was reviewed on earlier occasion after attaining age of 50 years. The petitioner attained age of 50 years on 25/10/2000 and, as such, there was no question of conducting review of his case in 1996 or 1999 as stated in the petition. I say and submit that case of the petitioner was reviewed on 14th October 2004 by the Review Committee of the Hon’ble High Court. I say and submit that the Hon’ble Review Committee considered the entire service record, including SID complaints, leave record, performance and ACRs of the petitioner, and decided to compulsorily retire him in the interest of public as provided under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. I say and submit that the work of the petitioner and his overall performance was rated as “average” and, as such, the Hon’ble Review Committee decided to compulsorily retire him in the interest of public.” 2 We have gone through the proceedings of the Review Committee. We have also gone through the report that was submitted by the office of the High Court before the Review Committee. Perusal of that report shows that so far as assessment of the judgments of the Petitioner are concerned, right from the year 1992-93 they were found to be average quality including his knowledge of law. There were 3 wp-113-07gr.sxw several SID complaints received against the Petitioner. He was issued warning on certain occasions. Taking overall view of his service record, the Review Committee of the High Court which consisted of the Chief Justice of the High Court and three Hon’ble Judges of the High Court opined that after perusing the annual confidential records of the judicial officer for the years 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 2000-2001, 2001-02 and 2002-2003 show that he has been mostly rated as “average”. In some confidential reports in the column “Reputation and Integrity”, the remark is “Needs to be watched”. Therefore, the Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be in public interest to continue the Petitioner in service. 3 So far as the law on this aspect is concerned, it is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Singh vs. State of U.P. and anr1 . In our opinion, what is observed by the Supreme Court in paragraphs 6 and 13 of its judgment is relevant. They read as under: “6 Further, it is to be reiterated that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty to keep the judicial service unpolluted. It empowers the authority to retire officers of doubtful 1 (2003) 8 SCC 117 4 wp-113-07gr.sxw integrity which depends upon an overall impression gathered by the higher officers as it is impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest. This aspect is dealt with in Union of India v. M.E. Reddy2 wherein the Court (in para 17) held thus: “17 Mr. Krishnamurty Iyer appearing for Reddy submitted that the order impugned is passed on materials which are non-existent inasmuch as there are no adverse remarks against Reddy who had a spotless career throughout and if such remarks would have been made in his confidential reports they should have been communicated to him under the rules. This argument, in our opinion, appears to be based on a serious misconception. In the first place, under the various rules on the subject it is not every adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks maybe purely innocuous, or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that he enjoys. 13 It is to be reiterated that for keeping the stream of justice unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers after a specified age/completion of specified years of service provided under the Rules is a must by each and every High Court as the lower judiciary is the foundation of the judicial system. We hope that the High Courts would take appropriate steps regularly for weeding out the dead wood or the persons polluting the 2 (1980) 2 SCC 15 5 wp-113-07gr.sxw justice delivery system.” 4 Thus, after having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and after perusal of record and in view of the settled law referred to above, in our opinion, the order impugned in the Petition cannot be interfered with. The Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 CA No.2842/2010 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)