skc 1 WP-4330-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4330 OF 2010 Kishor Dhansing Rathod ..Petitioner versus High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr. Ranvir S. Shekhawat for Petitioner. Mr. Venkatesth Dhond i/b. Mr. V. S. Kapse for Respondent No. 1. Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. Date of Reserving the Order : 02.08.2011 Date of Pronouncing the Order : 10.08.2011 ORAL ORDER : (Per : D. D. Sinha, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 2. 2. The writ petition is directed against the Order dated 26th May 2009 passed by the State – Respondent no. 2 whereby the petitioner stands retired as District Judge – 1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, by giving him three months salary and allowance in lieu of three months notice with skc 2 WP-4330-10 effect from 17th June 2009 from the government service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service is a colourable exercise of power, arbitrary and malafide. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the review committee in its meeting dated 5th May 2009 reviewed the case of the petitioner. It is contended that the review committee has given the following reasons for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The decision of the review committee reads thus: “ Coming to the review case of Shri K. D. Rathod (at Serial No. 11 of the list annexed to the office submission and extracted herein above, it was seen that in 2002 and 2003 his disposal was inadequate. There are twelve complaints made against him. Eight files were closed. Three files are pending. In one complaint, the Disciplinary Committee decided to keep the Judicial Officer under watch / observation. In 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 his Annual Confidential Reports were graded as poor and his reputation, integrity and Character is shown to be average and doubtful. Having considered his entire service record, it was decided in public interest not to continue the services of Shri K. D. Rathod, District Judge – 1 Osmanabad, beyond 16.06.2009 i.e. after completion of 50 years of age. Registry to take follow up action.” skc 3 WP-4330-10 The learned counsel has submitted that there are three reasons given by the review committee for recommending the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement: i. Disposal of the petitioner in the year 2002-2003 was inadequate; ii. There were 12 complaints made against him. 8 files were closed, 3 files were pending and in 1 complaint, the disciplinary committee decided to keep the judicial officer under watch / observation; iii. The annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 were graded as poor and his reputation, integrity and character was shown to be average and doubtful. It is submitted that considering these three reasons the disciplinary committee decided in public interest not to continue the services of the petitioner after completion of 50 years of age. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the reasons given for compulsory retirement, the petitioner was not communicated any adverse confidential remarks at any point of time. skc 4 WP-4330-10 Similarly, out of the 12 complaints filed against the petitioner, 8 files were closed, 3 files were pending and in one complaint the petitioner was kept under watch / observation. It is therefore contended that though there is no dispute about the power vested in the authorities to retire the petitioner compulsorily, however it needs to be exercised bonafidely in a public interest based on evidence and same should not be arbitrary. It is submitted that in the instant case the order of compulsory retirement is malafide, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore cannot be said to be issued in public interest and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the disposal of the petitioner was very low, he did not enjoy good reputation and therefore there were entries relating to his integrity being doubtful and hence he was not fit to be retained in the judicial service in the larger public interest and therefore the order of compulsory retirement is sustainable in law. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. Before we consider the merits of the matter, it is necessary to keep in mind that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of a misbehaviour. Same is passed by skc 5 WP-4330-10 the Government on the basis of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire the government servant compulsorily. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement which does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. It is equally well settled that while exercising power of judicial scrutiny if the court is satisfied that the order of compulsory retirement is malafide, based on no evidence or arbitrary, court can interfere with the said order. It is equally well settled that the review committee is entitled to consider the entire record of service before taking decision whether the judicial officer should be compulsorily retired in public interest, which would include remarks in the confidential records, character rolls, etc. The order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the court merely on the ground that the same is based on uncommunicated adverse remarks. Entry in the confidential record about the integrity and character assumes great importance and is one of the major determinating factor, apart from other to decide whether retention of such judicial officer in the service would be in the larger public interest. On the other hand in such circumstances to retire the officer compulsorily undoubtedly would serve the public purpose. 6. In the back drop of the well settled above referred legal position when we have examined the case in hand, we found that apart from the other skc 6 WP-4330-10 reasons, there were 12 complaints against the petitioner, out of which 8 files were closed, 3 files were pending at the time of passing of the order which were closed thereafter and in 1 complaint disciplinary committee decided to keep the judicial officer under watch. It appears that the disciplinary committee has taken into consideration the service record of the petitioner and found entry in the column of reputation, integrity and character “doubtful” and there was a material available on record to support the same. As we have already observed herein above, the discretion exercised by the authority taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner particularly pertaining the character and integrity, the decision to retire him compulsorily, in our view, was undoubtedly taken in the public interest. We do not find order either arbitrary or malafide. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, petition suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)