Summary
The Court upheld compulsory retirement of a judicial officer after review of his entire service record, including an unchallenged censure arising from a vigilance inquiry. Subsequent promotion did not erase relevant adverse material for compulsory-retirement assessment. Judicial review remained confined to the established narrow grounds and could not substitute an appellate reassessment of service material. The Court also distinguished bona fide judicial error from conduct calling integrity into question.
Issues
- Whether the compulsory-retirement assessment warranted interference on judicial review.
- Whether promotion or generally favourable integrity entries neutralised the earlier censure.
Held
- Compulsory retirement based on the employer’s subjective assessment attracts narrow review for matters such as arbitrariness, mala fides or omission of relevant material. The reviewing court cannot reassess the service record as an appellate authority; natural-justice requirements do not apply to compulsory retirement itself. (¶¶ 5, 6, 10, 11)
- The complaint had undergone successive scrutiny, the officer received opportunities during the vigilance process, and the censure remained unchallenged. The committee and Full Court reviewed the overall record; routine integrity certifications did not displace the material assessment. (¶¶ 5, 7, 8)
- The entire service record remained relevant. Subsequent promotion did not wash away the adverse entry for compulsory retirement, and an integrity-related adverse entry could suffice in the applicable assessment. The retirement here was not punishment or stigmatic. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- Judicial office requires particularly high integrity and public confidence, but not every inadvertent flaw or bona fide error renders an officer culpable; correction and counselling may address such error. On this record the retirement called for no interference. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The judicial officer’s compulsory retirement remained undisturbed.