Arghya, in response to your substantive comments:
1. As to the finality of the decision provided for in Article 311(3), I would think that the finality cannot bar judicial review; and writs under Article 226 or Article 32 would still lie. However, since the standard of review would be Wednesbury, if you are suggesting that the Court would usually be loathe to reverse a decision taken under Article 311(2), I agree.
2. As to the due process, I am afraid I cannot see what more could have been done on the facts of the case. The initiation of the process with a report, which was considered by the Full Court, which then made a recommendation to the Governor, seems to incorporate sufficient safeguards, especially given the interests of the judiciary as an institution involved.