Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 382 OF 2003

Pyare Mohan Lal              …..  Petitioner    

Versus

State of Jharkhand & Ors.          ….. Respondents  

J U D G M E N T     

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN,  J.

1. This  writ  petition  has  been  filed  against  the  order  dated  

20.5.2003,  passed  by  the  State  of  Jharkhand  –  Respondent  No.  2,  

giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner, a Judicial Officer of  

the State of Jharkhand, on the recommendation of the High Court of  

Jharkhand - the respondent No. 3 on administrative side.   

2. Facts  and circumstances  giving rise  to  this  case  are  that  the  

petitioner was selected in the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in

1982 and was appointed to the post of Munsif by the State and was  

confirmed in the grade of Munsif vide order dated 11th March, 1987.  

He was further promoted to the junior selection grade post in the cadre  

of  Munsif  of  the  Bihar  Judicial  Service  vide  order  dated  23rd  

September, 1994. The Patna High Court issued Notification dated 10th  

March,  2001  promoting  the  petitioner  to  the  post  of  Subordinate  

Judge.   

3. Consequent  to  the  bifurcation  of  the  State  of  Bihar  and  

formation of the State of Jharkhand, the services of the petitioner were  

allocated  to  the  Jharkhand  State  by  the  order  of  the  Ministry  of  

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel  

and Training), New Delhi dated 28th March, 2001.  The petitioner was  

appointed as a Sub-Judge, Ranchi, vide Notification dated 21st April,  

2001, issued by the High Court of Jharkhand  and, subsequently, the  

petitioner  was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  State  of  Jharkhand  as  

Under Secretary-cum-Deputy Legal Remembrancer and Law Officer  

in the Law Department vide order dated 1st August, 2001.   

4. The High Court of Jharkhand recommended the name of the  

petitioner along with others for promotion to the post of Additional  

2

District Judge on Ad hoc basis vide letter dated 21st October, 2001.  

The  petitioner  was  appointed  as  Additional  District  and  Sessions  

Judge, (Fast Track), on ad-hoc basis and was posted at Ranchi vide  

order dated 14th December, 2001.  The High Court of Jharkhand on  

administrative  side  vide  order  dated  12th May,  2003 recommended  

compulsory retirement of six judicial officers including the petitioner,  

and in pursuance thereof, the Respondent No. 2 issued a consequential  

order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 20th May, 2003,  

in  public  interest,  invoking  the  provisions  of  Rule  74(b)(ii)  of  the  

Jharkhand  Civil  Services  Code  (hereinafter  called  the  Code)  along  

with five other judicial officers. Hence, this writ petition.  

5.  Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the  

petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had unblemished service  

record and there was no adverse entry against him and he had even  

been promoted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge,  

(Fast  Track),  thus  adverse  entries,  if  any,  stood washed off  as  the  

same  had  been  prior  to  the  date  of  his  promotion.   The  order  of  

compulsory  retirement  passed  by  Respondent  No.  2  is  arbitrary,  

unreasonable and unwarranted.  The adverse entries on the basis of  

which the petitioner had been given compulsory retirement had not  

3

been communicated to the petitioner. The representation made by the  

petitioner against the said adverse entries has not been disposed of till  

date.  The order of compulsory retirement as far as the petitioner is  

concerned  cannot  be  held  to  be  in  public  interest;  there  was  no  

material  whatsoever to support the conclusion reached by the High  

Court of Jharkhand. The recommendation made by the High Court is  

unreasonable  and  arbitrary.  Order  impugned  casts  stigma.  Rule  

74(b)(ii) of the Code empowers competent authorities only to get rid  

of and to do away with the services of employees, who have lost their  

utility, became useless and whose further continuance in service is not  

in public interest. There was no occasion for the respondents to pass  

an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in absence of any  

material to justify such an order. Thus, the order impugned is liable to  

be held to be illegal and invalid. Petition deserves to be allowed.   

6. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Mathur and Shri Anil Kumar  

Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, have vehemently  

opposed the petition contending that there had been large number of  

adverse  entries  against  the  petitioner  and the  said entries  were  not  

expunged;  his  disposal  was  very  low;  he  did  not  enjoy  a  good  

reputation as  several  entries relating to his integrity  being doubtful  

4

had been recorded.  Thus, he could not claim himself to be fit to be  

retained in judicial service.  The petition lacks merit and is liable to be  

dismissed.  

7. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

COMPULSORY RETIREMENT

8. In  Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs.  Chief District Medical  

Officer, Baripada & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1020, this Court has laid  

down certain criteria for the Courts, on which it can interfere with an  

order  of  compulsory retirement and they include mala  fides,  if  the  

order is based on no evidence, or if the order is arbitrary in the sense  

that  no reasonable  person would form the requisite  opinion on the  

given material, i.e. if it is found to be a perverse order. The Court held  

as under:–

“(i) An order of compulsory retirement is   not  a  punishment.  It  implies  no  stigma nor  any   suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The  order  has  to  be  passed  by  the   Government on forming the opinion that it is in the  public  interest  to  retire  a  Government  servant   compulsorily.  The  order  is  passed  on  the   subjective satisfaction of the Government.

5

(iii) Principles of natural justice have no  place  in  the  context  of  an  order  of  compulsory  retirement.  This  does  not  mean  that  judicial   scrutiny  is  excluded  altogether.  While  the  High  Court or the Court would not examine the matter   as an appellate Court, they may interfere if  they  are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide   or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it   is  arbitrary-  in  the  sense  that  no  reasonable   person  would  form the  requisite  opinion  on  the  given  material  :  in  short,  if  it  is  found  to  be  a  perverse order.

(iv) The  Government  (or  the  Review  Committee,  as  the  case  may  be)  shall  have  to  consider the entire record of service before taking  a decision in the matter- of course attaching more  importance to record of and performance during  the  later  years.  The  record  to  be  so  considered   would  naturally  include  the  entries  in  the   confidential  records/character  rolls,  both  favourable and adverse. If a Government servant   is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the  adverse  remarks,  such  remarks  lose  their  sting,   more  so,  if  the  promotion  is  based  upon  merit   (selection) and not upon seniority.

(v) An order of compulsory retirement is   not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the   showing  that  while  passing  it  uncommunicated  adverse  remarks  were  also  taken  into   consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot  be a basis for interference.” (Emphasis added).

9. Similar  view has been reiterated  by this  Court  in  Posts and  

Telegraphs Board & Ors. Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368;  

Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & Anr.,  

6

(1996) 5 SCC 103; I.K. Mishra Vs.  Union of India & Ors.,  AIR  

1997 SC 3740;  M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1998  

SC 3058; and Rajat Baran Roy & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal &  

Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1661. This Court observed that there was a very  

limited scope of judicial review in a case of compulsory retirement  

and  it  was  permissible  only  on  the  grounds  of  non-application  of  

mind;  mala  fides;  or  want  of  material  particulars.  Power  to  retire  

compulsorily  a  Government  servant  in  terms  of  Service  Rules  is  

absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion  

that compulsory retirement is in public interest.

10.     In  State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs.  Suryakant Chunilal Shah,  

(1999) 1 SCC 529, this Court held that while considering the case of  

an  employee  for  compulsory  retirement,  public  interest  is  of  

paramount importance. The dishonest, corrupt and dead-wood deserve  

to be dispensed with. How efficient and honest an employee is, is to  

be assessed on the basis of the material on record, which may also be  

ascertained from confidential reports. However, there must be some  

tangible  material  against  the  employee  warranting  his  compulsory  

retirement.  

7

11. In  State of U.P. & Anr. Vs.  Bihari Lal, AIR 1995 SC 1161,  

this Court held that if the general reputation of an employee is not  

good, though there may not be any tangible material against him,  

he may be given compulsory retirement in public interest and judicial  

review  of  such  order  is  permissible  only  on  limited  grounds.  The  

Court further held that:  

“…..What is needed to be looked into, is the bona  fide decision taken in public interest  to augment  efficiency in the public service.”

12. In State of U.P. & Ors.  Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR 2002 SC  

1345, this Court while dealing with the issue observed as under:  

“Withholding  of  integrity  of  a  government   employee is a serious matter. In the present case,   what we find is that the integrity of the respondent   was withheld by an order dated 13-6-1997 and the  said entry in the character roll of the respondent   was well within ten years of passing of the order of   compulsory  retirement.  During  pendency  of  the  writ petition in the High Court, the U.P. Services   Tribunal  on  a  claim  petition  filed  by  the   respondent,  shifted  the  entry  from  1997-98  to  1983-84.  Shifting of the said entry to a different   period or entry going beyond ten years of passing  of  the order of  compulsory  retirement  does not   mean that vigour and sting of the adverse entry is   lost.  Vigour  or  sting  of  an  adverse  entry  is  not   wiped out,  merely it  is relatable to 11th or 12th   year  of  passing  of  the  order  of  compulsory  

8

retirement.  The  aforesaid  adverse  entry  which  could  have  been  taken  into  account  while   considering  the  case  of  the  respondent  for  his   compulsory  retirement  from  service,  was  duly   considered by the State Government and the said  single  adverse  entry  in  itself  was  sufficient  to  compulsorily retire the respondent from service.   We are, therefore, of the view that entire service   record or confidential report with emphasis on the  later entries in the character roll can be taken into   account  by  the  Government  while  considering  a   case  for  compulsory retirement  of  a  government   servant.  (Emphasis added)

13. In  Jugal Chandra Saikia Vs.  State of Assam & Anr., AIR  

2003 SC 1362, this Court held that where the screening committee is  

consisting  of  responsible  officers  of  the  State  and  they  have  

examined/assessed the entire service record and formed the opinion  

objectively as to whether any employee is fit to be retained in service  

or not, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides, there is no scope  

of a judicial review against such an order.  

14. In Nawal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4303,  

a similar view has been reiterated. The Court observed as under:

“At  the  outset,  it  is  to  be  reiterated  that  the   judicial service is not a service in the sense of an   employment.  Judges  are  discharging  their   functions  while  exercising  the  sovereign  judicial   

9

power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is   expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected   in their overall reputation. Further, the nature of   judicial  service  is  such  that  it  cannot  afford  to   suffer  continuance  in  service  of  persons  of   doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If   such evaluation is done by the Committee of the   High  Court  Judges  and  is  affirmed  in  the  writ   petition, except in very exceptional circumstances,   this  Court  would  not  interfere  with  the  same,   particularly  because  the  order  of  compulsory  retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction   of the authority. ……Further, it is impossible to prove by positive  evidence the basis for doubting the integrity of the  judicial officer. In the present-day system, reliance  is  required  to  be  placed  on  the  opinion  of  the   higher officer who had the opportunity to watch  the  performance  of  the  officer  concerned  from  close quarters and formation of his opinion with   regard  to  the  overall  reputation  enjoyed  by  the  officer concerned would be the basis. …..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 justice delivery system”.

15. In  Chandra Singh & Ors.  Vs.  State of Rajasthan & Anr.,  

AIR 2003 SC 2889, this Court after examining the entire evidence on  

record came to the conclusion that the compulsory retirement awarded  

to the appellant therein, Chandra Singh, a Judicial Officer, was not in  

consonance  with  law.   However,  considering  the  report  of  the  

10

Committee and taking note of the adverse remarks made against him,  

the Court refused to grant him any relief.  The relevant part of the  

judgment reads as under:

“It  will  bear repetition to  state  that  in  terms of   Rule  53  of  the  Pension  Rules,  an  order  for   compulsory retirement can be passed only in the   event  the same is in public interest  and/or three   months’ notice or three months’ pay in lieu thereof   had  been  given.  Neither  of  the  aforementioned  conditions had been complied with…. We have, therefore, no option but to hold that the   actions on the part of the High Court or the State   in compulsorily retiring the appellants herein were  illegal. Article 235 of the Constitution of India enables the  High  Court  to  assess  the  performance  of  any  judicial  officer  at  any  time  with  a  view  to   discipline  the  black  sheep  or  weed  out  the  deadwood. This constitutional power of the High  Court  cannot  be  circumscribed  by  any  rule  or   order. We can usefully refer to some of the leading   cases on Article 235: 1. State of Assam v.  Ranga Mohd., AIR 1967 SC  903 (five Judges) 2.  Samsher Singh v.  State of Punjab,  AIR 1974  SC 2192 (seven Judges) 3.  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay v.   Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, AIR 1997 SC 2631.

xxx xxx xxx In the instant case, we are dealing with the higher  judicial  officers.  We  have  already  noticed  the   observations  made  by  the  Committee  of  three   Judges. The nature of judicial service is such that   

11

it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of   persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their  utility.”

16. In Shiv Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2005)  

13  SCC  581,  this  Court  examined  the  case  of  the  compulsory  

retirement of a Judicial Officer and came to the conclusion that the  

Review Committee had made an overall assessment considering the  

entire service record of the said officer and came to the conclusion  

that continuance of the said officer in service would be a liability to  

the Department and adverse to public interest as his ACRs. revealed  

that he was poor in writing the judgments and was advised to improve  

the same.  His judicial work was found unsatisfactory and he had been  

advised to improve the same.  His integrity was found doubtful in the  

year 1983.  He had earlier been superseded while being considered for  

promotion in 1983 and he had been given an adverse entry in 1993  

that he failed to inspire confidence in subordinate staff and lawyers  

and had a low rate of disposal.  On the basis of the aforesaid adverse  

entries,  he  was  given  compulsory  retirement  vide  order  dated  

9.11.2000.  This Court refused to interfere with the said order in view  

of the fact that he could not raise proper allegations of mala fides or  

12

establish that the order of compulsory retirement was passed without  

application of mind.  While deciding the said case, the court placed  

reliance  upon  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Vijay  Kumar  Jain  

(supra).

17. In M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. & Anr. Vs.  

Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 221, this Court  

held  that  judicial  review  of  an  order  of  compulsory  retirement  is  

permissible if the order is perverse or arbitrary, as also where there is  

non-compliance of statutory duty by statutory authority but the court  

should not go into the factual findings.  The factors not germane for  

passing an order of compulsory retirement should not be taken into  

consideration.  The criteria and rules adopted by the employer must be  

adhered to, to determine whether the employee had become liable for  

compulsory retirement.   An authority  discharging a public function  

must act fairly.

18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect  that  

an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not  

imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a  

proved  misconduct,  as  prescribed  in  the  Statutory  Rules.  (See  

Surender Kumar Vs.  Union of India & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 158).  

13

The  Authority must consider and examine the over-all effect of the  

entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may  

well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the  

authority  may  desire  to  compulsorily  retire  an  employee  in  public  

interest,  as in the opinion of the said Authority, the post has to be  

manned  by  a  more  efficient  and  dynamic  person  and  if  there  is  

sufficient  material  on  record  to  show that  the  employee  “rendered  

himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court  

to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.

  WASHED OF  F THEORY   

19. In State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086,  

a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that adverse entries regarding  

the dishonesty and inefficiency of the government employee in his  

ACRs have to be ignored if, subsequent to recording of the same, he  

had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar, as it would mean that  

while permitting him to cross the efficiency bar such entries had been  

considered and were not found of serious nature for the purpose of  

crossing the efficiency bar.

14

20. Similarly,  a  two-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Baidyanath  

Mahapatra Vs.  State of Orissa & Anr.,  AIR 1989 SC 2218, had  

taken  a  similar  view  on  the  issue  observing  that  adverse  entries  

awarded to the employee in the remote past lost significance in view  

of the fact that he had subsequently been promoted to the higher post,  

for the reason that while considering the case for promotion he had  

been found to possess eligibility and suitability and if such entry did  

not  reflect  deficiency  in  his  work  and  conduct  for  the  purpose  of  

promotion, it would be difficult to comprehend how such an adverse  

entry  could  be  pressed  into  service  for  retiring  him  compulsorily.  

When a government servant is promoted to higher post on the basis of  

merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service  

record lose their  significance and remain on record as  part  of  past  

history.  

This view has been adopted by this Court in Baikuntha Nath  

Das (supra).  

21. However, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Orissa  

& Ors. Vs.  Ram Chandra Das,  AIR 1996 SC 2436, had taken a  

different view as it had been held therein that  such entries still remain  

part  of  the  record  for  overall  consideration  to  retire  a  government  

15

servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest.  Therefore,  

such  entries  do  not  lose  significance,  even  if  the  employee  has  

subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under:–

“Merely  because  a  promotion  has  been  given  even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a  ground to note that compulsory retirement of the   government  servant  could  not  be  ordered.  The  evidence  does  not  become  inadmissible  or   irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would  be relevant is whether upon that state of record as   a reasonable prudent man would the Government   or competent officer reach that decision. We find   that selfsame material after promotion may not be   taken into consideration only to deny him further   promotion,  if  any. But that material undoubtedly   would be available to the Government to consider  the overall expediency or necessity to continue the   government servant in service after he attained the   required length of  service  or qualified period of   service for pension.” (Emphasis added)

22. This judgment has been approved and followed by this court in  

State  of  Gujarat Vs.  Umedbhai  M.  Patel,  AIR  2001  SC  1109,  

emphasising that the “entire record” of the government servant is to  

be examined.  

23. In Vijay Kumar Jain, (supra),  this Court held that the vigour  

or  sting  of  an  entry  does  not  get  wiped  out,  particularly,  while  

considering  the  case  of  employee  for  giving  him  compulsory  

16

retirement, as it requires the examination of the entire service records,  

including character rolls and confidential reports. ‘Vigour or sting of  

an adverse entry is not wiped out’ merely it relates to the  remote past.  

There  may  be  a  single  adverse  entry  of  integrity  which  may  be  

sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant.

Larger Benchs  ’ Judgment  :

24. In  State of  U.P.  Vs.  Ram Chandra Trivedi,  AIR 1976 SC  

2547, this Court observed that it must be borne in mind that in cases  

where there is any conflict between the views expressed by larger and  

smaller Bench of this Court, the court cannot disregard or skirt the  

views expressed by the larger Bench.   

25. In Smt. Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335,  

this Court considered the issue and observed as under:  

“……The practice over the years has been that a   larger  bench  straightway  considers  the  correctness of and if necessary overrules the view  of a smaller bench. This practice has been held to   be a crystallised rule of law in a recent decision by  a Special Bench of seven learned Judges. In A. R.  Antulay  v.  R.  S.  Nayak, AIR  1988  SC  1531,  Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the majority  said (at p. 1548 of AIR) :

17

`The  principle  that  the  size  of  the  bench  whether it is comprised of two or three or  more  judges  does  not  matter,  was  enunciated  in  Young v.  Bristol  Aeroplane  Ltd., (1944-2  All  ER  293)  (supra)  and  followed  by  Justice  Chinnappa  Reddy  in   Javed Ahmad Abdul Hamid Pawla v. State   of Maharashtra, (AIR 1985 SC 231), where  it  has been held  that  a  Division Bench of   two  judges,  has  not  been followed by  our   Courts.

xxxx      xxxx      xxxx      xxxx      xxxx The  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  is   somewhat  different.  There  is  a  hierarchy   within  the  Court  itself  here  where  larger   benches  overrule  smaller  benches.  See   Mattulal v. Radhey Lal, AIR 1974 SC 1596,   Union of India v. K. S. Subramanian, AIR  1976 SC 2433 at 2437; and State of U.P. v.   Ram Chandra Trivedi,  AIR 1976 SC 2547  at p. 2555. This is the practice followed by   this Court and now it is a crystallised rule   of law.’

The  answer  to  the  question  posed  in  Javed  Ahmad case thus stands concluded and it is now  not open to any one to contend that a bench of two   judges  cannot  be overruled by a bench of  three   judges. We must regard this as a final seal to the   controversy.”

26. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that in  

case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of this court,  

the  judgment  of  the  larger  Bench  is  to  be  followed.  More  so,  the  

washed off theory does not have universal application. It may  have  

18

relevance  while  considering  the  case  of  government  servant  for  

further  promotion  but  not  in  a  case  where  the  employee  is  being  

assessed by the Reviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to  

be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement,  

as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration  

his “entire service record”.  

27. The instant case is to be examined in the light of the aforesaid  

settled legal propositions.  

28. Some of the entries in the ACRs’ of the petitioner of the last  

years, which are relevant for this purpose are being mentioned here as  

under:  

 Year Remarks 1996-97 (i) Knowledge – Average

(ii) Promptness in disposal – Out turn Poor (iii) Net Result – Average

1997-98 (i) Promptness in Disposal – Average (ii) Efficiency – Average (iii)  Net  result  –  Average  officer  capable  of  improvement

1998-99 (i) Promptness in disposal – Average (ii) Efficiency – Average (iii)  Net  result  –  out-turn  capable  of  improvement

1999-2000 (i) Promptness in disposal – Average (ii) Efficiency – Average

19

(iii) Reputation – Not good        Is  he fit  for  exercise  of  any enhanced  power – No

Beside these,  adverse remarks  made by the  inspecting  Judge  

against the petitioner are given as under:

  Year Remarks 30.8.1997 (i) Knowledge – Average, extensive study  

required. (ii)  Promptness  in  disposal  –  Not  upto  mark (iii) Reputation – Some whispers are there  but nothing concrete could be found.  

2001-02 (i) Judgment – Average i.e. B (ii) Efficiency – Average (B)  (iii) Integrity – Seriously Doubtful

29. It is evident from the aforesaid service record of the petitioner  

that he remained an average officer throughout his service career and  

could never improve.  His out turn had been poor;  he  had been  

given adverse entries regarding his integrity/reputation as not good in  

the  years  1999-2000  and  remarks  to  that  effect  by  the  Inspecting  

Judges  in  1997  and  2001-2002.   The  petitioner  had  made  a  bald  

assertion that the adverse entries have not yet been communicated to  

him.  It  has  been  repeatedly  submitted  by  him that  representations  

made by him against the said adverse entries had not been disposed  

20

of.  Indisputably, uncommunicated adverse entries could be taken into  

account  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  an  officer  for  compulsory  

retirement.  The  petitioner  has  not  disclosed  on  what  dates  the  

representations  against  the  adverse  entries  had  been  made.  The  

petitioner  had  not  challenged  the  said  adverse  entries,  rather  he  

considered it appropriate to challenge only the order of compulsory  

retirement  which  has  been  a  consequential  effect  of  such  adverse  

entries. The law requires the Authority to consider the “entire service  

record”  of  the  employee while  assessing  whether  he  can  be  given  

compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries  

had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted  

earlier in spite of those adverse entries.  More so, a single adverse  

entry  regarding  the  integrity  of  an  officer  even  in  remote  past  is  

sufficient  to  award  compulsory  retirement.  The  case  of  a  Judicial  

Officer is required to be examined, treating him to be differently from  

other wings of the society, as he is serving the State in a different  

capacity. The case of a Judicial Officer is considered by a Committee  

of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by Hon’ble the Chief  

Justice and then the report of the Committee is placed before the Full  

Court. A decision is taken by the Full Court after due deliberation on  

21

the  matter.   Therefore,  there  is  hardly  any  chance  to  make  the  

allegations of non- application of mind or mala fide.  

30. Be that as it may, the service record of the petitioner revealed  

that  he had not  been promoted in  the  regular  cadre of  the District  

Judge as he was not found fit  for the same because of the adverse  

entries. Petitioner was promoted as Additional District Judge on Ad  

hoc basis and posted in the Fast Track Court.  It was definitely not a  

promotion  on  merit  (selection).  The  High  Court  had  objectively  

decided  to  recommend  his  compulsory  retirement  and  the  State  

Authorities  acted  accordingly.  No  fault  can  be  found  with  the  

decision making process or with the decision.  

31.  We do not  find any force in the submissions made by Shri  

Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that  

the counter affidavit filed by the High Court and the State reveal that  

certain reports  called for from the District Judge had been considered,  

though  such  reports  were  not  even  available,  and  therefore,  the  

affidavit to that extent is mis-leading. In fact, it is evident from the  

record that at the time of making of the note by the Registry for the  

Full  court,  it  had  been  mentioned  that  report  was  still  awaited.  

22

However, by the time the Full Court was held the report  had been  

made available  and was duly considered.  Shri  Ashok Mathur and  

Shri Anil Kr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had  

placed  before  us  the  original  record relating to  the  services  of  the  

petitioner  and  the  report  submitted  by  the  Judicial  Commissioner,  

Ranchi dated 5.4.2003, who  after taking into consideration a large  

number of facts recorded the following conclusion:  

“However,  on  confidential  enquiry  I  have   found that his general reputation is not so good,  but still no one came to me with any specific case   against his general reputation.”

Thus,  the  aforesaid  submission made on behalf  of  the  petitioner  is  

preposterous.  

32. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in M.S. Bindra  

(supra) and  Baldev Raj Chadha Vs.  Union of India & Ors., AIR  

1981 SC 70, it  has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that  

adverse entries had not been made in bona fide manner and as per the  

requirement prescribed by circulars etc. Therefore, the consequential  

order  of  compulsory  retirement  is  illegal.  There  is  no  factual  

foundation on the basis of which such an assertion can be examined,  

23

nor there is a challenge in the writ petition to the said adverse entries.  

Petitioner sought quashing of order of compulsory retirement dated  

20.5.2003  and  not  quashing  of  the  adverse  entries.  Relief  not  

specifically sought cannot be granted by the court.  Therefore, there is  

no occasion for us to probe the issue further.  

33. In  view of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  cogent  reason  to  

interfere  with  the  impugned order.  The  petition  lacks  merit  and  is  

accordingly dismissed. No costs.   

………………………….…J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

……………………………J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

…………………………..J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, September  10, 2010

24

25