Judgment:
ORDER
Lakshmanan, CJ.
1. The petitioner is presently working as Additional District & Sessions Judge in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. He was appointed as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate in the Year 1977 and joined duties on 14.2.1997 in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. According to the petitioner his judicial work has never been marked upon on the judicial side. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.5.1990 and promoted to the Rajasthan Higher judicial Service on 9.2.1995. The petitioner was compulsorily retired vide order dated 9.11.2000. A copy of the order dated 9.11.2000, covering letter dated 11.11.2000 and the pay order sent along with the letter in lieu of three months notice have been filed and marked as Annex. 4, 5 and 6. II is also submitted that the petitioner had not been granted senior scale with effect from 13.8.1987 in the Rajasthan Judicial Service while persons junior to him were granted the said scale. Even on his representation is this regard, no action was taken. However, the writ petition filed challenging the denial of the benefit of senior scale and selection scale in the Rajasthan Judicial Service is pending before this Court. The petitioner was communicated adverse remarks for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were challenged by him before this Court by filing the writ petitions. According to the petitioner this Court quashed the adverse remarks made in the ACRs made for the above period. The petitioner was again conveyed with adverse remarks for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of his representations against the adverse remarks are pending before this Court.
(2). The petitioner has also furnished certain details regarding departmental enquiries. In support of the above departmental enquiries the petitioner has relied on Annex. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The petitioner was again served with a charge sheet on 10.8.2000 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had tried to conceal the fact that he had come late on a day and his Reader had written in the order-sheet that he was on leave and it was alleged that the petitioner had interpolated in the judicial record of the order-sheets. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 10.8.2000 has also been filed which has been marked as Annex. 20. An enquiry is still pending on the above matter.
(3). The petitioner had been served now with the order dated 9.11.2000 with a covering letter dated 11.11.2000, by which, the petitioner had been retired compulsorily in public interest on the payment of there months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice. The said order has been passed following the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Old) as amended by Rule 53 (1) of Rajasthan Service (Pension) Rules, 1996. The correctness of the said order is questioned in this writ petition.
(4). Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-
(a) That the Full Court Meeting of the Rajasthan High Court held on 9th December, 2000 at 2.00 P.M. and continued upto 4.30 and as per the information of the petitioner the agenda of the compulsorily retiring judicial officers was placed in the Full Court Meeting on the basis of the reviewing committee report. It is surprising to note that on the same day i.e. 9.11.2000, the State Government has issued an order and the recommendation of the Governor had also been received on the same day. According to the petitioner the State Government had already prepared compulsory retirement orders even before the case of the petitioner was placed before the Full Court Meeting and a decision of the compulsory retirement had been taken without the application of mind by the Full Court in its proper prospective. The Full Court had not taken into account the orders earlier passed in the departmental enquiries and on the basis of a coloured version the compulsory retirement order was made by the Full Court.
(B) The petitioner can be compulsory retired only on the basis of finding with regard to the function of a government servant in the terms as mentioned in Rule 53(1) of the Rules vide amendment dated 1.12.1999. No notice of opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the aforesaid order. Rule 53(1) of the Rules as it existed is quoted below:-
Compulsory retirement on completion of 25 years qualifying service-
(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty-five years qualifying whichever is earlier, he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest, and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension.]
By amendment dated 1.12.1999 the aforesaid Rule 53(1) was substituted as under:-
Compulsory retirement on completion of 15 years' qualifying service-
(1) At any time, after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned Government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in the performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension.
(C) The issuance of the order of the compulsory retirement has seriously marked the reputation of the petitioner in the society as the order had been published in the local newspaper and [he petitioner has been branded generally as an officer who was not having fair reputation. Hence, the order of compulsory retirement passed is punitive in nature and with the sole object to remove the petitioner from the post of Additional District Judge and is virtually an order without giving fair and proper opportunity of hearing.
(D) It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the entire records have not been placed before the Full Court and before the Reviewing Committee and both the Full Court and the Reviewing Committee and both the Full Court and the Reviewing Committee have not examined the entire case records of the petitioner. Some of exoneration orders of the departmental enquiries have not been placed before the reviewing committee which was necessary in the case of compulsory retirement of the judicial officers.
(E) Both the good and bad entries in the ACRs have not been placed before the reviewing committee and before the Full Court and, therefore, the reviewing committee and the Full Court had no occasion to consider both the good and bad entries.
(F) The disposal of the cases by the petitioner has always remained more than 125% at least even in adverse circumstances. The respondents are not sure as to which rule has to be applied for compulsory retiring the petitioner. The order dated 9.11.2000 deserves to be quashed as it followed the provisions of Rule 244(2) and the Circular issued by the High Court under the said rule for the purpose of compulsorily retiring the petitioner although the same stood removed from the statute in view of the clear provisions of Section 168 which states as under:-
168- Repeal and Saving
(1) On the commencement of these rules, every rule, regulation of order including any Notification, Circular etc. (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the old rule) in force immediately before such commencement shall, in so far as it provides for any of the matters contained in these rules, cease to operate.
Hence, the mentioning of the Rule 244(2) of the old rules shows that the respondent had acted under law which has already become extinct and the order, therefore, stands vitiated.
(5). Referring the Baikunth Nath Dass case Mr. S.P. Sharma submitted that after the amendment made under Rule 53(1) of the rules of 1996 vide notification dated 1.12.1999 it is apparent that unless there is a finding given with regard to functioning the the Government servant in the terms as mentioned in the rule, the action of the compulsory retiring the employee cannot be made and to reach such a finding an inquiry is to be made and to reach such a finding an inquiry is to be held and such finding so recorded are stigmatic in nature. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed compulsory retiring the petitioner under Rule 53(1) is bad. The order has to be passed only after affording an opportunity and, therefore, the order passed under Rule 53(1) is stigmatic in nature. In this regard the Full Court and the Reviewing Committee have not been informed about the pendency of various writ petitions with regard to adverse remarks in the ACRs etc. and therefore, there has not been a subjective assessment of the service records of the petitioner by the Full Court. It is apparent that the orders have been passed in undue haste by the Full Court without applying its mind.
(6). The order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner being punitive and stigmatic in nature under Article 311 of the Constitution of India ought to have been followed before issuance of the order dated 9.11.2000. By not following the procedure the petitioner's valuable right under Article 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(7). Since the petitioner has made certain unfounded allegation against the Full Court in regard to the meeting dated 9.11.2000; the decisions taken by the Full Court; consequential orders passed by the State Government and the Governor, we directed the Registrar General to place before us the Minutes of the Full Court Meetings which were held on 8.11.2000 and 9.11.2000 to consider the entire material objectively on the judicial side. The Resolution passed by the Full Court on various subjects in the agenda placed before the Full Court on 8.11.2000 and 9.11.2000 and placed before us. The report submitted by the Reviewing Committee and the service records of the petitioner were also placed before us. We have carefully perused the same. On an anxious consideration of the entire material placed before us and of the perusal of the minutes placed before us passed by the Full Court and of the consideration of the ACRs and records, we are of the opinion that the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to the meeting of the Full Court dated 9.11.2000, the Resolution passed and the consequential orders passed by the State Government and the Governor are totally baseless and unfounded and that the same have been made mischievously in order to prejudice the minds of this Court on the judicial side. We shall now consider the notice issued for the Meeting dated 8.11.2000 and the decisions taken by the Full Court thereon.
(8). Though the Full Court Meeting was scheduled to be held on 7.11.2000, latter it was adjourned to 8.11.2000 and 9.11.2000 due to retirement of Justice G.L. Gupta. On 8.11.2000, the Meeting was held in the morning. Eight items were included in the Agenda. On the Additional Agenda four subjects were notified for consideration. The following are the Agenda for the Full Court Meeting held on 8.11.2000:-
Agenda Item No. 1
Consideration of matter regarding prior consultation and consent of Hon'ble High Court under Sec. 24(1) Cr.P.C. for appointment of Shri Anil Upadhayaya as Dy. Government Advocate cum-Additional Public Prosecutor.
Agenda Item No.2
Consideration of matter regarding prior consultation and ex-post facto consent of Hon'ble High Court under Sec. 24(1) Cr.P.C. appointed as Additional Government/Dy. Government Advocate cum- Additional Public Prosecutor.
Agenda Item No.3
Constitution of Rule Committee under Rule 123(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Agenda Item No.4
Consideration of Enquiry Report against Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, RJS, u/r. 16 of the CCA Rules submitted by Hon'ble Dr. Justice U.S. Chaushan, Enquiry Judges.
Agenda Item No.5
Consideration of Enquiry-Report against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, RHJS, u/r. 16 of the CCA Rules submitted by Hon'ble Justice P.P. Naolekar, Enquiry Judge.
Agenda Item No. 6
Consideration of reply submitted by Shri Bharat Ram Meena, RJS, in response to notice dated 29.8.2000 against proposed punishment of dismissal from service.
Agenda Item No.7
Consideration of reply submitted by Shri Raj Kamal Gaur, RJS, in response to notice dated 21.9.2000 against proposed punishment of dismissal from service.
Agenda Item No.8
Approval of Rajasthan High Court Calendar for the year 2001.
(9). After due discussions and delebrations, on Items No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, resolutions were passed. Item No. 8 was deferred for 9.11.2000. Immediately after completion of Agenda items No. 1 to 8, the Additional Agenda Items No. 1, 2 and 3 were taken up for consideration.
(10). Item No. 1 in the Additional Agenda relations to the consideration of the report of the Committee consideration of the report of the Committee constituted under Rule 244(2) of RSR 1951. The Full Court Resolution on Additional Agenda Item No. I reads as under:-
(11). The report submitted by the Committee constituted vide order No. Estt. (RJS)/77/2000 dated, 16.8.2000 under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan service Rules 1951 (old), now Rules 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 for consideration of the case of the Judicial Officers of the State for compulsory retirement was considered by the Full Court. The Committee has, in its report recommended compulsory retirement of the following 19 officers of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service.
1. Smt. Kusum Bhandari
2. Shri Brij Lal Bundel
3. Shri B.D. Gupta
4. Shri P.C. Jain (I)
5. Shri O.P. Sharma(I)
6. Shri Mahesh Singh
7. Shri Narain Lal Verma
8. Shri K.L. Mathur
9. Shri Brij Mohan Chauhan
10. Shri Siddhartha Kumar Jain
11. Shri N.P. Upadhyay
12. Shri Abdul Hafiz Khan
13. Shri C.P. Nahar
14. Shri S.D. Gupta
15. Shri J.P. Chhangani
16. Shri Shyam Lal Gupta
17. Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal
18. Shri B.M. Solera
19. Shri Shyam Swarup Sharma
(12). The Full Court after due consideration and discussion and after perusing the entire service records and ACRs of each and every officer resolved to recommend to the Governor for the compulsory retirement of the above named 17 officers in the public interest except Shri Mahesh Singh and Shri K.L. Mathur with immediate effect by paying them in lieu of notice, the three months salary and all allowances with all the retirement benefits admissible to them under the Rules. The recommendation of the Committee for dropping departmental enquiry, if any, initiated under Rule 16 or 17 of the CCA Rules against the officers who were recommended for compulsory retirement is accepted.
(13). It was further resolved that the recommendation of the Committee of the following officers were not considered as their case are under consideration before the evaluation committee for extension of service beyond 58 years:-
1. Shri K.L. Chandok
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma-l
3. Shri R.S. Kandhal
4. Shri Mangi Lal Nogia
5. Shri Babu Ali Syed
(14). The report of the Committee constituted vide office Order No. Estt/RJS/77/2000 dated, 16th August, 2000 and Rule 244(2) of the R.S.R., 1951 for consideration of the cases of the Rajas than Judicial Officers of the State in public interest for compulsory retirement and Rules 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 was considered. The recommendation made by the Committee for compulsory retirement of the following R.J.S. Officers:-
Sarva Shri-
1. K.D. Gaur
2. Nanuman Prasad Agrawal
3. Prahlad Dal Bairwa
4. Ladu Ram Jatav
5. Karinda Ram jatav
6. Bajrang Singh Shekhawal
7. Tek Chand
8. Sukh Ram jatav
9. Om Prakash Solanki
10. Pooran Mal Jalthuria
11. Kishore Kumar Vijay
12. Shyam Lal Meena
considered by the Full Court. The Full Court after due deliberations and discussions and after perusing the entire service record/ACRs has resolved to acceptthe report of the Committee and recommended for compulsory retirement of the above officers to the Governor with immediate effect except Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal (whose application for voluntary retirement has been accepted vide Item No. 2 of Additional Agenda) and Shri Pooran Mal Jalthuria. The case of Shri O.P. Solanki is deferred to the next meeting. In view of the acceptance of the recommendation for compulsory retirement in public interest as mentioned above, the full court has resolved to drop the enquiry proceedings, if any, initiated against the officers either under Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. It is further resolved that above mentioned RJS officers who have been recommended for compulsory retirement by paid in lieu of notice three months salary and all allowances with all the retirement benefits admissible to them under the Rules.
(15). Additional Agenda Item No. 2 relates to the consideration of application filed by Shri H.P. Agarwal, RJS for voluntary retirement. His name was recommended by the Committee constituted for compulsory retirement under Rule 53(1). In the meanwhile, Shri H.P. Gupta has submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement. The Full Court after due discussion and deliberations resolved to forward the application for voluntary retirement to the Governor in stead of compulsory retirement as recommended by the Committee.
(16). Additional Agenda Item No. 3 and 4 were deferred for 9.11.2000.
(17). The Resolution above extracted would clearly go to show that the allegation made by the petitioner in regard to Meeting dated 9.11.2000 and the orders passed by the State Government is wholly baseless and against real state of affairs. It is seen from the above Minutes that the subject for compulsory retirement was not at all taken up for discussions on 9.11.2000 at 2.00 P.M. as alleged by the petitioner and stated in the writ petition. The subject regarding compulsory retirement of Additional Agenda item No. 1 and Additional Agenda Item No. 2 were taken up for discussion on 8.11.2000 itself and after due deliberation and discussions and on scrutiny of the report submitted by the reviewing committee, service records and the ACRs, the Full Court resolved to compulsory retire the petitioner concerned along with other officers. Though the recommendation was made by the reviewing committee comprising of four Hon'ble Judges for compulsory retiring 19 officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, the Full Court after due consideration and deliberate discussion, considering the service records, ACRs of each and every officers resolved to recommed to the Governor for compulsory retirement of 17 officers only in public interest except one Shri Mahesh Singh at serial No. 6 and Shri K.L. Mathur at serial No. 8. Likewise; the Full Court further resolved not to consider the recommendation of the Committee the case of five officers since their cases were under consideration before the evaluation committee for extension of service beyond 58 years.
(18). Likewise; the report of the reviewing committee recommending 12 officers of RJS cadres for compulsory retirement was placed before the Full Court. The Full Court after due deliberation and discussion and also after perusing the entire service records including the ACRs etc. have resolved to accept the report of the Committee and recommended for compulsory retirement of the said 12 officers.
(19). Out of present strength of 21 Judges 19 Judges were present at the Full Court Meeting held on 8th November, 2000 and all the 19 Judges have unanimously resolved to recommend the names of the abovesaid RHJS and RJS officers for compulsory retirement.
(20). It will be crystal clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to the Meeting Held on 9.11.2000 is not only malafide and against the facts but has been made mischievously. We, therefore, have no hesitation to reject the said contention in view of the unanimous resolution passed by the 19 Judges to recommend for compulsory retirement of the petitioner to the State Government.
(21). The Review Committee has also submitted a Four pages report in regard to petitioner Vinod Kumar Agarwal. A perusal of the report submitted by the reviewing committee would clearly show that the Committee after considering several com-plaints which were filed against him from 1978 onwards and of the rejection of his various representations, his relationship with the Bar, his integrity, reputation and capacity to work as a judicial officer, warring issued to him on various occasions, his habitual nature of coming late to Court and on overall assessment of his service records including personal and other files, were of the view the the officer has proved to be a liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the above officer immediately. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended his case for compulsory retirement along with other officers.
(22). On 9.11.2000, the Meeting was again convened at 2.00 P.M. at the Conference Hall. The Evaluation Committee comprising of four Judges in their report have recommended the names of 19 RHJS officers and 12 RJS officers for compulsory retirement. Since no case for recommending for compulsory retirement of 124 RHJS officers was made out at that stage, the Committee have not recommended 124 officers for compulsory retirement. Likewise; the said Committee have not recommended for compulsory retirement of 32 RJS officers. It is seen from the minutes that at the request of some of the Hon'ble Judges and with the permission of the Chair this part of the report of the Committee with regard to 124 RHJS officers and 32 RJS officers was taken up for consideration by the Full Court. Since the service records and ACRs were not readily available the matter was deferred for the present and it was resolved to consider the same at the next Full Court meeting. On that day Agenda Item No. 8 and Additional Agenda Item No. 4 were taken up for consideration and the Full Court have also taken a decision on those items also. Justice G.L. Gupta participated in the Full Court meeting held on 8th November, 2000 but as he retired form service on superannuation on 8th November, 2000, he was not present on 9th November, 2000 and only 18 Hon'ble Judges have participated the Meeting.
(23). It is argued by Mr. Sharma that an enquiry must be held to reach a finding in regard to the action taken to compulsory retiring an employee and such finding so recorded is not only punitive but also stigmatic in nature. It is settled by catena of decisions of various Courts that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour and that the principles of natural justice have no been placed in the context of order of compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court has also held in the case Baikunth Nath Dass vs. Chief District Medical Officer (1) that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be interfered with by the High Court unless the High Court is satisfied that the following grounds exists:-
(A) Malafide;
(B) that it is based on no evidence;
(C) 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.
(24). It is not the case of the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement is the outcome of the malafide exercise of power by the High Court. No plea of malafide has also been raised even vaguely in the writ petition.
(25). A Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Rajesh Balia in the case Janaki Vallabh Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (2) while considering the case of compulsory retirement of judicial officers at the age of 58 years in stead of at the age of 60 years held as under:-
In our opinion, what is to be considered in such matters is the examination of overall entries of the officer concerned and not anentry here and there. It may well be in some cases that inspite of satisfactory performance still 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 mere efficient and dynamic person. There is no denying of the fact that in all organisations there is great deal of dead-wood and, more so in Government departments, which has to be replaced in public interest. Therefore, as pointed out by many Courts in India, it is purely a matter of subjective satisfaction of the High Court or the Reviewing Committee as the case may be. In the instant case, the order of compulsory retirement is passed without casting any aspersion or attaching any stigma to the Officer concerned. There cannot be any justification for interference by this Court. Even termination of the services of a public servant would not amount to dismissal or removal but only when such termination is arrived at or imposed by way of punishment it is in contravention of the protection offered under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioner so compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during the service. Thus compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences. Therefore, in our view, compulsory retirement is not considered prima facie and per se as punishment and does not attract the provisions of Article 311.
The writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed'.
(26). The above judgment is also an answer to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 311 of the Constitution of India has to be followed and the Punishment imposed is not in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In this case the petitioner so retired compulsorily does not loose any part of the benefit that he has earned during the service and no penal consequence will follow and therefor, provisions of Article 311, in our opinion, are not attracted.
(27). The learned counsel next submitted that the reviewing committee and the Full Court have not considered the bad and good entries entered in the service record and, therefore, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1020 have been violated. This submission is factually incorrect as noticed in Paragraph 12 (supra). The Evaluation Committee have considered the overall assessment of the service records including personal and other files made recommendation for compulsory retirement which was again meticulously scrutinized by the Full Court and appraised of the entire service record and overall assessment of the officer concerned, overall assessment of the service records, personal files etc., resolution to accept the recommendation of the committee. Hence, this contention also fails.
(28). A sarcastic remark was made by the petitioner against the review committee and the Full Court. According to the petitioner mentioning of Rule 244(2) of the Rules vitiates the entire proceedings. Since the said rule has already become extinct, therefore, the respondent High Court had acted under a law which has already extinct. In our opinion, the remark made by the petitioner against the higher judiciary in the State is wholly unwarranted and mischievous. A perusal of the report submitted by scrutining committee clearly show that the said committee was constituted under Rule 244 sub Rule 2 of the R.S.R. 1951 (old Rules), now Rule 53 sub rule 1 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. In the report both the rules have been specifically mentioned. It is seen from the minutes of the proceedings of the Full Court held on 8th November, 2000 in regard to additional Agenda Item No. 1 that both the rules have been quoted in the resolution. The impugned order dated 9th November, 2000 (Annex. 4) issued to the petitioner herein is also issued in pursuance of sub-Rule 2 of Rule244 of Rajasthan Service Rules and now Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996. This contention has no merit and, therefore, the same is rejected.
(29). His thus seen that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has merit acceptance.
(30). We shall now consider the case laws on the subject:
In the case Shyamlal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (3) (five Judges Bench) it was held as under:-
'There can be no doubt that removal (using the term synonymously with dismissal) generally implies that the officer is regarded as in some manner blameworthy or deficient that is to say, that he has been guilty of some misconduct or is lacking in ability or capacity or the will to discharge his duties as he should do. The action of removal taken against him in such circumstances is thus founded and justified on some ground personal to the officer. Such grounds, therefore, involve the levelling of some imputation or charge against the officer which may conceivably be controverted or explained by the officer. There is no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compulsory retirement. Further Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules clearly indicates that dismissal or removal is a punishment. This is imposed on an officer as a penalty. It involves loss of benefit already earned. But an officer who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned. On compulsory retirement he will be entitled to the pension etc. that he has actually earned. There is no diminution of the accrued benefit. A compulsory retirement therefore does not amount to dismissal or removal and, therefore, does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution or of Rule 55 and Note 1 to Art. 465A of the Civil Service Regulations is not repugnant to Art. 311.
(31). It has been held in the case Baikuntha Nath Das and Another vs. Chief District Medical Officer and Another (4) (three Judges Bench) as under:-
'Order of compulsory retirement does not amount to punishment and hence principles of natural justice not required to be obvserved in passing an order of compulsory retirement- Judicial review of the order is open only on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness and perversity'.
(32). In the case State of U.P. & Another vs. Bihari lal (5) it was held as under: -
'The court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the bona fide decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power of arbitrary exercise of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by the Court/tribunal in excercise of its judicial review'.
(33). In the case Chief General Manager, State Bank of India And Others vs. Suresh Chandra Behera (6) it was held as under:-
'In the present case, looking to the findings arrived at by the Reviewing Committee after a detailed examination of the service record of the respondent, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted on any ground. The High Court cannot examine for itself the service record of any employee and substitute its own judgment forthe judgment of the Reviewing Committee. The power under the third proviso of para 19(1) has been properly exercised in this case on relevant considerations in public interest. The order cannot be termed as either arbitrary or mala fide'.
(34). In the case I.K. Mishra vs. Union of India And Others (7) it was as under:-
'Power to retire compulsorily a government servant in terms of the service rules is absolute provided the authority concerned forms an opinion bona fide that the compulsory retirement is in public interest.
Keeping in view the appellant's bad service record, principles (3) and (4) of the Baikuntha Nath Das case are attracted.
It is not disputed that the entire service record including (good and bad) entries of the appellant, were placed before the Review Committee which, after considering the aforesaid reports, mainly confidential report/character roll both favourable and the aforesaid reports, recommended to the appointing authority the appellant's compulsory retirement. The adverse materials placed before the Review Committee and the appointing authority show that the order or compulsory retirement was based on material on record and by no stretch of imagination, it can be branded as arbitrary'.
(35). In the case State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh (8) it was held as under:-
'Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse etries as well'.
(36). It is also a matter on record in the instant case that the petitioner's unsatisfactory performance for a fairly long time coupled with his tendency to resort to litigation for each and every order, rendered him a liability to the institution. In our opinion, the petitioner was rightly retired in public interest. The recommendations of the reviewing committee and the unanimous decisions of 19 Judges who were present in the Full Court meeting and the acceptance of the same by the State Government was not unreasonable or arbitrary as assailed by the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed his compulsory retirement on certain flimsy grounds. The respondents have power under the Regulation in question to retire an employee compulsory in public interest. In fact, the Committee of four Judges which considered the case of compulsory retirement of the subordinate judicial officers, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, observed that the petitioner is a liability to the institution.
(37). In our opinion, the order of compoulsory retirement is not a punishment and not stigmatic in nature and that the petitioner is entitled to drawn all retrial benefits. In our opinion, the respondents have exercised their duty only in public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. On the consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Reviewing Committee. Full Court and the State Government have decided that the officer deserves compulsory retirement from service. The order of compulsory retirement by the respondents in perfect and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court on judicial side.
(38). The Writ petition fails and is dismissed with no costs.