JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Petitioner assails the order of compulsory retirement under Annexure-1 dated 27-5-1978 passed by the Governor in exercise of powers under the first proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. Petitioner whose date of birth as found in the service records is 12-6-1927 was recruited as a Munsif in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II by notification dated 14-9-1962 and was given a posting with effect from 15-10-1962. He was posted to several stations and in 1970 he crossed his Efficiency Bar. On 27th of May, 1978, the following order was made: In exercise of the powers conferred under the first proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Code, the State Government do hereby retire Shri Ras behari Rajguru, an officer of the Orissa Judicial Service (Class-II), which effect from the 3rd June, 1978 (forenoon) after his attaining the age of 50 years allowing him three months' pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice as required by the said rule. 2. Several grounds were raised in the writ application for challenging the aforesaid order. At the hearing of this application, Mr. Das for the Petitioner has pressed the following points: (i) The High Court and not the Governor was the appropriate authority to pass the impugned order; (ii) The impugned order does not indicate that it has been made on the ground of public interest. There fore, even if the Governor had the power to exercise, the order not having been -grounded on public interest cannot be sustained; (iii) After Petitioner was permitted to cross his Efficiency Bar in 1970, no communication or any adverse entry was made to him and tested by the guidelines indicated in the Circular of the then Political & Services Department as to the manner of exercise of the power under the proviso, the order is not sustainable; (iv) The order is vitiated by mala fides-factual and legal and cannot be sustained. 3. Both the opposite parties have separately filed counter affidavits. The Joint Registrar of the Court has exphatically denied the allegations of factual or legal mala fides. The challenge that the High Court and not the Governor was competent to make the order has been refuted. 3. Both the opposite parties have separately filed counter affidavits. The Joint Registrar of the Court has exphatically denied the allegations of factual or legal mala fides. The challenge that the High Court and not the Governor was competent to make the order has been refuted. It has been alleged that the Petitioner had been shown enough indulgence while he was in service in expectation of improvement and it has also been contended that none of the contentions advanced by the Petitioner stands to scrutiny. The Additional Secretary to Government in the Law Department has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State. The stand taken in the counter affidavit of the High Court has been adopted and several factual allegations of the Petitioner have also been refuted. 4. The proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code runs thus: Provided that a Government servant may retire from service any time after completing thirty years qualifying service or on attaining the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or by giving the said notice to the said authority before such shorter period as Government may allow in any case. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under this rule, if he is under suspension or if enquiries against him are in progress. The appropriate authority may also require any officer to retire in public interest any time after he has completed thirty years qualifying service or attained the age of fifty years, by giving a notice- in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire by giving three months' pay and allowances in lien of such notice. In the State of Orissa no separate rules have been framed to regulate the conditions of service of judicial officers as envisaged under Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or 1962 and the Orissa Service Code both made by the Governor in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution are being applied to Judicial Officers. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Misra and Anr. Therefore, the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or 1962 and the Orissa Service Code both made by the Governor in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution are being applied to Judicial Officers. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Misra and Anr. ILR 1973 Cutt. 134 took the view that some of the rules in the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1962 so far as they related to Judicial Officers and the provision for an appeal against punishment imposed by the High Court to the Governor were contrary to Article 235 of the Constitution. In appeal against the said decision, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court and Anr. 41 (1975) C.L.T. 1159 (S.C.), left the matter open. The submission of Mr. Das that Rule 71(a) proviso cannot be attracted in the case of a Judicial Officer, in our opinion, has no force. 5. That compulsory retirement of the type in question is not punishment is beyond dispute. Petitioner's recruitment as Munsif was in terms of the Rules framed under Article 234 of the Constitution and the Governor was the appointing authority. It is now settled beyond dispute that control envisaged in Article 235 of the Constitution includes both disciplinary as also judicial control. It is contended by Mr. Das by relying upon two decisions d the Supreme Court being State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and Another and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others that the power to make a premature or compulsory retirement of officers belonging to the subordinate judicial service came within the ambit of 'control' under Article 235 of the Constitution and, therefore, could not be made by the Governor. In the instant case, as would appear from Annexure-A, the High Court came to the following conclusion at a meeting held on the 23rd of December. 1977: Reconsidered the decision of the meeting of the Full Court held on the 28th November, 1977, relating to review of the case of Sri Rasbehari Rajaguru, an officer of the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II under the first proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. 1977: Reconsidered the decision of the meeting of the Full Court held on the 28th November, 1977, relating to review of the case of Sri Rasbehari Rajaguru, an officer of the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II under the first proviso to Sub-rule (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code. Decided as follows: (i) (a) On careful consideration of the service records of Sri Rasbehari Rajaguru including the entries in his Character Roll, the Court are unanimously of the view that the officer has consistently lacked in integrity and is also inadequate for the responsibilities of the post he occupies and is likely to occupy during the remainder of his service. (b) On an overall assessment of the performance of Sri Rajaguru, the Court unanimously hold and recommend that the officer should be prematurely retired in the public interest by giving him three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months' notice. (c) Draft letter to Government is approved for issue. Pursuant to this decision of the Court, the Governor was requested to make the order and the ultimate order which is impugned in this writ application followed. Accepting the position that the order of compulsory retirement not being a punishment covered by Article 311(1) of the Constitution was to require the appointing authority to make it and control vested under Article 235 of the Constitution authorised the Court to make the order, we do not find any illegality in the order. The ultimate decision to retire the Petitioner in exercise of the power vested under Rule 71(a), proviso of the service Code was taken by the Court in its unanimous resolution and Government have only notified it. We are satisfied keeping the facts of the case and the manner in which the order was made in view that there has been no constitutional infringement in the making of the order and the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground that it has been made by an authority not competent to make it and if the order is sustained Article 235 of the Comtitution would be violated. The first point canvassed before us, therefou, cannot be sustained. 6. It has next been contended that in the absence of a statement that the order was in the public interest, the requirement of the proviso was net satisfied. The first point canvassed before us, therefou, cannot be sustained. 6. It has next been contended that in the absence of a statement that the order was in the public interest, the requirement of the proviso was net satisfied. Undoubtedly, the Rule provided that power under it can be exercised in public interest and mention of that fact is not found in Annexure-1. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the State it has been asserted that the order was made in the public interest. We have already extracted the resolution of the Full Court wherein clear mention has been made that the premature retirement of the Petitioner would be in the public interest. Petitioner s submission has been that it was, the Court which was to decide about the premature retirement and accepting the resolution of the Full Court of December, 23, 1977, as the Court's decision, the Court did decide that retirement was in the public interest. The second point urged before us, therefore, has no force. 7. The guideline indicated in the Circular letter of the Political & Services Department was an administrative instruction. That certainly did not apply to the Court in the matter of exercise of its central under Article 235 of the Constitution. The Full Court kept the guideline in view and reviewed the Petitioner case. Even if Petitioner had crossed the Efficiency Bar in 1970, which in Joint Registrar's affidavit has been stated to be an action showing indulgence to the Petitioner in expectation of improvement in future, nothing stood in the way eight years after to pass an order of premature retirement on the basis, of performance. Adverse entries are not necessary for exercising the power under the proviso. If an assessment is made and the Court comes to the conclusion that a judicial officer consistently lacked integrity and was inadequate for the responsibilities of the post he occupied, it was certainly open to the Court to Exercise the power. We are of the definite view that the guideline indicated by the State Government did net apply to the Court and the power was available to be exercised in an independent and honest way by the Court itself in Exercise of its power of control. The view of the Full Court indicated in December, 1917, represented such opinion. The third contention is accordingly repelled. 8. The view of the Full Court indicated in December, 1917, represented such opinion. The third contention is accordingly repelled. 8. Now coming to the last contention, Petitioner made allegations of mala fides, both factual and legal. General allegation of a vague nature has been made that the Petitioner was harassed by his administrative superiors in the judicial service. There were certain incidents which required immediate action with a view to ascertaining the integrity of the Petitioner. Petitioner was posted to several stations during the period of a little more than sixteen years of service. At every station he was posted, allegations of lack of integrity were made. Since he became an officer of doubtful integrity, rigorous control was introduced and several enquiries became necessary. The Chief Justice against whom certain allegations have been made in the writ application was not in office by the time the Full Court took its decision in December, 1977 to retire the Petitioner. Therefore, the main plank of attack must be taken to be non-existent. Petitioner s performance was assessed in an objective manner from time to time and the fact that several administrative officers in the judicial service and all the Honourable Judges of the Court bore one and the same opinion about the quality of-the Petitioner as a judicial officer went a long way to decide that the Petitioner s continuance as a member of the judicial service was not in the public interest. Allegations of mala fide are easy to make but it is unfortunate that the Petitioner with the discipline and training of a judicial officer has chosen to throw wild and baseless allegations against his administrative superiors including the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court who retired in 1975. The fourth contention is equally groundless and is, there fore rejected. 9. All the contentions of the Petitioner have failed. His writ application is accordingly dismissed. In the facts of the case, we think it would be appropriate to direct parties to bear their own costs. J.K. Mohanty, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed