JUDGMENT 1. - In the present batch of writ petitions the compulsory retirement of the petitioners under rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (for short RSR) has been challenged inter alia on the grounds that there was no relevant material on which the opinion could be formed that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioners compulsorily; the orders of compulsory retirement of the petitioners are unfair unjust and arbitrary; the uncommunicated Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (for short APARs) were taken into consideration while forming the requisite opinion that the compulsory retirement of the petitioners in public interest and they could not have formed the relevant material for forming the bonafde opinion; that the petitioners had been promoted from one rank to another and therefore so far as the APARs prior to their promotion are concerned they were washed-off and could not have been considered in order to compulsorily retire the petitioners. In some of the cases other grounds such as one of the conditions under rule 244(?) of RSR that Government servant concerned has completed 25 years qualifying service or should have attained the age of 10 years had not been satisfied. 2. First of all we intend to take the identical questions agitated before us and deduce the principles which will govern the cases and then we will deal with individual cases. While dealing with them we will address ourselves also to the specific issues to those cases. 3. The identical questions which arise in the present batch of writ petitions are as under; (1) Whether uncommunicated Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) including APARs in respect of doubtful integrity of an officer could furnish relevant material to compulsorily retire a Government servant and they could furnish relevant material to form bona fide opinion that the retirement of the officer is in public interest? (2) Whether the Screening Committee appointed for examining the cases of Government servants under rule 244 (2) of RSR besides examining other service record of Government servant during his tenure of service can enquire about the image or reputation about the integrity of an officer concerned at the places where he had remained posted during his services career? (2) Whether the Screening Committee appointed for examining the cases of Government servants under rule 244 (2) of RSR besides examining other service record of Government servant during his tenure of service can enquire about the image or reputation about the integrity of an officer concerned at the places where he had remained posted during his services career? (3) Whether while examining the case of a Government servant under rule 244(2) of RSR the entire service record of the Government servant is to be taken into consideration or the record of only last few years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement should be considered ? (4) What is the effect on the cases of the petitioners of the recommendation of their cases by the Full Court in its meeting dated March 30/31, 1989 as per the decision of this Court in its order dated October 4, 1988? 4. Before we take up the above questions it will be proper to quote rule 244(2) of RSR which reads as tinder : "244(2) (i) The Appointing authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Government Servant by giving him at least three months notice in writing from service on the date on which he completed 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier or on any date thereafter; (ii) The Government may publish the order of such retirement in Rajasthan Rajpatra and the Government servant shall be deemed to have retired on such publication if he has not been served with the retirement order earlier." A bare reading of the aforesaid extracted rule 244(2) of RSR will show that an absolute right has been conferred on the appointing authority to retire any Government servant in case the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied and those conditions are (i) completion of 25 years qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years (ii) giving of 3 months notice in writing or three months' pay and allowance it lieu thereof and (iii) retirement must be in public interest. By a long catena of cases so far as subordinate judiciary is concerned it has been decided that the administrative judicial and disciplinary control of every member of judicial service vests solely in the High Court and premature retirement is made in exercise of administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction. By a long catena of cases so far as subordinate judiciary is concerned it has been decided that the administrative judicial and disciplinary control of every member of judicial service vests solely in the High Court and premature retirement is made in exercise of administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction. Reference is made to the case of State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand and others AIR 1976 SC 1841 . It may be stated that the power of High Court so far as subordinate judiciary is concerned is now beyond challenge and once the High Court which means the Full Court decides to retire a Government servant prematurely and compulsorily on fulfilment of essential requirements of relevant rule the issue of appropriate order by the appointing authority will only be a formality and the appointing authority cannot refuse to issue an order of compulsory retirement of a member of the subordinate judiciary. The Governor has to accept the recommendations of the Court and to issue an order. Even on behalf of the petitioners this administrative control which includes the power to compulsorily retire a member of subordinate judiciary in the High Court has not been challenged. 5. We will now take the points in the order in which they have been framed and will proceed to decide them and the principles to be deduced will govern all the cases in hand. Re : Point (1) 6. It may be stated at the very outset that the Government ha issued Instructions/Circulars from time to time and even the forms have been prescribed to write APARs but so far as the High Court is concerned it has not adopted instructions/circulars/guidelines and as the control over the subordinate judiciary vests in the High Court unless the circulars/instructions/guidelines issued by the Government are adopted by the Full Court. they cannot be made applicable to the members of subordinate judiciary. Vide circular No. F. 14 (29) Karmik/ACR/73 Jaipur dated March 30 1976 fresh instructions for writing of APARs communications of adverse entries and filing of representations were issued They were applicable to all employees including State Services. A soak at clause 3 of the aforesaid instructions will show that their applicability to the employees borne on the RJS/BHJS cadre was excluded. A soak at clause 3 of the aforesaid instructions will show that their applicability to the employees borne on the RJS/BHJS cadre was excluded. Article 309 of the Constitution of India and moreso its clause (2) deals with the services and posts in connection with affairs of the State and it is the Governor of the State who has legislative competence to make Rules regarding recruitment conditions of service or pasts until provision in that behalf is made under clause (1) of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But though it is not the requirement of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to consult the High Court while framing rules. but it has been held in the case of B.S Yadav and others V. State of Haryana and others AIR 1981 SC 561 . that it would be in the Fitness of things that amendment in the rules is made after consulting the High Court so far as relevant service rule State Judicial Service Rules are concerned. RSR were framed by the then Raj Pramukh of Rajasthan in exercise of his powers vested under the proviso to Article 104 of the Constitution of India. But there is no provision in the aforesaid rules so far as writing of APARs is concerned and as already stated earlier. the High Court has not issued any guidelines/directions/circulars for writing the APARs and it has also not adopted instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. The purpose of writing APARs by the employer or by one having administrative control over the members of the subordinate judiciary is to keep a record of annual assessment of the Government servant and whether or not any circular/guideline instructions have been issued for writing or maintaining the APARs and other connected matters for Government servants their omission will not come in the way of maintaining the aforesaid record of assessment in respect of a performance of Government servant so long as a reasonable system or procedure is observed. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tayyab Ali V. State of Rajasthan. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tayyab Ali V. State of Rajasthan. 1958 (2) RLR page 1 Chief Justice J.S. Verma as he then was speaking for the Court said in para 7:- "There is no denying the fact that an adverse entry in the Annual performance Report of a Government servant is significant to determine the future course of the Government servant's service career". No doubt it has also taken a view that APARs are not the conditions of service, but undisputedly is an account of service. As stated earlier under rule 244(2) RSR an absolute right is vested in the Government to prematurely or compulsority retire a Government servant on the conditions mentioned in that rule being satisfied. Therefore a record of annual performance of a Government servant is to be maintained and should be maintained so that as and when a Government servant falls under the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR the record may be available to determine the question whether or not it will be in the public interest to retire the Government servant and only if such record is maintained as and when the order of compulsory retirement is challenged in this court and as stated earlier the challenge can only be on the ground that the order is malafide unreasonable unjust and unfair that record will be available for this Court to examine as to whether or not the necessary bonafide opinion to retire a Government servant compulsorily is in public interest has been framed and whether or not there is some material on which the said could be bonafide formed. By the very nature of the object for which the APARs are written and maintained only such authority who is competent to watch and supervise the work and conduct of a Government servant can be competent to write APARs in the case of members of subordinate judiciary and the inspecting Judge of the district concerned where the member of subordinate judiciary is posted or the Administrative Judge if there is one and/or the Chief Justice is bound to have the occasion to assess the work and conduct of the member of subordinate judiciary and even if there are no guidelines/instructions/ circulars in existence which the Full Court alone has power to provide or lay down it cannot be said that the aforesaid authorities are not competent to write or maintain APARs of the members of subordinate judiciary. All that is required is that a reasonable system/practice/procedure should be adopted. It is well known that all the entries made in APARs are not necessarily adverse and some of them may be innocuous and it may not be necessary to communicate the remarks but still while considering the case of members of subordinate judiciary under rule 244(2) of RSR alongwith the service record good or adverse the competent authority should consider those remarks also. The circulars / guidelines / Instructions issued by the Government for writing APARs or matters connected therewith are not applicable to the members of subordinate judiciary as administrative control over subordinate judiciary is vested in the High Court. Any other view will lead to an encroachment in the independence of judiciary and will be unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution in wisdom and deliberate design left the administrative control over a member of subordinate judiciary exclusively in the High Court except to the extent that the action must stand to the touch stone of reasonableness as and when the same situation arises. But what has been said about the instructions etc. cannot be said for the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor as so far as application of a given rule is concerned it will always be with the High Court and in that situation it cannot be said that it interferes with the administrative control which exclusively vests in the High Court. As aforesaid we conclude that the guidelines/circulars/ instructions issued by the Government for writing APARs and matters connected therewith of the Government servants are not applicable to the members of subordinate judiciary. But the APARs of the members of subordinate judiciary are to be written and maintained as said earlier to keep the annual record of the performance of the officer and to assess his work and conduct and as and when opportunity arises to examine the case whether such officer should be given promotion from one rank to another or he should be retired compulsorily in public interest under rule 244(2) of RSR the same will furnish the relevant material alongwith other material if any. We are also of the view that despite the fact that there are no instructions etc for writing APARs and matters connected therewith such as communication of adverse entries. if any opportunity to file representation consideration of representation its acceptance or rejection some reasonable procedure should be adopted. 7. Before we examine the question whether uncommunicated APARs can form the relevant material to retire a member of subordinate judiciary under rule 244(2) of RSR we will like to mention a few facts at this stage. There has been arguments more than once in the present batch of writ petitions and at one stage we had thought it better to give all adverse material to each of the petitioners and had ordered learned counsel for the High Court to supply all the adverse material which was considered by the Full Court to arrive at the opinion that the retirement of the petitioners is in public interest; all the adverse material including the report of the Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court was supplied to each of the petitioners. Thereafter each of the petitioners was allowed time to represent against the adverse entries in the APARs. A Committee of three Judges was appointed by the Chief Justice to consider the representation and representations were considered and some recommendations were made by the Committee appointed by the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice agreed with some such of the recommendations and as per directions of this Court the matter was then placed before the Full Court and the Full Court considered the representations and they were dismissed. It may be stated that as we were dealing with the cases of the petitioners in judicial side we did not participate in the aforesaid Full Court meeting. Before we made our order on October 4.19.8. directing the High Court to supply all the adverse materials which was considered while taking decision to compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR one of the petitioners Shri V. P. Agrawal in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2366/86 had filed an application that adverse material on which the reliance was placed by the Full Court to compulsorily retire under rule 244(2) of RSR should be supplied to him and his request was allowed. We under our order dated October 4 1988 placing reliance on the case of Kailash Chandra Agrawal v State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (1987) SCC 513, had ordered that the adverse material be supplied to each of other petitioners also. In the aforesaid order we had said that since on the request of V. P. Agrawal in Writ Petition No. 2366/86 the adverse material including the report of the Screening Committee has been supplied to Mr. Agrawal it is thought proper that all the adverse material in respect of other petitioners including the report of Screening Committee of the Hon'ble Judges should be supplied to them. In the case of Kailash Chandra Agrawal (supra) an argument was advanced before the Supreme Court that the Full Court considered not merely his earlier record but also additional material in the nature of a confidential report recorded by Shri S. P. Khate District & Session Judge Sagar as well as the inspection note relating to his court by the High Court. The Supreme Court taking into consideration the argument directed the High Court to disclose to Kailash Chandra Agrawal the material on which the High Court relied and to afford opportunity to the petitioner in that case to represent against it, which opportunity was granted was availed and the matter was reconsidered b t still there was no change in the order of compulsory retirement. We thought it will be proper to have the recourse to the aforesaid mode not only to give a reasonable opportunity to file representations in respect of adverse material relied upon by the High Court while considering the case of the petitioners for compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR but also in case the representations were wholly or partly allowed then to reconsider their cases. We had adopted that course to finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties whether we took the view that communication of adverse entries in respect of Government servant was not necessary or the other view that it was necessary. At any rate High Court re-considered the matter and there has been no change in the situation and the representations have been dismissed. We will deal with the situation in respect of each of the petitioner as and when we will deal with their cases individually but for the present we confine ourselves to the point under consideration whether uncommunicated APARs could or could not be considered or could or could not form the relevant material and could be for forming the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that not only non -communicated entries of APARs including entries in respect of doubtful integrity or dishonesty of members of subordinate judiciary could not furnish the relevant material as aforesaid but also other entries might be innocuous remarks in respect of work and conduct of the petitioners could not be considered unless the same are communicated. In other words the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in no situation whatsoever uncommunicated adverse entries of any kind and even innocuous remarks could form the relevant material under rule 244 (2) of RSR. Learned counsel for the High Court Mr. G. S. Singhvi and Mr. M. I. Khan Addl. Advocate General for the State on the other hand have contended that so far as the entries of APARs of members of subordinate judiciary in respect of their doubtful integrity are concerned they stand on a different footing and even the uncommunicated such entries could form the relevant material and could be considered. 9. M. I. Khan Addl. Advocate General for the State on the other hand have contended that so far as the entries of APARs of members of subordinate judiciary in respect of their doubtful integrity are concerned they stand on a different footing and even the uncommunicated such entries could form the relevant material and could be considered. 9. We will shortly refer to the case law on the point but in our opinion it can be taken to be the settled law that if any adverse entries are based on specific instances they must be communicated to the Government servant concerned and opportunity should be afforded to him to make representations the representation must be considered and decided and unless this procedure is followed such adverse entries as aforesaid cannot furnish relevant material for consideration whether the retirement of a Government servant is in public interest or not. 10. In Union of India Vs. J. N. Sinha and another AIR 1971 SC 40 the Court was dealing with the case of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rules. While upholding the validity of rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules the court said that the rules embodies one of the facets of the 'pleasure' doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The court further said that the right of Government under the aforesaid rule to retire a Government servant prematurely or compulsorily is absolute. In the case of Prakash Chand Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Commission 1970 SLR 116, the Supreme Court considered the case where the promotion was with held on the basis of Confidential Reports containing adverse remarks not communicated to the employee and no chance having been given to him against those adverse remarks. The court said that where there was no suggestion of malafide uncommunicated adverse entries could be considered. In the case of R. L. Butel V. Union of India 1970(2) SCC 876 , the Supreme Court was considering rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules which too conferred an absolute right on the appointing authority to retire a Government servant on his attaining the age of 55 years if the authority was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to do so. The Supreme Court said that a confidential report is intended to be a general assessment of work performed by a Government servant subordinate to the reporting authority that such reports are maintained for the purpose of serving as data of comparative merit when question of promotion confirmation etc. arises. They also said that such reports are not ordinarily to contain specific incidents upon which assessments are made except in case where as a result of any specific incident a censure or a warning is issued and when such warning is by an order to be kept in the personal file of the Government Servant. The Supreme Court also said that there was no need of giving reasonable opportunity before making such adverse remarks. In that case first the Supreme Court found that adverse remarks were not originally communicated to the employee concerned and when the promotion committee made recommendations these remarks were however later on communicated and on receipt of such communication on the representation of the officer such remarks were not altered. Sabyasachi Mukherji J as he then was in the case of (8) State of West Bengal V. Ajit Baran Chakraborty 1977(1) SLR 580 considered the aforesaid case and said that it is true that the said decision dealt with the question of promotion and not with the question of retirement but the ratio that follows from the Supreme Court decision is that such adverse remarks even if not communicated to the employee concerned do not become non-existent materials for acting on the basis of such adverse remarks. In the case of (9) Mishrilal Gupta V. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1976 SLR 131 . Allahabad High Court was considering a case of compulsory retirement where representation against adverse entries in the Confidential Report was pending In para 5 the court said that- "I find no justification to accept this contention After the entry was made petitioner was given opportunity to represent against those entries. Pending representation State Government was not divested of its powers to retire the petitioner under fundamental rule 56 pendency of representation does not place any restriction on that power. it was open to the State Government to retire the petitioner compulsorily provided conditions precedent laid down by the rules were satisfied". Pending representation State Government was not divested of its powers to retire the petitioner under fundamental rule 56 pendency of representation does not place any restriction on that power. it was open to the State Government to retire the petitioner compulsorily provided conditions precedent laid down by the rules were satisfied". In the case of (10) S R. Venkataraman V. Union of India and another (1979)2 SCC 491 the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of 'compulsory retirement' under rule 50(1) (1) where except one entry about integrity the entire record was good. In so far as the entry about tie integrity is concerned Mr. Lekhi, learned counsel for the Union of India conceded that there was nothing on record which justified compulsory retirement. That case was decided on concession of the learned counsel for the Union of India. That authority therefore cannot be said to have laid down that single entry in respect of doubtful integrity of the Government servant concerned. though other record may be good cannot form the basis of compulsory retirement under the relevant rules in case the conditions precedent are satisfied. 11. In (11) S. Lakshminarayanan V. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (197F) 2 SLR 780, the argument that the adverse remarks should be communicated was held to be having no substance. The court said that- "Where therefore on material which materials are found in the file the employer decides to compulsorily retire the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the adverse remarks should he communicated and he should be given an opportunity to reform himself". In (12) Dr. Ganeshilal Mishra V. State of Orissa 1977 (2) SLR 473, the court in para 5 said that uncommunicated adverse entries can be considered and furnish relevant material and reference was made to the Full Bench authority of that court in the case of (13) SSS Venkatrao V. State of Orissa and others. ILR 1974 Cuttack-207, . In the case of (14) Satpal Singh V. DIG Police Punjab and Haryana 1985 (2) SLR 36 . though it was not a case of non-communication of adverse entries of ACR it was held that existence of one entry of integrity during last 10 years can furnish the basis of compulsory retirement. ILR 1974 Cuttack-207, . In the case of (14) Satpal Singh V. DIG Police Punjab and Haryana 1985 (2) SLR 36 . though it was not a case of non-communication of adverse entries of ACR it was held that existence of one entry of integrity during last 10 years can furnish the basis of compulsory retirement. In the case of (15) S. N. log V State of M.P. (1981) 2 SLR-352 J. S. Verma as he then was was considering the case of judicial officer who was compulsorily retired by the Court. One of the adverse entries contained in the ACR was not communicated but it was considered while forming the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the judicial Officer. Placing reliance on the case of (16) Union of India V. M. E. Reddy AIR 1980 SC 563 learned Judge said that even uncommunicated adverse entries can b considered while retiring a Government servant in case the ingredients of rule are in existence. In the case of M E. Reddy (supra) the argument had been advanced that the adverse entries in the Confidential Reports should be communicated. The court said that "This argument. in our opinion appears to be based on a serious misconception. In the first place under the various rules on the subject it is not every adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks may be purely innocuous or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. Reference was made in the aforesaid case to the case of (17) State of U. P. V. Chandra Mohan Nigam (1976) 1 SCR 521 wherein it was held that- "We should hasten to add that when integrity of an officer is in question that will be an exceptional circumstance for which orders may be passed in respect of such a person under Rule 1 - (3) at any time if other conditions of the rule are fulfilled apart from the choice of disciplinary action which will also be open to Government". The learned Judge in the case of M. E. Reddy (supra) said that the order of compulsory retirement neither involves any stigma nor it can be said to be arbitrary. Reliance was also placed on the case of R. L. Butel (supra). In the case of (18) Brij Beharilal V. High Court of M. P. AIR 1581 SC 594 while holding that while considering the question of compulsory retirement it is desirable to make an over-all assessment of the Government servant's record it was observed that more than ordinary value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. The circumstances in which it is necessary to communicate adverse entries made in the Confidential Reports to a Government servant concerned in the aforesaid case more so in the case of Union of India V. M. E. Reddy were reiterated. 12. It will be proper to deal with few cases of this court in which as shall be presently shown contrary view in respect of consideration of uncommunicated adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports of the Government Servant while forming opinion as required under rule 244(2) of RSR appears to have been taken. In the case of (19) Babadur Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1981 (2) SLR 582 this Court was considering the case of a Government servant to whom adverse entries in his A.C.R. for the year 1968-69 and 1969-70 were conveyed but against them representation made by the Government servant was pending a decision was taken to compulsorily retire him and those adverse entries were considered. The learned Judge observed that because the petitioner hart not completed the qualifying service at the time of compulsory retirement the order is therefore liable to be quashed and the petition could be disposed of on that ground alone. However he proceeded to examine the case on merits also and said that from the case law discussed by him the principles deduced are that the adverse entry should be communicated and opportunity of making representation should be given to the Government servant and the representation should be considered and decided and it should be decided whether the adverse entries can be made use of against the Government servant. It appears that as stated earlier the case was not primarily decided on the point of non-communication of adverse entries. It appears that as stated earlier the case was not primarily decided on the point of non-communication of adverse entries. That apart referring to the case of M.E. Reddy (supra) the learned Judge said that what weighed heavily in M.E Reddy's case was doubtful integrity of a Government servant and it has not laid down that an order of compulsory retirement can be founded solely on the uncommunicated entries howsoever adverse they may be or it can be founded e'en on communicated adverse entries against which representations may be pending or disciplinary proceedings may be pending. 13. In case of (20) Bhootram v. State and others WLN (UC) 1980. page 83 another learned Single Judge of this Court referring to the case of M.E. Reddy (supra) and other cases including the case of (21) Shambhu Singh v. State. 1980 (2) SLR 499 . took a view that in case of compulsory retirement even uncommunicated entries so far as integrity is concerned can be taken into consideration. 14. In the case of (22) D. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu. AIR 1982 SC 793 while dealing with a case of promotion said that if after promotion there is no adverse entry in the service book to discreet or hunting even remotely that the Government servant had outlived his utility as a Government servant then the adverse entries prior to the promotion cannot be considered but if there was some entry not wholly favourable to the Government servant after his promotion one might hark back to similar or like entries in the past read them all in conjunction and conclude that the time had arrived for the Government servant to quite Government service. In the case of (23) H.C. Gangi v State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 65 the argument that Government servant was compulsorily retired on the basis of adverse entries of doubtful integrity was held to be not borne out by the two adverse entries on the question made by the Commissioner. Holding that the test in the case of compulsory retirement was public interest the court said that it does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Govt. could have formed the opinion that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant in that case at the age of 57 years. Holding that the test in the case of compulsory retirement was public interest the court said that it does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Govt. could have formed the opinion that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant in that case at the age of 57 years. In the case of 24) Registrar High Court of Madras v. K. Rajiah (1983) 3 SCC 211 the Supreme Court said that in the case of compulsory retirement of a member of subordinate judiciary the decision should be based on material otherwise it will be illegal arbitrary and invalid. 15. In the case of S.N. Jog v. State of M.P. (supra) J.S. Verma J. as he then was was dealing with a case of a member of subordinate judiciary of Madhya Pradesh and he placed reliance on the case of M.E. Reddy (supra) and referring to the case of Brij Behari Lal Agrawal (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. said that so far as the case of Brij Beharilal is concerned it cannot be read as lying down such a proposition and that too when the Supreme Court decision in M.E. Reddy's case saying the contrary was relied upon in Brij Beharilal's case (supra). Referring to the observations made in para 7 of Brij Beharilal's case the learned Judge said that what was contained in para 7 of the said judgment were merely an observation with regard to certain facts and is not either the decision of the Supreme Court on that point or the basis of the ultimate decision in Brij Beharilal's case (supra) which as earlier indicated was merely an overlooking two conflicting confidential reports for the same period by two successive Chief Justices. We respectfully agree with J. S. Verma J. and so far as Brij Beharilal's case is concerned and in our opinion it cannot be said to have laid down the law that even adverse entries in respect of doubtful integrity of a Government servant tan only be relied upon under rule 244(2) of RSR in case they are communicated and representations if any considered and decided. In (25) Jayanti Kumar Sinha V. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 72 an argument was advanced that the record of the Government was clean was based upon the assumption that the Government servant had not been communicated any adverse entry in the confidential roll. The argument was refuted. Counsel for the Union of India placing reliance on the record made submission that the entries are such that there was no obligation to communicate the same under the prescribed guidelines. The court said that:- "Mr. Rao had contended that there was no communication of adverse entries. Ordinarily when the entries relate to specific instances leading to adverse entries the communication thereof is sent to the officer concerned with a view to providing an opportunity for improvement of performance. The entries which we have extracted above are mostly based upon general assessment of the performance. As we have already pointed out he was communicated years back the general disapproval of his method of working. We are satisfied that the review proceedings were in consonance with the guidelines framed by the Government". It will therefore be clear from the aforesaid case of Jayanti Kumar (supra) that the Supreme Court can be said to have laid down and can be said to have reiterated its earlier decision that there is no obligation to communicate all the adverse entries and it will depend on the nature of adverse entries whether their non- communication is against the principles of natural justice. 16. As a result of the above discussion we are of the opinion that it is not every adverse entry which is necessary to be communicated to a Government servant ; there may be some observations while assessing the work and conduct of a Government servant by those who supervise his work and conduct come in contact which may be of general nature without specific instance and such entries even if not communicated can furnish relevant material to form opinion whether the retirement of a Government servant is in public interest or not under the relevant rules. We are further of the opinion that the entries in respect of doubtful integrity of an officer stand on a different footing more so in judiciary where the image of an officer is very important and the reputation of an officer travels faster and reaches to a place where the officer is posted on transfer even earlier to his joining. At this stage we will refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an adverse entry including one about doubtful integrity can only be made on the basis of some specific material. Reliance has been placed on the case of (26) Nepal Singh v. State of UP 1984 (3) SLR 126 . So far as this case of Nepal Singh is concerned it may be stated that it was a case of temporary Government servant and in para 8 of that judgment Pathak J. as then was said that- "The Superintendent of Police has also commented that the appellant was a corrupt officer who was not straight forward (whatever that mighty mean). On that we have this to say where the services of a Government servant on temporary appointment are terminated on the ground that his reputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention in the service the reputation for corrupt behaviour must be based on something more than a mere allegations ...............The State and for that matter any statutory employer must take great care when proceedings to terminate a career on the ground of unsuitability to ensure that is order is founded in definable material objectively assessed and relevant to the ground on which the termination is effected." It will be clear from the aforesaid extracted portion that in the judgment of the case of Nepal Singh (supra) the court was dealing with the termination and not a case of compulsory retirement. As stated earlier compulsory retirement does not carry any stigma if it is in accordance with law and conditions precedent or ingredients of the relevant rules are satisfied. As stated earlier compulsory retirement does not carry any stigma if it is in accordance with law and conditions precedent or ingredients of the relevant rules are satisfied. We are therefore of the opinion that the observations made in the case of Nepal Singh (supra) firstly were made in the case of temporary Government servant whose services were terminated on the ground of unsuitability and secondly a case of termination stands on different footing than the case of compulsory retirement and the observations made in the case of Nepal Singh (supra) cannot be attracted to the case of compulsory retirement of the petitioners. The Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge or even the Inspecting Judge if any has own-sources to know about the conduct and work of a member of the subordinate judiciary and unless he has malice or is biased against any person which will have to be pleaded and proved it will be presumed that a high functionary like him will act reasonably and properly. In case specific instances about corruption of a member of the judiciary come to the notice which by and large are likely to come to the notice on complaint they should be subject of disciplinary proceedings. In an adversary system where there are two parties if one party approaches of bribes a member of the subordinate judiciary to get a favourable order only that:at party and the member of the subordinate judiciary shall be privy to it. Neither the giver of bribe nor the taker of illegal gratification will say anything and therefore specific instances if any will remain unsubstantiated. We are of the opinion that even if there are no specific instances and the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice on assessment of cork and conduct of the judicial officer concerned makes an entry in his confidential roll that his integrity is doubtful even it the entry in respect of doubtful integrity is not communicated it can furnish material for forming an opinion that it is in pubic interest to retire the Government servant compulsorily In other words. we are of the opinion that un-communicated adverse entries in respect of Government servant so far as doubtful integrity is concerned and other observations in the Confidential Roll whit h are of general nature are not based upon any specific instances can be taken into consideration and it cannot be said that they do not furnish relevant material for forming an opinion that the retirement of a Government servant is in public interest. 17. An argument was advanced that the petitioner had already Peen compulsorily retired and therefore post-decisional opportunity to make representation against the adverse entries is of no consequence. Therefore the fact that this Court under its order dated October 4 1988 after supplying material to the petitioners gave opportunity to them to file representations which each of them filed and after considering the representations the Full Court again considered the matter and rejected the representations is of no consequence and the uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be read. Reliance in this connection was placed on (27) H.L. Trehan and others v. Union of India and others (1989) 1 SCC 764 which was a case of alteration of the terms and conditions of service to the prejudice of the employees under a circular issued by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of CORIL.. In para 12 (?-illegible) the court said that in its opinion the pre-decisional hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The court also said- "The authority who embarks upon a post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation of such a post-decisional opportunity". Reference was placed on (28) K.I. Shephard v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 431 . The Supreme Court said in that case that "Natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them". The Court in that case was considering the case of some of the excluded employees of the three erstwhile Banks which had been amalgamated under a scheme under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act 1988. The court said- "It is quite possible that a manoeuvring of the banking company adversely disposed of towards a particular employee of such hank could make a report against employee and have him excluded from further service under the transferee hank. The court said- "It is quite possible that a manoeuvring of the banking company adversely disposed of towards a particular employee of such hank could make a report against employee and have him excluded from further service under the transferee hank. The possibility of exclusion on the basis of some mistake such as to identity cannot also be ruled out. There is all the more apprehension of this type as the process has to be completed quick and very often the records of a large number of employees have to be scrutinised". It was in the facts of that case that a request of post-decisional hearing was declined. The court said- "It is common experience that once decision has been taken there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose". In our opinion it will depend on a forum whether post-decisional opportunity will yield any fruitful result or not. A forum like the Full Court of the High Court stands on a different footing and even post-decisional opportunity to file representation will be sufficient. Principles of natural justice cannot be laid down with mathematical precision and no straight-hacket formula can be laid down. It will be clear from our order dated October 4 1988 that while making the aforesaid order we had placed reliance on the basis of Kailash Chandra Agrawal (supra). The Full Court considered the representations but there was no change so far as compulsory retirement of the petitioner is concerned and we are of the opinion that even if before consideration of the case under rule 244 (2) of RSR the communication of adverse entries in respect of doubtful integrity would have been necessary which as held earlier was not necessary the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case when now they have been given opportunity to file representations which have been considered can have no grievance. By giving post-decisional opportunity under our order dated October 4 1988 principles of natural justice can be said to be complied with. By giving post-decisional opportunity under our order dated October 4 1988 principles of natural justice can be said to be complied with. Generally the belated communication of adverse entry to the Government servant concerned may be said to deprive him an opportunity to make effective representation and may not be of any consequence but it depends on the nature of entry as if it is on specific instance the necessary material may not be available with the Government servant but the same cannot be said of an adverse entry about integrity as most likely said earlier it is not to be based on specific instances. In case under orders of this court it is communicated then also the argument that it is belated communication will not be available. Re : Point (ii) 18. The then Chief Justice P. K. Banerjee of this Court under his order dated December 31. 1984 constituted a Screening Committee to scrutinise the cases in the light of rule 241(2) of RSR. The Screening Committee was constituted of the following Judges of this Court : i. Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. M. Kasliwal - Chairman ii. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. C. Jain- Member iii. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal- Member iv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Lodha- Member v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. S. Dave- Member The members of the aforesaid Screening Committee not only went through the APARs and other service record of the officers in respect of suspension disciplinary enquiries and punishments but also made on spot study in such of the districts where the petitioners and others who fell within the zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR were posted from time to time. The aforesaid spot study was made with the Members of the Bar and litigants. The first report of the Screening Committee was submitted on 2nd April. 1985 and it recommended the compulsory retirement of officers including G. L. Acharaya and Radhey Shyam Sharma the two petitioners in public interest. Alongwith the aforesaid recommendations detailed opinions in respect of each of the officers were submitted. In its meeting held on April. 2. 1985 the Screening Committee resolved that the Committee would be submitting reports in phases. 1985 and it recommended the compulsory retirement of officers including G. L. Acharaya and Radhey Shyam Sharma the two petitioners in public interest. Alongwith the aforesaid recommendations detailed opinions in respect of each of the officers were submitted. In its meeting held on April. 2. 1985 the Screening Committee resolved that the Committee would be submitting reports in phases. The Screening Committee under the directions of the Full Court after examining the record of the remaining members of judicial service who fell within the zone of consideration under rule 243(2) of RSR gave its report and under that report 14 members of Judicial Service were considered and out of those 14 officers one B. D. Johari had resigned. The cases of Sarva Shri M. C. Verma K. P. Mishra G. L. Khatri were also considered and the Committee was of the opinion that they should not be compulsorily retired. Considering the service records and spot inquiries regarding the integrity the Screening Committee formed an opinion that Sarva Shri D. C. Hazela J. P. Gupta M. P. Mittal Ram Niwas Sharma and Anandilal Verma should be kept under observation. The Committee recommended that Sarva Shri (1) V. P. Agrawal (2) K. N. Izaxena (3) Sohan Lai Mahendrawaria. (4) Champalal Banthia and (5) Shri Rikhab Raj Bhansali should be compulsorily retired in public interest from the Government service with immediate effect. In this second report the Committee enclosed detailed opinion recommending compulsory retirement qua the aforesaid officers. While dealing with the cases of individual petitioners we will be referring to the report of the Screening Committee in detail qua each officer. but for the present we are simply examining whether that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries made at places where the petitioners had been posted at one time or the other can furnish relevant material for forming an opinion under R. 244(2) of RSR. whether the petitioners should be retired compulsorily or not in public interest. The Full Court meeting of this Court was held on July 20 1985 at 11 a.m. at Jodhpur. It will appear from the paper book of the aforesaid meeting that in the agenda of the Full Court this item was at No. 1. whether the petitioners should be retired compulsorily or not in public interest. The Full Court meeting of this Court was held on July 20 1985 at 11 a.m. at Jodhpur. It will appear from the paper book of the aforesaid meeting that in the agenda of the Full Court this item was at No. 1. In the aforesaid Full Court meeting of 20th July 1985 the Full Court considered the report of the Screening Committee and after due deliberations and consideration of the records. the report was unanimously accepted by the Court in toto in so far as the petitioners. G. L. Acharaya Radhey Shyam Sharma and six others are concerned. With reference to the report of the Screening Committee dated April 2. 1985 a reference to which has already been made in the earlier part of this order the decision of the Full Court is as under : "Item No.-I : Consideration of the Report submitted by the Screening Committee constituted under Rule 244(2) of the RSR 1931. The report of the Screening Committee was taken up for consideration by the Court. After due deliberations and considerations of records the Report was unanimously accepted by the Court in toto. It was resolved to recommend in public interest forth-with compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 1951 of the following offers : 1. Shri Girdhar Lal Acharaya 2. Shri Vasu Dev Vyas 3. Nripat Singh Rajawat 4. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma 5. Shri R. C. Upadhyaya 6. Shri D. D. Khunteta 7. Shri P. C. Agrawal. 8. Shri Sukh Raj Bhandari The recommendations be sent forth-with to the State Government for issuing of orders of compulsory retirement with immediate effect. These officers shall be given 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of statutory notice". Under item No. 2 of the agenda of the Full Court any other matter' the Full Court resolved that the Screening Committee shall submit its report regarding the remaining cases within one month positively. It was in pursuance of this resolution of the Full Court that the Screening Committee which had earlier decided to submit its report in phases submitted its second report in respect of the petitioners V.P. Agrawal K.N. Saxena Sohanlal Mahendrawaria G.L. Banthia when alongwith one R. R. Bhansali, were recommended for compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR. It was in pursuance of this resolution of the Full Court that the Screening Committee which had earlier decided to submit its report in phases submitted its second report in respect of the petitioners V.P. Agrawal K.N. Saxena Sohanlal Mahendrawaria G.L. Banthia when alongwith one R. R. Bhansali, were recommended for compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR. The Committee in so far as other petitioners namely J. P. Gupta. M.P. Mittal and A. L. Verma are concerned as stated earlier recommended that they should be kept under observations. The cases of these petitioners were considered in the Full Court in its meeting held on September 30. 1985 at Jodhpur and under item No. 1 of the agenda after considering the report of the Screening Committee the Full (Court) took a decision to compulsory retire the petitioners. Sarva Shri V.P. Agrawal. K. N. Saxena. Sob tnlal Mabendrawaria C. L. Banthia J. P. Gupta M. P. Mittal A. L. Verma alongwith R. R. Bhansali. D C. Hajela and Ramniwas Sharma. It may be stated that though the Screening Committee as stated earlier so far as petitioners Sarva Shri J. P. Gupta M. P. Mittal and A. L. Verma and two others namely D. C. Hajela and Ram Niwas Sharma are concerned had recommended that they should be kept under observations but the Full Court after deliberations and perusal of service record took a decision to retire them compulsorily in public interest. The Full Court agreeing with the Screening Committee qua the petitioners Sarva Shri V. P. Agrawal K. N. Saxena Sohanlal C. L. Banthia and one R. R. Bhansali took a decision that they too be retired compulsorily in public interest with immediate effect. Thereafter. the orders of compulsory retirement of each of these petitioners alongwith others were issued by the Governor of Rajasthan who accepted the recommendations made by the Full Court. 19. Thereafter. the orders of compulsory retirement of each of these petitioners alongwith others were issued by the Governor of Rajasthan who accepted the recommendations made by the Full Court. 19. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that only the service records of each of the members of Judicial Service the petitioners in this case could furnish the relevant material for forming the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioners and the said part of the Screening Committee's report which is based on spot inquiries at places where the petitioners had been posted at one time or other could not furnish the relevant material. It is also contended on behalf of some of the petitioners that the Screening Committee could not have been appointed and its reports are not relevant could not have been considered. Chapter III of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. 1952 (for shoat the Rules) deal with 'Administrative Business of the Court'. Under rule 14 all administrative business of the court relating to the control over subordinate courts vested in the Court under Article 235 of the Constitution or otherwise and to the superintendence over the courts and tribunals vested in the court under Article 227 of the Constitution or otherwise shall be disposed of as provided in the subsequent rules. Rule 15 provides that relating to matters in clauses (a) to (k) and in any matter which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Committee as constituted under rule 16 may consider fit to be laid before the Full Court for consideration the Full Court shall be consulted Admittedly the question of appointing a committee does not come in rule 15. Rule 16 provides for formation of Administrative Committee and under its sub-rule (1) a committee of Judges shall be formed composed of the Chief Justice the Administrative Judge and such other fudge or Judges as the Chief Justice may from time to time appoint. The Committee shall be called as Administrative Committee. Under its sub-rule (?) subject to these Rules the Administrative Committee shall act for the court in its administrative business in respect of the matter enumerated in rule 17. The Committee shall be called as Administrative Committee. Under its sub-rule (?) subject to these Rules the Administrative Committee shall act for the court in its administrative business in respect of the matter enumerated in rule 17. It may be stated that though it appears from reading of rule 16 of the Rules that it is mandatory that the Administrative Committee should be appointed but for most of the period, no Administrative Committee has been appointed in this Court. Rule 17 deals with matters on which the Administrative Committee shall be consulted. Under rule 20 of the Rules subject to rule 15 and 17 the administrative business referred to in rule 14 shall be disposed of by the Chief Justice. We are of the opinion that the Chief Justice has power to dispose of administrative business and if the Chief Justice appoints a Committee of Judges for examining the cases of members of subordinate judiciary under rule 244(2) of RSR it can hardly be said that he has no such powers. We are of the opinion that the appointment of the Screening Committee by the Chief Justice for examining the cases of members of judicial service under rule 244(2) of RSR is in accordance with law and no objection can be taken to it. The matters to compulsorily retire a member of subordinate judiciary are ultimately to be considered by the Full Court. But before it is done it will always be better and necessary that a committee consisting of a few Judges is appointed by the Chief Justice to go into the service record of the members of subordinate judiciary and make recommendations and ultimately all the recommendations made by the Committee are recommendatory in nature and it is for the Full Court to accept the same or not and to take a final decision. 20. Therefore the appointment of the Screening Committee as stated earlier is in accordance with law and no objection can be taken by the petitioners so far as its constitution is concerned. 21. As already stated earlier the question arises as to the relevancy of the latter part of the report of the Screening Committee which part of the report is based on spot inquiries at places where the petitioners had been posted as Judicial Officers at one time or the other. 21. As already stated earlier the question arises as to the relevancy of the latter part of the report of the Screening Committee which part of the report is based on spot inquiries at places where the petitioners had been posted as Judicial Officers at one time or the other. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that if it be accepted that there was legal sanction behind the appointment of the Screening Committee and it would have screened and examined the service record the power by it was not properly exercised in so far as the members of the Screening Committee went to the various places where the officers had remained posted and made spot inquiries from the advocates and litigants. The procedure adopted w-s wrong and arbitrary. It is also contended that the Screening Committee should have confined itself only to the service record of the petitioners. 22. Part VI, Chapter XV of the RSR deals with 'records of service'. Under rule 160 (1) of RSR a service book in such form as may be prescribed by the Government shall be maintained for every Government servant from the date of his first appointment to the Government service except in the cases mentioned in that rule. It is mentioned therein that service book of each Government servant shall contain period of suspension from employment and interruption of service with full details of duration in the relevant column attested by the Attesting Officer; the reference of the order under which a Government servant has been suspended and subsequently reinstated shall be entered in the Service Book with full details indicating whether the period of suspension would count for the purpose of increment leave pension etc. or not. The purpose of maintaining service book of Government servant is that as and when he completes the requisite years of service making him eligible for pension his pension case may be prepared as it so appears from the perusal of rule 163 of RSR. It was contended hat only such service record as is maintained under the aforesaid rules of RSR can be looked into while examining the case of a Government servant ho falls within the zone of the consideration under rule 214(2) of RSR and no other record could be seen. It was contended hat only such service record as is maintained under the aforesaid rules of RSR can be looked into while examining the case of a Government servant ho falls within the zone of the consideration under rule 214(2) of RSR and no other record could be seen. We are unable to agree with the contention of the earned counsel for the petitioners as the law is settled that the entire service record s to be looked into though emphasis is to be laid on the APARs and the record of any of last 5 to 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement. We are of the opinion that besides the service book which is to be maintained under the aforesaid rules for the purpose as aforesaid it is competent or the appointing authority to see the other record of a Government servant concerned good or bad to arrive at a conclusion and form an opinion whether it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant or not. A Committee of five Judges of this Court which also had Justice N. M. Kasliwal and S. C. Agrawal as they then were as the members of the Committee went to various places in order to assess the performance of the officers concerned who fell within the zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR including the petitioners. It is common knowledge that the reputation about the integrity whether good or bad can hardly be concealed for long and more so of a judicial officer. There may be some reason for the Bar Association of a place or a cross section of it where a judicial officer is posted to complain about officer but experience shows that moment a judicial officer is transferred there is the end of the matte and even if there are complaints they are not pursued thereafter. There may be some reason for the Bar Association of a place or a cross section of it where a judicial officer is posted to complain about officer but experience shows that moment a judicial officer is transferred there is the end of the matte and even if there are complaints they are not pursued thereafter. But if a man is posted at different places during his service career and at each of the places his integrity has not been good or that members of judicial service at more than one place had reputation of doubtful integrity' and if members of the Screening Committee besides going through the APARs and other service record of the officers thought it proper to make spot inquiries at places where the officers who fell within the eligibility zone under sub-rule 244(2) of RSR remained posted at one time or the other to make assessment to know what image that officer had at a particular place/places it cannot be said that the method adopted by the Screening Committee was arbitrary. It has already been said earlier that good or bad reputation of a judicial officer in the present adversary system travels faster and reaches his place of posting by transfer much earlier than the officer joins the new place of posting and it the members of the committee in making spot inquiries also make an assessment about the petitioners and others as to whether the opinions expressed by the advocates and litigants to whom they talked are correct in our opinion no objection can he taken to the procedure adopted by it. After all it was not one Judge of this Court but few Judges amongst whom a few were senior most and had no bits against any member of the judicial service much less the petitioners and their assessment was unanimous. If it also took its own assessment as aforesaid alongwith service records into consideration it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the members of the Screening Committee is arbitrary ill gal and unwarranted. If it also took its own assessment as aforesaid alongwith service records into consideration it cannot be said that the procedure adopted by the members of the Screening Committee is arbitrary ill gal and unwarranted. We are of the opinion that the Chief Justice or the Court can also take decision to call for special records in respect of the members of subordinate judiciary who fall within the zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR and alongwith that special report if, any the other records including the APARs of the concerned officers can also be looked into. The recommendations of the Screening Committee shall be dealt with while considering the ewes of the individual petitioners. Assessment on the basis of that inquiries as aforesaid is not the only basis of the reports of the Screening Committee but they are also based on perusal of service record including APARs. The law is settled that the principles governing an order of preventive detention evolved by the Supreme Court. that if one of the several grounds of preventive detention is irrelevant or non-existent and the said ground is not in consequential or non-essential an order of detention would be invalid is not applicable in a case of an order of compulsory retirement which caste no stigma on a Government servant and cannot be equated with an order of affecting his right by way of disciplinary proceedings. This proposition needs no reference to any precedent. While examining the cases of individual petitioners we will examine the cases with both angles i. e. on the basis of other service records and APARs plus that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries as aforesaid as well as minus that part of the report in order to see whether there was some material or not on which a bonafide opinion could be formed whether it is in public interest to retire the petitioners or any of them. As already stated earlier the recommendations of the Screening Committee are recommendatory and the decision was to be taken by the Full Court and the decision ultimately was taken by the Full Court which considered the reasons for the opinion formed by the Screening Committee and agreeing with it. As already stated earlier the recommendations of the Screening Committee are recommendatory and the decision was to be taken by the Full Court and the decision ultimately was taken by the Full Court which considered the reasons for the opinion formed by the Screening Committee and agreeing with it. Even in a few cases where the Screening Committee do not recommend compulsory retirement and only recommended that they be kept under observation and no detailed opinion was attached in their cases the Full Court after perusal of service record and after consideration of the same and after deliberations took a decision to compulsory retire them. We are of the opinion that if live Judges of this Court who were members of the Screening Committee evolved a procedure that in addition to going through the records which include APARs they will like to make assessment in respect of each of the officers who fell within the zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR they could do so even that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries as aforesaid in our opinion could furnish relevant material for the purpose of rule 244(2) of RSR. Re : Point (iii) 23. As shall be presently shown though the entire record of a member of a judicial service for consideration whether he should be retired in public interest compulsorily or not under rule 244(2) of RSR is to be looked into but more weightage should be given to the records of about 10 years immediately preceding the forming of the opinion as required under the aforesaid Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that adverse entries if any after promotion of all or any of the petitioners to the posts of Additional Civil Judge Chief Judicial Magistrate or in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service the promotion might have been on officiating temporary or ad hoc basis cannot be considered and could not furnish relevant material for forming the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire any of the petitioners and that adverse record stood washed-off. It is also contented that the petitioners had been promoted and therefore the adverse entries if any prior to their promotion could not have been considered as it could not have furnished any material under rule 2442) of RSR. It is also contented that the petitioners had been promoted and therefore the adverse entries if any prior to their promotion could not have been considered as it could not have furnished any material under rule 2442) of RSR. While examining the individual cases we will consider the facts of each case and look into the arguments raised by each of the petitioners but presently we shall examine whether even in cases of compulsory retirement of a Government servant under rule 244(2) of RSR the aforesaid washed off theory will apply or that theory will only be applicable to a case of promotion. 24. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the above washed-off theory which means that the adverse entries prior to the promotion on temporary/ officiating ad hoc basis cannot be considered will also apply to the case of compulsory retirement. It is also contended that the old and stale adverse entries cannot be looked into. Mr. Singhvi. learned counsel for the High Court on the other hand contended that firstly the aforesaid washed-off theory does not apply to a case of compulsory retirement and the entire service record of each Government is to be looked into and secondly if it is assumed that the aforesaid washed-off theory is applicable even in the case of compulsory retirement the aforesaid theory will not be attracted to a case where after promotion a Government servant has earned adverse entries and in such a case similar or like entries earned even before promotion can be looked into and will be relevant. In other words he contended that even if there are some adverse entries against a Government servant and the Government servant after his promotion has earned like entries then alongwith the adverse entries earned by the Government servant after his promotion like entries prior to his promotion can also be considered and must be considered. 25. This court (S. B.) in the case of Bahadur Singh V State of Rajasthan (1981)2 SLR 582 took a view that once promotion has been given the consequence is that the adverse entries stood washed-off or wiped out. In (29) Ram Kumar Singh V. State of Rajasthan (1986) 2 Judicial Surveyor 1986 (SB) this court was dealing with a case of promotion. In (29) Ram Kumar Singh V. State of Rajasthan (1986) 2 Judicial Surveyor 1986 (SB) this court was dealing with a case of promotion. Rain Kumar Singh in that case despite adverse remarks had been promoted not only as Asstt.Engineer was confirmed bat was also promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis. The court posed a question whether the order with regard to the promotion on the post of Asstt. Engineer as well as Executive Engineer had the effect of washing-off the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Rolls made earlier ? The learned Judge placing reliance on the case of (30) State of Punjab V. Dewan Chunnilal AIR 197 SC 2086 said that the principles laid down in the aforesaid case with reference to the crossing of the efficiency bar would equally apply to a case where a Government servant has been confirmed on the post held by him on probation or officiating basis. The court placing reliance on the case of (31) Regional Manager V. Pawan Kumar Dubey AiR 1976 SC 1766 , said that the adverse entries prior to the posting of Ramkumar Singh as Asstt. Engineer and his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer should be deemed to have been washed-off. In the aforesaid case of Pawan Kumar Dubbey (supra) the court said that- "There were some old adverse entries also against the respondent. But they must be deemed to have been washed-off by orders of his promotion on ad hoc or officiating basis by an order of 7th March. 1972 which had been approved by the Deputy Transport Commissioner of U. P. on 18th March 1972 as required by the rules." In the case of D. Ramaswami V. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1982 SC 793 , the court besides saying that- "We do not say that the previous history of a Government servant should be completely ignored once he is promoted. Some times past events may help to assess present-conduct" also said that a compulsory retirement immediately after dropping of the charges framed on the basis of adverse entries cannot be sustained and will be invalid but still the court said- "If there was some entry nor wholly favourable to the appellant after his promotion might hark back to similar or like entries in the past read them all in conjunction and conclude-that the time had arrived for the Govt. servant to quit Govt. service" But there was nothing like it in that case the appeal was allowed and the order of retirement in service was made. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra V. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 948 in para 7 the court said that- "It is now settled that adverse entries if any awarded to any employee lose their significance on or after his promotion to a higher post". The Court also said- "It is now well settled that while considering the question of premature retirement it may be desirable to make an over-all assessment of the Government servant's record but while doing that more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration" The court observed that in none of the entries after promotion integrity was doubtful. Referring to the earlier cases the court said that- "This court has consistently taken the view that old and stale entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of premature retirement instead the entries of recent past of five to ten years should be considered in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government employee in public interest". Therefore the court confined the consideration to the entries of about 10 years. Referring to the case of (32) Amar Kant Chaudhary V. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 531 and earlier other cases which dealt with cases of promotion the court said that- "We are of the opinion that the same consideration must apply to a case where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service". The above observations were made while dealing with the question whether the adverse entries should be considered or not; the court said that there was not a single entry (uncommunicated) in respect of doubtful integrity. In the case of (33) S C. Vaish V. Union of India and another 1986(2) SLR 794 in para 9 the court referring to its earlier case of D. Ramaswami (supra) and other cases said that the law is that if a Government Servant has been promoted inspite of some adverse entries in his service record no value whatsoever can be attached to these adverse entries to deny him further promotion and these entries cannot be called in aid to justify the order of his compulsory retirement. 26. 26. It will appear from the above cases that if the promotion of an officer takes place then adverse entries prior to the promotion are washed off and should not be considered for forming requisite opinion under the relevant rule in respect of compulsory retirement of a Government servant but a discordant note appears to have been made in Mishrilal Gupta V. State of Uttar Pradesh 1976(l) SLR 131 by Justice K. N. Singh as he then was and he said in para 4 of the judgment-. "Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the petitioner was promoted on 9.2.1971 and as such any entries prior to that date could not be taken into account to retire the petitioner prematurely. I am not inclined to accept this contention". But then the learned Judge said- "But even assuming that any adverse entry prior to 9.2.1971 could not be taken into account there was sufficient material on record against the petitioner which related to the period subsequent to his promotion on the basis of which the State Government could reasonably form the opinion to retire the petitioner". In the case of Satpal Singh V. D.I.G. of Police 1985(2) SLR 36 the court took a view that adverse entries prior to the date of crossing Efficiency Bar can be looked into for premature retirement and the entire service record has to be scanned and reviewed and even one entry pertaining to integrity is sufficient to order premature retirement. 27. In the case of M. E. Reddy (supra) the Supreme Court has said that it is not an entry here or an entry there which has to be taken into consideration by the Government but the over-all picture of the officer during the long years of his service that be puts in has to be considered from the point of achieving higher standard of efficiency and dedication so as to be retained even after the officer has put in the requisite number of years of service. 28. 28. As a result of the view of the above case law we are of the opinion that though the entire service record of a Government servant has to be taken into consideration and the overall picture of an officer during the long years of service which be has put in has to be considered but old and stale entries should not be given much weightage and if the officer has been promoted then the adverse entries if any prior to his promotion shall be deemed to be washed off or wiped out but it after promotion if any such officer has earned adverse entries then while considering the case of that officer for premature retirement under the relevant rules like or similar entries prior to his promotion will have to be considered we are of the opinion that while considering the case of an officer for compulsory or premature retirement under the relevant rules the entire service record of the officer can be looked into but more weightage should be given to the service record and other material of about 10 years immediately preceding to the date when the case is examined by the competent authority. Re : Point (IV) 29. Though in the case of the petitioners some of the adverse entries had been communicated and some had not been considered but this Court thereafter considered proper and under its order dated October 4. 1988 it was ordered that the petitioners be given opportunity to make their representations against the adverse material if any, including that part of the report of the Screening Committee which was based on spot inquiries and of which reference has already been made in the earlier p in of this order. All that adverse material was made available to each of the petitioners and each of them filed representation to the High Court against uncommunicated adverse material which had been supplied to each of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Chief Justice was directed to confider the representations if any of each of the petitioners within the Rules and in case the representation of any of the petitioners in whole or in part is allowed only then to reconsider the cases of compulsory retirement in the light of the changed situation if any of such of the officers whose representation is accepted as aforesaid. Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted the committee of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Committee considered each and every representation and made recommendations. The recommendations of the Committee were placed before the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting held on March 30/31, 1989 considered the recommendations of the Committee in which the members of this Bench did not take any part. Under agenda No. 1 the Full Court took the following decisions : "Resolved that on re-consideration of the cases of compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officers named below according to the directions of the court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1720 of 1986 M. P. Mittal V. Rajasthan High Court and others and eight other connected writ petitions by order dated 4.10.1988 and 18.11.1988 and in the light of the representations of these officers we do not find any good ground to review the compulsory retirement of any of these officers and their representations are rejected". Thereafter the names of all the petitioners were mentioned. The Full Court considered the recommendations of the Committee and of the Chief Justice and after considering the representations the Full Court took a decision and rejected the representations in toto. A question arises whether in doing so it can be said that the directions of this Court dated October 4. 1988 were complied or not. Still a connected question arises whether once the Full Court considered the adverse entries of a members of subordinate judiciary and after considering the same has taken a decision to compulsorily retire the officer concerned then whether it is the Full Court alone which has jurisdiction to take a decision in respect of the representation of the Judicial Officers? There can be no dispute that as and when the Full Court considers the case of promotion or compulsory retirement of a member of Judicial Officer a paper book is prepared and synopsis of service record good or bad is prepared a corporate decision is taken by the Full Court and by taking the decision to supersede any member of judicial service or to retire a member of judicial service compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR the Full Court puts its seal also over the adverse entries if any of a member of judicial service. 30. 30. In (34) D. B. Special Appeal No. 1170/80 Champa Lal Banthia V. State and others and other connected three D. B. Special Appeals decided on December 2.1.81 which Special Appeal was against the decision of a Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1978 Champa Lal Banthia V. State of Rajasthan and others the question of wash-off theory was also examined by the Division Bench of this Court. The said Banthia is one of the petitioners. The court proceeded to examine the contentions railed by Shri C. L. Banthia that the adverse entries in his service record have been washed off. The court said that if the representations against adverse remarks in the ACRs of previous years have been rejected by the Chief Justice and as per the note for consideration of Full Court if the Full Court supersedes a member of judicial service then implicitly it endorsed the adverse entries/remarks against the judicial officer. If the adverse entries have been directly endorsed by the Full Court and one is superseded then it will only be proper that the Full Court should reconsider them. In our opinion this observation will equally apply to cases of compulsory retirement as by considering the adverse remarks also if a decision is taken by the Full Court to compulsorily retire a member of the judicial service it directly or implicitly endorses such remarks and the Full Court alone can accept the representation and order expunction of such adverse remarks. It can therefore be said that once the Full Court has taken a decision on the basis of some adverse entries which might or might not have been communicated and we have already dealt with them in earlier part of this order it can be said that the Full Court has put its seal and therefore despite the order of this Court it was the Full Court alone which could have taken a final decision on the representations of the petitioners against adverse material furnished to them and the Full Court as stated earlier rejected the representations and it is not mentioned therein that they are partly accepted. No doubt this Court directed the Chief Justice to consider the representations if any of the petitioners and had also directed that if any representation is accepted in whole or in part the cases of each of the petitioners should be reconsidered by the Court but the Chief Justice while considering the report of the committee appointed by him accepted some of the recommendations in toto and some with modifications but it was the Full Court alone which was competent to consider the representations and the Full Court considered the same and rejected the representations. 31. We may state that so far as that part of the report of the Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court, which is based on spot inquiries in respect of each of the petitioners is concerned even the Committee of three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice under the order dated October 4. 1988 of this Court has thought it proper to say that it is not required to express any opinion on it. In the earlier part of this order we have already said that the Chief Justice could have appointed a Committee and no objection can be taken so far as the appointment of the Screening Committee by the Chief Justice is concerned. We have already said earlier that the recommendations of the Screening Committee not only in respect of latter part of its report based on spot inquiries but also the report based on service record is recommendatory and it was for the Full Court alone to accept it or not. There can be no dispute that the report of the Screening Committee so far as spot inquiries are concerned is not based on specific instances and it is based on its assessment which was made on the basis of inquiries from the members of Bar and litigants. It will always be better if there are specific instances but we are of the opinion that so far as integrity of the officer is concerned it is not always possible rather it will be impossible to get specific instances because neither the litigant who gave illegal gratification will come forward nor the concerned officer ells anything about it but the reputation of the officer is such which can be hardly hidden and it is a sin which like all other sins cannot be concealed. for long. for long. At any rate it can be said that five Hon'ble Judges of this Court made spot inquiries in respect of integrity of the officers and the integrity of an officer more of a judicial officer is very important. If Judges would not bear the stamp of integrity and if they fail to adhere to reasonable if not the highest standard in that respect and have a controversial reputation of integrity then democracy of which the judiciary and more so the sudordinate judiciary where a large majority of cases arise will 'offer irreparably and will he peril. We are of the opinion that such of the officers about whom the Five Judges of the Screening Committee on spot inspection also found of doubtful integrity their such assessment also could be considered alongwith other material for forming the requisite opinion whether it w:is in public interest to retire them compulsorily or not. In case of S.N. Jog (supra) J S. Verma J. a; he 'hen was was dealing with the case of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer and observing that principles applicable to a Government servant should no doubt be applied while deciding the case of a subordinate judge- "It is however significant that the decision in the case of a subordinate judge reached in a Judges' meeting of the High Court is actually a corporate decision emerging as a result of discussion in the meeting wherein all possible points of view are likely to be visualised and duly projected. A corporated decision reached by large body of individuals of equal authority after discussion in a meeting is an inherent safeguard against arbitrariness and want of bonafides. Such an internal check is absent where the decision is by an individual or a hierarchy of individuals or unequal authority and that too without the benefit of discussion in a meeting. It is to this extent that the case of a subordinate Judge decided in a Judges' meeting of the High Court is distinguishable from that of other Government Servants in whose case the decision making process is not similar and the decision is not a corporate decision of a body of persons of equal authority acting together. This is relevant where arbitrariness or want of bonafide is alleged". 32. This is relevant where arbitrariness or want of bonafide is alleged". 32. While examining individual cases we will examine the case as stated earlier with or without recommendations of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries as aforesaid. 33. As a result of the above discussions of the points framed we deduce the following principles fore the decision of the present batch of writ petitions. (I) Adverse entries in APARs of the members of subordinate judiciary in respect of doubtful integrity or for that matter of any other Government servant stand on a different footing than other adverse entries and though the principles of natural justice will be attracted in so far as the adverse entries based on specific instances are concerned and an opportunity of filing representation against the adverse entry will have to be provided within a reasonable time if representation is made the same shall be considered and disposed of before it can furnish the relevant material for forming requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR but the same cannot be said of adverse entries in respect of doubtful integrity or lack of integrity and those uncommunicated entries can be taken into consideration and they will furnish the relevant material for forming the requisite opinion as aforesaid (2) During the service period of Government servants those superiors who come in close contact and have occasion to supervise their work and conduct make certain assessment which is based on their observations of the officer and entries are made which necessarily cannot be and are not based on specific instances they may be innocuous and not necessarily adverse but still will furnish relevant material for consideration of the case under rule 244(2) of RSR and it is not each and every entry which need be communicated and it will depend upon the nature of entry as to what is the effect of its non-communication. (3) The Court could have appointed a Screening Committee and its constitution was legal and besides looking at other service record the Committee could have made spot inquiries at places where a judicial officer remained posted at one time or the other and the report of the Committee could also be based on assessment made by it on spot inquiries in respect of an officer. At any rate if the assessment of the Screening Committee is that reputation or integrity of an officer is doubtful certainly that report alongwith other service record could have been considered by the Full Court and such record could have furnished the relevant material. (4) The entire service record or other records of the officer concerned is to be looked into while forming the opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR but more weightage should be given for the records of last about 10 years immediately preceding the forming of the opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR Old and stale entries should be ignored (5) On promotion on adhoc/temporary/officiating basis the earlier adverse entry if any is washed-off but it after promotion the officer concerned earned adverse entry then like or similar entry prior to promotion can be considered for forming the opinion as aforesaid under rule 244(2) of RSR (6) If at any anterior time the Full Court has considered the adverse entries and has taken a decision it shall be deemed to have put its seal over it and in such a case it is the Full Court alone which is competent to change or modify the adverse entries on a representation or otherwise of a member of subordinate judiciary. Now we will deal with the individual cases of the petitioners. M.P. MITTAL (D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1720/86) 34. The date of birth of the petitioner Shri M.P. Mittal is August 1. 1930. He has by now reached the age of superannuation but on the date when he was compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) of RSR he had not attained age of 58 years which is the age of superannuation but be had reached the age of 50 years though he had not completed 21 years -qualifying service' and as such it cannot be disputed and it is not disputed that his case could be considered under rule 244(2) of RSR. 35. The service dossier of Shri Mittal is as under : On the basis of result of the competitive examination Shri Mittal was appointed as Munsif Magistrate by the Government of Rajasthan and he joined the aforesaid post on July 5. 1965. He was Munsif Magistrate Neemkathana from July 5. 1965 to August 1. 1968 ; Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 2 Kota from August 10. 1968 to May 20. 1972 ; Munsif Magistrate Suratgarh from May 31. 1965. He was Munsif Magistrate Neemkathana from July 5. 1965 to August 1. 1968 ; Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 2 Kota from August 10. 1968 to May 20. 1972 ; Munsif Magistrate Suratgarh from May 31. 1972 to April 1. 1974; he was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and was posted as such at Jhalawar whore he worked as Chief Judicial Magistrate from April 2. 1974 to May 15 1976 Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu from May 24. 1976 to December 8. 1976. He was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and posted as Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. I Dholpur where he worked as such from December 17. 1976 to May 25. 1987, He worked as Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur from June 3 1978 to September 20 1978 ; Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1 Jodhpur from September 20. 1978 to May 28. 1979 Addl. District and Sessions Judge Kota from June 7. 1979 to June 12. 1980 Addl, District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar from June 21 1980 to April 25. 1981 Addl. District and Sessions Judge Rajsamand from May 4 1981 to August 10. 1981 ; Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Baran from August 20 1981 to October 13. 1981 ; Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 4 Jaipur City from October 17 1981 to April 18 1983 ; Special Judge CBI cases Jaipur from April 18 1983 to May 3 1984 and Controller of Litigation Govt. Advocate Office Jodhpur from June 12. 1984 to December 17. 1984, As the promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was on officiating basis he was reverted to Rajasthan Judicial Service by the High Court vide Order No. Est/ RJS/184/84 dated December 7. 1984 when he was working as Controller Litigation a post of District Judge carrying special pay of Rs. 200/- p.m. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court alongwith few other judicial officers who too were reverted to the lower cadre of Judicial Service but the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed and was not even admitted. 200/- p.m. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court alongwith few other judicial officers who too were reverted to the lower cadre of Judicial Service but the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed and was not even admitted. The result of the aforesaid decision is that so far as the promotion of the petitioner to Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on officiating basis is concerned has no relevance because he was not confirmed as such and the challenge to the aforesaid non-confirmation did not survive in the Supreme Court. After the aforesaid decision of the Government not to confirm him and the dismissal of his writ petition in the Supreme Court. the petitioner will have to be taken to be the member of Rajasthan Judicial Service when he was compulsorily retired under rule 244 (2) of RSR under order of the Governor of Rajasthan dated September 18. 1985 (Annr.1). The said order was made in public interest on the recommendations of the High Court. 36. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of his compulsory retirement inter alia on the grounds that he has been punished twice once he was reverted frow Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to Rajasthan Judicial Service and now he has been prematurely retired under rule 244(2) of RSR on the same grounds ; that uncommunicated adverse material was not supplied to the petitioner and still the same has been considered for forming the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner and thereby the principles of natural justice have been violated ; the established procedure for recording the adverse record of judicial officers has not peen followed ; irrelevant material has been considered in forming the requisite opinion as aforesaid. A ground has also been taken that the petitioner had claimed seniority over the then Registrar of the High Court Shri S. R. Bajwa and other persons posted as Addl. Registrar (Vigilance). Private Secretary and all of them had one aim only viz., to denigrate the petitioner by hook or crook. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutionality of rule 244 (2) of RSR in the body of the writ petition but in the ground no such relief has been claimed and that apart the law is settled that once the constitutionality of a rule has been upheld by the Court it cannot be challenged again. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutionality of rule 244 (2) of RSR in the body of the writ petition but in the ground no such relief has been claimed and that apart the law is settled that once the constitutionality of a rule has been upheld by the Court it cannot be challenged again. The Supreme Court in the case of (35) I. G. Shivcharane Singh V. State of Mysore AIR 1965 SC 280 , has said that the validity of rule in so far as it permits premature retirement of a Government servant is well settled. Again in the case of (36) Tara Singh V. State of Rajasthan and others 1975 (I) SLR 777, the court upheld the validity of rule 244 (2) of RSR. if the validity of a rule has been upheld on one ground it cannot be challenged on the other ground. Similarly so far as the ground of challenge to the order of compulsory retirement in the case of the petitioner is concerned that S. R. Bajwa and others were responsible it may be stated that neither Shri S. R. Bajwa nor any other person named in the aforesaid ground has been made party to the writ petition. It is not the Registrar of the High Court who writes APARs of the m-tubers of subordinate judiciary and we cannot even think that the Chief Justice will Fe governed in the least extent by his Registrar so far as writing of the APARs is concerned. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the principles governing the order of preventive detention evolved by the Supreme Court. that it one of several grounds of preventive detention is irrelevant or non-existent and the said ground is not inconsequential or non-essential, an order of detention would be invalid is not applicable to a case of an order of compulsory retirement which castes no stigma on a Government servant and cannot be equated with an order of affecting his right by way of disciplinary proceedings. We may also state that while examining the case of compulsory retirement this Court is only called upon to see whether there is some relevant material on which the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire a Government servant could he reasonably and bonafidely formed and the court is not expected to go in to the sufficiency of the material. We may also state that while examining the case of compulsory retirement this Court is only called upon to see whether there is some relevant material on which the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire a Government servant could he reasonably and bonafidely formed and the court is not expected to go in to the sufficiency of the material. We also said while evolving the principles which will govern the present batch of writ petitions that though the entire service record of a Government is to be looked into but weightage is not to be given to old and stale entries and more weightage should be given to the records of about last 10 years immediately preceding the compulsory retirement. 37. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order dated September 18. 1985 and therefore 10 years service record is to be looked into which is from 1975 onwards because so far as the APAR of 1975 is concerned it was due to be recorded after the year 1985. So far as the record prior to 1975 is concerned it will appear that the petitioner earned adverse entries in his APARs for the year 1968 and 1974. The adverse entry in the APAR for the year 1968 made in his APAR by Hon'ble Administrative Judge was 'Disposal below average. Quality of work needs improvement as 6 out of 16 judgments were marked as below standard by subordinate appellate courts'. In the APAR for the year 1974. the remark given by the Administrative Judge was should improve quality of his judgments". Four judgments were found below standard by the appellate courts. The petitioner though contested that these entries were communicated but a perusal of the record would leave no doubt that these remarks were communicated to the petitioner. Now we come to the APARs from the year 1975 onwards which are as under:- 1975:-"Should improve the quality of his judgments". 1977:-"Disposal not satisfactory. He should improve the quality of judgments". 1981:-"Quality of his judgments needs improvement." 1982:-"Disposal is poor. The quality of his judgments needs improvement". 1983:-Disposal poor Average officer. Integrity not upto the mark. Should improve his image." Because of the above adverse entries in his APAR for the aforesaid years the then Chief Justice inspected his court on 14th November. 1980 when the petitioner was working as Addl. 1981:-"Quality of his judgments needs improvement." 1982:-"Disposal is poor. The quality of his judgments needs improvement". 1983:-Disposal poor Average officer. Integrity not upto the mark. Should improve his image." Because of the above adverse entries in his APAR for the aforesaid years the then Chief Justice inspected his court on 14th November. 1980 when the petitioner was working as Addl. District Judge No. 2 Alwar and the Chief Justice observed as under : "I have gone through some of the judgments written by Mr. Mittal in the following cases : 1. Sessions case No. 18 of 1975. State V. Khayali and others under section 302/34 IPC decided on 21-8-1980. 2. Sessions case No. 11 of 1980. State V. Girdhari and others under Sections 302 and 325 IPC decided on 23-8-1980. 3. Civil Original suit No. 7 of 1975 Prabhudayal Vs. Bala Bux decided on 23.10.1980. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1977 Hiralal Vs. State of Rajasthan. and found that they are neither well written in good language nor supported by logical reasoning. The Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Mr. M. P. Mittal has neither made any serious attempt to decide sessions cases expeditiously nor has taken any pains to decide civil original suits and civil appeals. He has simply decided ripe cases and claimed credit therefor". A copy of the aforesaid inspection note of the then Chief Justice was also sent to the petitioner for compliance. The remarks for the year 1975 were communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.277/PA/R/dated August 19, 1876 (1976) and four of the judgments out of 31 were found below standard by the appellate courts. Similarly; in the year 1977, 3 judgments out of 34 were found below standard by the appellate courts. The case of the petitioner in so far as the aforesaid entries are concerned is that they are of general nature and none of them was adverse and the disposal for the year 1975 and 76 was 130% and 115% respectively as per APAR recorded. The petitioner also says that his disposal was more and was never below standard. The petitioner has also said that the remarks in the APAR for the year 1981 was not communicated to him. So far as the remarks in the judgments in inspection note dated November 14, 1980 of Chief Justice while the petitioner was posted as Addl. The petitioner also says that his disposal was more and was never below standard. The petitioner has also said that the remarks in the APAR for the year 1981 was not communicated to him. So far as the remarks in the judgments in inspection note dated November 14, 1980 of Chief Justice while the petitioner was posted as Addl. District Judge No. 2 Alwar is concerned his case is that it is contradictory and without serious efforts cases could not have been disposed of and he had to hold courts at three places. The remarks of the Chief Justice according to the petitioner are not justified. For the poor disposal of cases in the year 1982 as per the case of the petitioner he was posted as Special Judge ACD cases and in Anti corruption cases trial takes very long time and no Judge appointed and posted prior to the petitioner since 1973 could give 100% disposal. The petitioner has also given the circumstances why in 1983 he could not dispose of much work. It is also his case that there is circular dated September 29, 1977 of the High Court under which the court of CBI cases has been exempted from the requirement of percentage of disposal of cases. In respect of remarks of integrity in the APAR for the year 1983 as per the case of the petitioner the Hon'ble Chief Justice was not appraised with correct position and it has resulted in the wrong remarks about the integrity. 38. A perusal of the aforesaid record of the petitioner will show that there was material in respect of his efficiency on the basis of which the court could have formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner should be retired compulsorily in public interest. Insufficiency is one of the considerations on which if the competent authority forms requisite opinion that it is in public interest to retire a Government servant then it cannot be said that the said opinion could not be formed and has not formed reasonably and bona fidely and has been formed arbitrarily. 39. In the earlier part of this order we have said that the adverse entries in respect of integrity of an officer stands on a different footing and even if they had not been communicated they can be considered. 39. In the earlier part of this order we have said that the adverse entries in respect of integrity of an officer stands on a different footing and even if they had not been communicated they can be considered. We have also said that single entry in the service record of a Government servant so far as doubtful integrity is concerned can furnish sufficient material to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. The adverse entries in the APAR of the petitioner have already been extracted in the earlier part of this order and it is not the case of the petitioner that any entry prior to 1981 was not communicated to him. His case is that they adverse entries from 1981 onwards were not communicated to him. So far the adverse entries in the APARs for the year 1983 is concerned besides saying that the disposal is poor it has also been said that the integrity is not upto the mark and he should improve his image. As already stated earlier under order dated October 4, 1988 we granted opportunity to the petitioner and others to file representations against such of the adverse entries in APAR which had not been communicated to them The petitioner filed representation in respect of the APAR for the year 1975 onwards which have been referred to in the earlier part of this order. The Committee of three Hon'ble Judges appointed by the Chief Justice had considered the representation and said that the APAR for the year 1974 and 1975 had already been communicated to him prior to his retirement and therefore the explanation of Shri Mittal regarding these APARs need not be considered by the Committee. It can therefore be said that so far as the adverse entries made for the year 1975 are concerned they were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner does not appear to have filed any representation and therefore it cannot be said that uncommunicated entry was considered by the competent authority for forming the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) or RSR. The Committee accepted the representation in respect of adverse entry for the year 1977. So fat as the adverse entry for the year 1981 is concerned the Committee said that the remarks regarding quality of judgment deserves to be retained. The Committee accepted the representation in respect of adverse entry for the year 1977. So fat as the adverse entry for the year 1981 is concerned the Committee said that the remarks regarding quality of judgment deserves to be retained. The adverse entry in respect of APAR for the year 1982 was partly accepted but so far as quality of judgment are concerned the Committee was of the opinion that as no judgment came to the notice of the court it deserves to be accepted. Coming to the APAR for the year 1983 the Committee accepted the representation so far as poor disposal is concerned but so far as the quality of work is concerned the Committee was of the opinion that the order of discharge passed by Shri Mittal is subjudice in SLP before the Supreme Court and the Committee did not take note of the observations made by Sidhu J. It may be stated that the petitioner had discharged an accused Sooraj Karan Airon in an ACD case and the State Government filed a revision petition No. 168/82 against the discharge and the order of discharge was set aside. K. S. Sidhu J. had given the remarks Judgment neither lucid to the point nor logical. Discussion of evidence & law not thorough-Perverse Order'. "Conduct of Proceedings the Order of discharge of the accused in this case has been made from considerations other than merits. A dishonest judgment". Against the aforesaid order SLP was filed before the Supreme Court by Shri Airon and it was admitted and the operation of the judgment of K. S. Sidhu J. is said to have been stayed. However ,it cannot be said that the remarks of Mr. K. S. Sidhu J. so far as the petitioner is concerned should also be taken to be stayed. At any rate the conduct of the petitioner in that case was adversely commented. Apart from this the Justice in the APAR for the year 1983 as stated earlier had given adverse remarks and has also said that the integrity is not upto the mark and he should improve image. At any rate the conduct of the petitioner in that case was adversely commented. Apart from this the Justice in the APAR for the year 1983 as stated earlier had given adverse remarks and has also said that the integrity is not upto the mark and he should improve image. The Committee appointed by the Chief Justice to examine the representation of Shri Mittal who made a representation after the adverse material was supplied under the order of this Court dated October 4, 1988 has no doubt said that the remarks so far as disposal is concerned the representation is accepted but the Committee has not expunged the remarks so far as 'integrity not upto the mark' 'should improve his image is concerned. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that because all the adverse material had been considered earlier by the Full Court while taking decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner, it was the Full Court alone which could have accepted the representation filed by the petitioner. It has already been said that the petitioner had been reverted to the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service from the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to which he had been promoted on officiating basis and therefore in our opinion so far as the theory of wash-off of the adverse entries prior to the promotion is concerned it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner because as stated earlier he had not been confirmed and had been reverted from the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to Rajasthan Judicial Service and the challenge to his reversion even before the Supreme Court did not survive and the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L P. The Supreme Court did so after perusing all the APARs of the petitioner and therefore it can be said that the wash off theory is not applicable to the case of the petitioner in so far as adverse entries after his promotion as Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate is concerned. We have already said that though the entire record of a Government servant is considered while considering a case under the relevant rule to see whether it will be in the public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant or not but more weightage is to be given to the records of about last 10 years immediately preceding the consideration of the case as aforesaid. The petitioner was retired compulsorily in 1985 and as such his APAR for the year 1985 was to be recorded after December 1985 and 10 years record in the case of the petitioner means the record from the year 1975 onwards. The entire service record of the petitioner has been made available to us and we have gone through it. In the APAR for the year 1975 four of his judgments were found to be below standard, 22 standard and in 5 no remarks were given. In the first of those four cases it was recorded 'law not properly applied & wrong presumption read on conjectures'. In respect of the third judgment it was recorded-'basic fact as to whether article remained intact or not was not considered' and in respect of the fourth judgment it was recorded that the order of transfer was passed against the law and against the express order of the Sessions Judge'. The disposal was found to be good but the Administrative Judge remarked that he should improve the quality of judgments and the Chief Justice said. An average Officer'. The said remarks were communicated to the petitioner and it cannot be disputed and it does not appear that the petitioner filed any representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1975. Coming to the APAR for the year 1976 one judgment was found below standard and it was remarked that 'evidence not discussed properly'. He was classified as average officer and the integrity was also certified. In the year 1977 so far as integrity is concerned the reporting said -Nothing adverse has come to my notice'. The reporting officer could not comment so far as the quality of judgments was concerned because the judgments of Addl. District Judge do not come in appeal or revision before the Sessions Judge. The disposal of work was given 52% and even the reporting officer said that 'should work hard'. Three of the judgments were found to be below standard 21 standard in 10 no remarks were made. The reasons for the judgments being found below standard were mentioned in the APAR. The learned Administrative Judge said that 'disposal not satisfactory. He should improve the quality of judgments' and the Chief Justice agreed with the learned Administrative Judge. There is no APAR available for the year 1978. The reasons for the judgments being found below standard were mentioned in the APAR. The learned Administrative Judge said that 'disposal not satisfactory. He should improve the quality of judgments' and the Chief Justice agreed with the learned Administrative Judge. There is no APAR available for the year 1978. In the year 1979 it was remarked by the Administrative Judge that "disposal & quality of work satisfactory and fair respectively. An average Judicial Officer. Always interested in postings of his like and brings for them". To us it appears that the word 'pressure' in- between the word brings' and for' is missing and it is a slip of pen. In the year 1980 the petitioner was classified as an average officer. So far as his integrity is concerned. it was said 'nothing adverse has come to my notice or has been reported to me'. In the year 19t l the Chief Justice remarked "Shri M. P. Mittal is an average judicial officer. The quality of his judgments needs improvement". We have already made a reference to the inspection note made by the Chief Justice on November 14, 1980 of the Court of the petitioner when he was posted as Addl. District Judge No. 2 Alwar and a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner. In his inspection note his work was found to be not satisfactory and the judgments were neither found to be well written in good language nor supported by logical reasoning. Adverse remarks were made so far as his working is concerned. In 1982 the remarks are Shri M. P. Mittal is an average judicial officer. The disposal is poor. The quality of his judgments needs improvement'. Reference has already been made to his APARs for the year 1983 and need not be repeated here. To our mind from the aforesaid perusal of the APARs and other service record of the petitioner for the last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement will show that so far as his efficiency is concerned, it was impaired and was not upto the mark. Even his integrity during the year 1983 was not found beyond doubt and upto the mark and even if we assume for the sake of arguments that because the judgment of K. S. Sidhu J. is subjudice before the Supreme Court in SLP and its operation has been stayed. Even his integrity during the year 1983 was not found beyond doubt and upto the mark and even if we assume for the sake of arguments that because the judgment of K. S. Sidhu J. is subjudice before the Supreme Court in SLP and its operation has been stayed. it can be said that from the other material on record the competent authority court have bona fide come to the conclusion and could have formed the requisite opinion it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner as a result of his inefficiency or efficiency being impaired. So far as earlier service records of the petitioner prior to 1975 is concerned. it was some time good and some time bad so far as the quality of judgments and disposal of work is concerned. 40. The Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges with N. M. Kasliwal ,J. as he then was as its Chairman and S. C. Agrawal J. as he then was as its member had gone to various places where the petitioner had been posted at one time or the other and had made spot inquiries from the Advocates and litigants and we have said earlier that the Screening Committee could have adopted this procedure also and there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in it and the Committee also made recommendations on the basis of assessment made by it on the spot inquiry, it was a collective decision of five Hon'ble Judges against whom there is not even a suggestion of arty motive. ill-will or mala fides either by the petitioner or any of the petitioners. The Screening Committee so far as the petitioner is concerned had not recommended that he be compulsorily retired in public interest but recommended that he should be kept under observations. But the Full Court after considering the record including the report of the Screening Committee and after deliberations was of the opinion that the petitioner should also be retired compulsorily and it can hardly be disputed that it was the Full Court alone which could take a decision and the recommendations of the Screening Committee were only recommendatory. It is the Full Court which has taken the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily in public interest and it could have taken into consideration the opinion of the Screening Committee so far as the petitioner is concerned that he should be watched. It is the Full Court which has taken the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily in public interest and it could have taken into consideration the opinion of the Screening Committee so far as the petitioner is concerned that he should be watched. The recommendation of the Screening Committee that the petitioner should be watched were based on entire service record of the petitioner and not only on the spot inquiry. No doubt as the Screening Committee did not recommend compulsory retirement of the petitioner it did not annex detailed opinion as in the case of those who were recommended by it for compulsory retirement. But all the record was considered by the Full Court and it alone could take a final decision and it did take one that a recommendation be made to the Governor to compulsorily retire the petitioner. We are of the opinion that even if the report of the Screening Committee that the petitioner be watched is excluded and is not considered it is not a case where it can be said that there was no relevant material whatsoever on the basis of which the Full Court could have formed the requisite opinion that it will be in the public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner and the decision of the Full Court to us appears to be bonafide and based on relevant material which directly relates to the efficiency of the petitioner as a judicial officer being impaired and it cannot be said that the requisite opinion was formed on irrelevant considerations or irrelevant material or for any collateral purpose. 41. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. SOHANLAL (D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1012/87) 42. The date of birth of the petitioner is January 8 1933. As a result of succeeding in competitive examination for Rajasthan judicial Service held in 1966. by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the petitioner was selected and appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service vide order dated August 23, 1967. He joined as Munsiff Magistrate Bikaner on September 22, 1961 and remained there till December 23, 1969; Addl. Munsif Magistrate Hindaun from January 2, 1970 to June 30, 1971 Munsiff Magistrate Hindaun from June 30, 1971 to May 7, 1973; Munsiff Magistrate Jhunjhunu from May 16, 1973 to September 21, 1974; Addl. He joined as Munsiff Magistrate Bikaner on September 22, 1961 and remained there till December 23, 1969; Addl. Munsif Magistrate Hindaun from January 2, 1970 to June 30, 1971 Munsiff Magistrate Hindaun from June 30, 1971 to May 7, 1973; Munsiff Magistrate Jhunjhunu from May 16, 1973 to September 21, 1974; Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.1 Dholpur from September 30, 1974 till October 18-4-1974; Munsiff Magistrate Karauli from Oct 11, 1974 to June 28 1977. Munsif Magistrate Banswara from July 4, 1977 to September 23, 1973. He was promoted as Civil Judge under order dated September 9 19-18 and remained as Addl. Civil Judge (JSCC) Jaipur from October 5, 1978 to April 16, 1919 Addl. C J.M. (SI E) Jaipur from April 16, 1979 to August 11, 1980. The petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate in April 1979 and was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur where he remained as such from August 20, 1980 to July 5, 1983. Then the petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under order dated April 4, 1983 and posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. I Bharatpur and remained there as such from September 6, 1983 to September 8, 1983; Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2 Bharatpur from September 8, 1983 to December 18, 1984 and Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge Deeg till the date of his compulsory retirement under order dated September 18, 1985 made under rule 244(2) of RSR on the recommendations of the High Court. 43. The petitioner has challenged his compulsory retirement inter alia on the grounds that there was no material against him on the basis of which requisite opinion could be formed warranting his compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR; uncommunicated adverse material. 43. The petitioner has challenged his compulsory retirement inter alia on the grounds that there was no material against him on the basis of which requisite opinion could be formed warranting his compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR; uncommunicated adverse material. if any could not have been considered and could not have furnished relevant material under rule 244(2) of RSR and the order has been passed for extraneous consideration and for collateral purposes; there is no dispute that ingredients of rule 244(2) of RSR are that the Government servant must have either attained the age of 1 0 years which the petitioner had attained or must have completed 25 years' qualifying service and so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned according to the petitioner only one of the relevant ingredient of rule 244(2) of RSR that the retirement can be in 'public interest' is lacking in this case. 44. We have already said earlier that the adverse remarks except the adverse remarks of integrity and remarks which are of general nature and not adverse are to be communicated to the Government servant and opportunity to file representations against the same is to be afforded within a reasonable time and the representation has to be decided and only then it could be relevant material under rule 244(2) of RSR. We have also said earlier that the adverse entries if any prior to the promotion on officiating/temporary/ad hoc basis stand washed-off consequent to such promotion but if after the promotion a Government has earned Ike entries then alongwith the entries earned after promotion the earlier entries can be taken into consideration. The principles have been deduced in the earlier part of this order by us and we will examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the principles so deduced. 45. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order dated Sept. 18, 1985 and though we will consider entire service record but weightage will be given to the service record to the petitioner pertaining to last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement In other words the service record of the petitioner from the year 1975 onwards as in the case of earlier petitioner Shri M.Y. Mittal. shall be considered giving weightage as aforesaid. All the relevant record has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the High Court. shall be considered giving weightage as aforesaid. All the relevant record has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the High Court. In the case of the petitioner also some of the adverse material which had not been communicated to him was made available to him and opportunity to file representation was allowed to him and representation was filed by the petitioner which was considered by the Committee appointed by the Chief Justice and thereafter by the Full Court. but it was rejected and the effect of the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is that there is no change in the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner so far as the competent authority is concerned. 46. Prior to his first promotion as Civil Judge under order dated Sept. 9, 1978 and his posting as Addl. Civil Judge on October 5, 1978 the petitioner had been considered for promotion to the aforesaid post in the year 1976 and 1977 and 1977 on three occasions but he was superseded. It was after superseding him on three occasions as aforesaid that the petitioner was promoted on September 9 1978 as Civil Judge vide order Ex.1 on officiating basis. For the year 1975. the Reporting Officer reported At Karauli nothing heard against the integrity of the officer' Not a very cool minded officer'. So far as capacity to control the proceedings in the court and follow the procedure prescribed by law it was reported by the reporting officer that -generally satisfactory. Leaves work of DRC cases on Reader". In the general remarks the reporting officer said 'looking to his hopelessly bad past the officer needs strict control and supervision although there were no complaints against him at Karauli. He should devote himself equally to disposal of Civil cases. He is rough and lacks tact and courtesy. He remaind on PL against the advice of Hon'ble HC and the District Judge on the false pretext of illness". The Administrative Judge remarked 'Quality of his judgment is poor Over all. Not a good officer'. Chief Justice remarked 'Needs a close watch. Should improve his image through hard work'. The aforesaid adverse entry was communicated to him under letter dated November 20 1976. No representation appears to have been filed. In the APAR for the period July 17, 1976 to December 31 1976 the reporting officer said- "A close watch was kept. Chief Justice remarked 'Needs a close watch. Should improve his image through hard work'. The aforesaid adverse entry was communicated to him under letter dated November 20 1976. No representation appears to have been filed. In the APAR for the period July 17, 1976 to December 31 1976 the reporting officer said- "A close watch was kept. It was found that the integrity is doubtful. In column No. 2 which is if he is fair and impartial in dealing with the Public and the Bar' the reporting officer said -As the integrity is doubtful it cannot be said he is fair or impartial'. In column No. 4 which is in respect to his private character etc. the reporting officer said 'nothing accept (except) doubtful integrity'.The reporting officer with held the integrity certificate of the petitioner for the aforesaid year. There is no remark either by the Administrative Judge or by the Chief Justice. One judgment was found below standard. Apart from writing the aforesaid remarks in the APARs for the year 1976 the District Judge who was the reporting officer also sent a separate communication to the Registrar in view of the facts that in the earlier APARs he was asked to keep a close watch. The Reporting (Officer) in the aforesaid letter said that though no written complaint/complaints were received by him from any quarter regarding the integrity of the petitioner but there were some whisperings against his integrity and it is stated to be doubtful. He also said-'"I am also not very sure about the integrity of the officer concerned and therefore feel that his integrity is doubtful. Therefore I have also withheld the certificate of integrity in his confidential report". The District Judge also said that:- "A case has also been brought to my notice during inspection of the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge Gangapur City that in a Criminal case at the first instance Munsif Magistrate Shri Sohanlal refused the bail to an accused but after some time without assigning any new reasons he accepted his bail application and released him on bail. It is important to note that the bail application of this accused was rejected by the Addi. Sessions Judge as well as by the Hon'ble High Court. This fact further strengthens the rumours about his doubtful integrity". It is important to note that the bail application of this accused was rejected by the Addi. Sessions Judge as well as by the Hon'ble High Court. This fact further strengthens the rumours about his doubtful integrity". The aforesaid letter was sent along with APAR f.'r the year 1976 the adverse entry of which has been communicated to him as stated above. In the year 1977 there are two reports o' the reporting officer perhaps because during that year the petitioner remained under two District Judges. In one of the two reports the reporting officer said that "though last year there were some complaints but nothing against the officer was heard thereafter". In the other report from July 4, 1977 to December 31, 1977 the reporting officer said that "No complaints against his integrity during the period under review" the work was found to be satisfactory. The Administrative Judge said that -Disposal standard. Quality of work satisfactory but there is no remark by the Chief Justice. A special report was called from the District Judge who submitted his report that the integrity of this officer is doubtful. Therefore the officer was ordered to be transferred from Karauli at the time of routine transfers. In the year 1978 the APAR for the part of the year is available and the integrity of the officer was reported t) be -Not in doubt'. He was reported to be an average officer. Six of his judgments were found to be below standard and 21 were found standard and 2 no remarks were made. As regards the remarks regarding disposal of the work it was found to be satisfactory and his knowledge of law and procedure was said to be poor by the Administrative Judge and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In the year 1979 again there are two reports one from January to April and the other from April to December 1979 by two reporting officers. In both of them the integrity was said to be good and beyond doubt. There are no remarks of Administrative Judge or Chief Justice. In the year 1980 again the integrity of the officer was said to be not doubtful and in the general remarks it was said that- A competent officer. Fit to hold the post of ADJ". The Administrative Judge remarked -Average Officer'. There is no remark by the Chief Justice. There are no remarks of Administrative Judge or Chief Justice. In the year 1980 again the integrity of the officer was said to be not doubtful and in the general remarks it was said that- A competent officer. Fit to hold the post of ADJ". The Administrative Judge remarked -Average Officer'. There is no remark by the Chief Justice. One of his judgments which came to the notice was found below standard and in four judgments no remarks were made. The Inspecting Judge K.S. Sidhu J. inspected the court of the petitioner at Sawai Madhopur where he was posted as Civil Judge and as regards out-turn of the work done by the petitioner on the test date it was said to be almost nil' and dealing with the general application to the work the Inspecting Judge remarked 'does not take interest in his work'. The knowledge of law was said to be fair. In the year 1982 again there are two APARs there being two reporting officers and in one of them from January 1, 1982 to July 27, 1982 so far as integrity is concerned it was reported by the reporting officer that-"I heard nothing against his integrity" as nothing was brought to his notice. In the general remarks the reporting officer said that 'Looking towards deterioration in general he can be said to be an Average Officer". There is no remarks either by the Administrative Judge or by the Chief Justice. During this period one of his judgment was found to be below standard 7 standard and in 4 no remarks were given. Again in the year 1~ 83 there are two APARs by two different reporting officers and one is from January 1, 1983 to July 5, 1983 and the other from July 6, 1983 to December 22, 1983 So far as integrity of the petitioner is concerned the reporting officer said "Affiliated with ]audible murmers but remaining away from the sphere of black & white'. In column No. 2 meant for if he is fair and impartial in dealing with the public and the Bar' it was remarked by the reporting officer that-"His fairness & impartiality in dealing with public was doubted by lawyers only verbally'. In the column "Relations with the Bar" it was remarked by the reporting officer that "Not very cordial. lawyers used to make verbal complaints against his way of working". In the column "Relations with the Bar" it was remarked by the reporting officer that "Not very cordial. lawyers used to make verbal complaints against his way of working". The Chief Justice remarked. I visited Bharatpur. Lawyers are not happy with him. Integrity doubtful'. For the year 1984 again there are two APARs. one from January 12, 1984 to April 30, 1984 and the other from May 1984 to December 1984. In the first of these two the integrity of the petitioner was said to he 'very bad' and in the other the integrity was said to be 'fair' and nothing has come to his notice. The Chief Justice remarked-"Bad officer. I cautioned him during my visit in Bharatpur. Corrupt Officer". 47. From a perusal of the aforesaid APARs of last 10 years it will be clear that the entries are some time good and sometime bad. In the last of the two APARs the integrity was said to be doubtful. We have already said that though earlier adverse entries prior to promotion are washed-off as a consequence of promotion may be ad hoc officiating; temporary but the adverse entry about integrity stands on a different footing and even one adverse entry of doubtful integrity or the integrity being not upto the mark may be sufficient to furnish the real ant material to form the requisite opinion that it is in public interest to retire a Government servant. We have also said that if an officer after promotion earns adverse entries then the like or similar adverse entries prior to promotion can be looked into. In the instant case though the APARs of the petitioner which have been considered the consideration has been confined to the APARs for last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement contain sufficient material to form the requisite opinion wider rule 244(2) of RSR that the petitioner should be retired compulsorily in public interest but we may observe that even prior to his promotion as Civil Judge the petitioner had earned adverse entries about integrity or like entry about integrity as such the earlier entries can also be considered. In the APAR of 1972 it was remarked by the reporting officer that the integrity was doubtful and he must improve his image. His judgments were said to be quite erroneous arbitrary and contrary to law. In the APAR of 1972 it was remarked by the reporting officer that the integrity was doubtful and he must improve his image. His judgments were said to be quite erroneous arbitrary and contrary to law. He did not command good reputation is a Judicial Officer. The Chief Justice said that Disposal above standard. Quality of work average. There were adverse reports about his integrity. Integrity certificate withheld". In the APAR for the year 1974 (from January 1, 1974 to September 21, 1974) the remark about the integrity of the petitioner was "Requires a watch to be kept". Learned Administrative Judge said ' A shady character who requires to be watched by a strict District Judge". Thus despite the promotion of the petitioner adverse entries in respect of integrity like entry prier to promotion can be looked into and the theory of wash off as propounded therefore cannot be attracted. 48. Under our order dated October 4, 1988 after the adverse material which was not till then communicated to the petitioner had been supplied opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to file a representation the petitioner filed representation and the Chief Justice constituted a committee of three Judges of this Court namely Miss Kanta Bhatnagar S. N. Bhargava and D. L. Mehta JJ. The said Committee had considered the representation of the petitioner and the Committee so for as adverse entries for the year 1976 are concerned said that in one of the two APARs there was nothing adverse whereas in the other integrity was found doubtful by the reporting officer though no remarks were given by the Administrative Judge or the Chief Justice. The result is that the representation does not appear to be accepted and the entry stands. The Committee also did not accept the representation against APAR of 1978. The representation against APAR for the year 1983 was rejected and so also the representation in respect of the APAR for the year 1984. In other words the representation was rejected in toto. The Hon'ble Chief Justice agreed with it and the matter was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court rejected the representation. 49. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Screening Committee had no doubt considered the service record in detail which contains the remarks about the integrity of the petitioner being doubtful and not upto the the mark. 49. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Screening Committee had no doubt considered the service record in detail which contains the remarks about the integrity of the petitioner being doubtful and not upto the the mark. It also visited various places where the petitioner had remained posted at one time or the other and the assessment of the Committee was that the petitioner is a corrupt officer. We have said that the Committee could be appointed and the assessment of the Committee is relevant. We are of the opinion that even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries as aforesaid is excluded even otherwise there being sufficient material and the integrity of the petitioner was very much doubted and on the basis of the record the requisite opinion could be formed the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR to compulsorily retire the petitioner was not bona fide or that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner is arbitrary or is for collateral purposes. We find no merit in the writ petition of the petitioner which is liable to be dismissed. RADHEY SHY AM SHARMA (D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1673/86) 50. Radhey Shyam Shaima was born on September 26, 1934. After being selected in the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 1963 he was appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service vide order dated December 6. 1963 and he joined on December 12, 1963 and was Munsiff Magistrate (Undertraining) Ajmer till June 30, 1964. He was Munsif Magistrate Bhawani Mandi from July I 1964 to July 21 1966 Munsif Magistrate Laxmangarh from July 23 1966 to June 1, 1961; Munsiff Magistrate Kanore from June 5, 1968 to June 8, 1971; Munsiff Magistrate Barmer from June 15, 1971 to November 15, 1973. The period of probation being two years he was confirmed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service w e.f. December 12 1965. He was then promoted as Civil Judge vide order dated November 13, 1973 and joined as Civil Judge Pali from that date till April 1 1974. Addl. Civil Judge Pali from April 1, 1974 to April 29, 1974. Addl. Civil Judge (JSCC) Udaipur from May 4, 1974 to May 19, 1978 Add] Civil Judge Jaipur City from May 26, 1975 to May 10, 1976. Addl. Civil Judge Pali from April 1, 1974 to April 29, 1974. Addl. Civil Judge (JSCC) Udaipur from May 4, 1974 to May 19, 1978 Add] Civil Judge Jaipur City from May 26, 1975 to May 10, 1976. He was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated May 6, 1976 and which post he joined on May 15, 1976 and was Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar from that date till May 23, 1978; Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer from May 31, 1918 to June 3 1980 Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City from June. 1980 to April 9, 1981. He watt promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service vide order dated April 3, 1981 and was posted as Addl. District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City which post he joined on April 9 1981 continued on that post till June 15, 1981. He was Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur City from June 15 1981 to October 20, 1981; Addl. District Judge No. 2 Jaipur City from June 29, 1982 to April 18 1983 Principal Private Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice from April 18 1983 to December 22, 1983; Addl. District Judge No. 2 Alwar from December 23 1983 to December 1984. While he was posted on that post under order dated December 7, 1984 the petitioner and others were ordered to await posting orders. He was not confirmed in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. Later on the petitioner was reverted with few others to his substantive cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service to the post of Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate and the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of reversion in this court but because identical writ petitions were pending in the Supreme Court the writ petition was also transferred to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner alongwith others. The petitioner thereafter joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner. Under order dated July 27 1985 (Annr. 4) the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the Governor of Rajasthan under rule 244(2) of RSR. 51. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order Annr. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner alongwith others. The petitioner thereafter joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner. Under order dated July 27 1985 (Annr. 4) the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the Governor of Rajasthan under rule 244(2) of RSR. 51. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order Annr. 4 inter alia on the ground that order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been passed as a measure of punishment and has been passed for collateral purposes and for extraneous reasons and the reasons are not germane or genuine and as such the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is punitive in nature there was no material whatsoever on the basis of which opinion could be formed against the petitioner that it was in public interest to retire him compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR the petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service in 1981 and this shows that there was nothing serious and adverse till then against him; even if there was any material it stood washed-off consequent upon his promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service from Rajasthan Judicial Service in April 1981; procedure evolved by the Screening Committee appointed by the Chief Justice in so far as it had gone to various places where the petitioner had remained posted at one time or other to make spot inquiries is arbitrary and illegal and not warranted by law and that report of the Screening Committee in so far it is based on the spot inquiries could not furnish relevant material under rule 244(2) of RSR. 52. The writ petition is contested on behalf of the non-petitioners and besides traversing the grounds taken in the writ petition it is the case of the non- petitioners that there was sufficient adverse material on which the requisite opinion could be bona fide formed that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily under rule 224(2) of RSR. It is also contended that the entire record of the Government servant is to be looked into and the theory of washed-off which is applicable to the case of promotion is not attracted to the case of compulsory retirement. 53. It is also contended that the entire record of the Government servant is to be looked into and the theory of washed-off which is applicable to the case of promotion is not attracted to the case of compulsory retirement. 53. We have considered the rival contentions and as stated earlier we have already deduced the principles which will govern the case of the petitioner also and while evaluating the service record of the petitioner we will be guided by the principles already deduced in the earlier part of this order As stated earlier though we will go into the entire service record of the petitioner but more weightage will be given to the service record of about 10 years immediately preceding the passing of order compulsory retirement of the petitioner. So far as the washed-off theory is concerned we may state that even as per the case of the petitioner he was not confirmed in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and was reverted to his substantive cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service in the month of December 1984. The effect of the aforesaid reversion order was that the petitioner at the time when the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire him was formed under rule 244 (2) of RSR was holding the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service. It has already been said earlier that the petitioner had been promoted as Civil Judge under order dated November 13, 1973 and joined as such on November 19, 1973. He was further promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated May 6, 1976 which post he joined on May 15, 1976. Therefore all that can be said is that the adverse entries prior to his promotion as Civil Judge and then as Chief Judicial Magistrate would be said to be washed-off or obliterated unless after his promotion as aforesaid he earned like entries and in that case the adverse entries prior to his promotion as aforesaid can be looked into. That apart we have already said earlier that we will give more weightage to the service record of about last 10 years. The order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed in the month of July 1985 and therefore the weightage is to be given to the service record of the petitioner commencing from 1975. That apart we have already said earlier that we will give more weightage to the service record of about last 10 years. The order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed in the month of July 1985 and therefore the weightage is to be given to the service record of the petitioner commencing from 1975. While considering the service records as such we will keep in mind good/bad record if any of the petitioner. 54. In the year 1975 the petitioner was posted as Addl. Civil Judge SCC Udaipur. Though during that year the APAR of the petitioner shows that the reporting officer did not doubt his integrity and that it was also said by the reporting officer that the performance of the officer has improved during the year 1975 but the Hon'ble Administrative Judge remarked- "Disposal satisfactory. Must improve quality of his judgments. Adjourned a civil suit 13 times for pronouncing judgment for which he was warned should not delay reserved judgments & try to improve his image about integrity". The Chief Justice signed the APAR. and thereby it can be said that he did not change or modify the remarks given by the Administrative Judge. The aforesaid remarks was communicated to the petitioner. It appears from the rejoinder of the petitioner that was communicated the adverse remarks for the year 1975 and be had also filed representation but the same was rejected. There are two APARs for the year 1976 the one from January, 1 1976 to May 10 1976 and the other for the later period. In the first of these two APARs the reporting officer found the integrity of the petitioner to he good but in respect of the judgments it was said that quality of judgments need improvement'. In the other of the two APARs regarding the integrity the reporting officer remarked 'Beyond doubt while working in this judgeship'. Four of his judgments were found below standard and 8 standard and in 15 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked that the petitioner was an average officer and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In two cases the judgments were found neither lucid to the point nor logical. Discussion of evidence and law not thorough and sentence/order inappropriate and in one of his judgments it was found that the evidence and law not properly discussed. The Administrative Judge remarked that the petitioner was an average officer and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In two cases the judgments were found neither lucid to the point nor logical. Discussion of evidence and law not thorough and sentence/order inappropriate and in one of his judgments it was found that the evidence and law not properly discussed. In the year 1977 again there are two APARS by the two reporting officers. In the APAR from January 1, 1977 to June 30, 1977 in the column of Integrity the reporting officer wrote "There were at times rumours about his integrity but no specific complaint came to me". In the other APAR for the period from July 18, 1977 to December 31, 1977 the reporting officer said that "there were rumours about his integrity. Since my assumption of office no complaint was made to him" Dealing with the judgments the reporting officer said that- "though the judgments are expressed in good language yet in some cases it was not found well reasoned". In column 11 which is for "general remarks" the reporting officer said-'good and balanced office". During this year it appears that many of his judgments came to the notice of higher courts out of which 13 judgments were found below standard out of 37 14 were found to be standard and in 10 no remarks were made. The then Administrative Judge remarked- "Disposal good but quality of work needs improvements". In the year 1978 8 judgments were found below standard out of 33 which came to the notice of various courts including the High Court and 16 were standard and in 9 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked 'Disposal good. Quality of work needs improvement. The officer is no doubt honest and laborious". The Chief Justice merely endorsed it by putting his signatures. There are two APARs for the year 1979 in one of them reporting officer regarding integrity said bond doubt' but of judgments which came to the notice of various courts including High Court were found below standard 4 standard and in 2 no remarks were made. So far as honesty is concerned it was said to be beyond doubt. There are two APARs for the year 1979 in one of them reporting officer regarding integrity said bond doubt' but of judgments which came to the notice of various courts including High Court were found below standard 4 standard and in 2 no remarks were made. So far as honesty is concerned it was said to be beyond doubt. For the year 1980 again there are two APARs for different periods and in one of them the integrity was said to be beyond doubt and in the general remarks it was said that his work was found satisfactory. He deserves promotion. The Chief Justice said that the petitioner is an average judicial officer and his quantity and quality of his work are quite satisfactory. In the APAR for the year 1981 the integrity of the petitioner was certified to he satisfactory and the Chief Justice repeated the remarks made in the year 1980. In the year 1982 so far as the integrity of the officer is concerned it was said by the reporting officer 'nothing adverse in writing has been brought to my notice' and Hon'ble Chief Justice said that the petitioner is an average judicial officer and disposal and quality of his judgments are on the whole satisfactory. In the year 1983 so far as the integrity column is concerned. it was reported by the reporting officer "No complaint in writing was received by me against his integrity" but the Chief Justice said-"From earlier ACRs, I find that his judgments have been below standard. He did not impress me at all. Vig. inquiries are pending as complaints re. integrity were received from Alwar". For the year 1984 there are two APARs in one of them i. e. the APAR for the period from May 11 1984 to December 11 1984 the reporting officer regarding integrity of the officer said-' Highly doubtful" and in column No. 11 which is for general remarks the reporting officer said "An officer of widely known ill reputation as to integrity". The perusal of the aforesaid APARs for the last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement will show that the integrity of the officer at times has been certified to be satisfactory and at some time it was found to be doubtful. But lastly it was found to be doubtful. The perusal of the aforesaid APARs for the last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement will show that the integrity of the officer at times has been certified to be satisfactory and at some time it was found to be doubtful. But lastly it was found to be doubtful. That apart the quality of his judgments was not found upto the mark. Even in the year 1975 as said earlier the Administrative Judge remarked that the petitioner should improve his image about integrity. He adjourned a civil suit as many as for 13 times for pronouncing judgment. The said remark was communicated to him on the year 1977 there were rumours about his integrity. In respect of quality of his work it was said that it needs improvement. In the last APAR for the part of the year 1984 the integrity of the officer was shown to be highly doubtful and the integrity certificate was withheld by the reporting officer. There is no remark of Administrative Judge or Chief Justice so far as the part of the year 1984 is concerned. It has already been said earlier that even one single entry in respect of doubtful integrity may be sufficient to form the requisite opinion that it will be in the public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner and if such an entry exists it cannot be said that the competent authority could not have bona fide formed the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. It will appear from the record that the petitioner was superseded in the year 1974 for promotion to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also superseded in 1979 by the Full Court for promotion to the post of Addl District Judge (RHJS cadre) and it also appears that during the year 1975 the petitioner adjourned a civil suit for 13 times for pronouncing the judgment. It will therefore he clear that even in the year 1984 the integrity of the petitioner was doubted by the reporting officer. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the adverse entry in respect of integrity stands on a different footing and even uncommunicated adverse entry in respect of doubtful integrity can be considered and will furnish the relevant material to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the adverse entry in respect of integrity stands on a different footing and even uncommunicated adverse entry in respect of doubtful integrity can be considered and will furnish the relevant material to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. But as stated earlier this court under its order dated October 4, 1988 the petitioner was also allowed opportunity to file representation he filed representation and it was considered by a committee of three Hon'ble Judges appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and it was partly accepted. The Committee observed that the Warning given in the Registrar Vigilance File No. 217/75/789 dated September 26, 1975 had already been communicated and representation against adverse remarks for the year 1975 deserves for consideration. It can therefore be said that adverse entries for the year 1975 were communicated as well warning was given in file of Registrar Vigilance. Coming to the APAR for the year 1977- the Committee accepted the representation regarding quality of judgment. For the year 1977 the Committee recommended the representation deserves rejection. For the year 1983 the Committee said that the representation needs to be reconsidered. for the year 1984 the Committee refrained from expressing any opinion. We have already said that the representation was also placed before the Full Court considered the representation and dismissed the same. 55. The report of Screening Committee is not only based on service record but also on spot inquiries made in connection with the petitioner at places where he remained posted. We have already said earlier that the procedure adopted by the Screening Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary or uncalled for. We are of the opinion that the service record of the petitioner itself is such which goes to show that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. That apart it can be said that it is not a case where it can be said that there was no relevant material whatsoever on which the competent authority could have formed requisite opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR. That apart it can be said that it is not a case where it can be said that there was no relevant material whatsoever on which the competent authority could have formed requisite opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR. Therefore with or without that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries in our opinion the petitioner has no case and it cannot be said that the opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner was not bona fide or could not have been formed bona fide. 56. We have said in the earlier part of this order that after promotion if a Government servant has earned adverse entries prior to the promotion the theory of washed-off cannot be applied and like or similar entries earned before promotion can also be locked into. A look at the APAR for the year 1966 (July-December) will show that the integrity of the petitioner was doubted by the reporting officer and the Administrative Judge remarked that "Disposal average. Quality of work average. The District Judge is directed to keep watch on his integrity". In the year 1967 the integrity of the officer was said to be doubtful and the Chief Justice remarked -The District Judge considered him to be a person of doubtful integrity. A close watch should he kept on him". In the year 1968 the integrity of the petitioner was said to be 'not beyond doubt' and the Administrative Judge remarked Disposal good. Quality average. DJ Alwar has withheld his integrity certificate for 1968. It was withheld by his predecessor also. He has been asked to keep a watch over him". These adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner through District Judge under letter dated January 6, 1970. In the year 1969 his integrity was certified to be good. So also in the year 1970. In the year 1971 his integrity was certified to be good. In the year 1972 in integrity column the reporting officer said "heard nothing against". Learned Chief Justice said "Disposal above standard. Quality of work satisfactory. No complaint against integrity". In the year 1973 also the reporting officer said that 'no complaint against his integrity but the Administrative Judge said "Requires to he watched". and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In the year 1972 in integrity column the reporting officer said "heard nothing against". Learned Chief Justice said "Disposal above standard. Quality of work satisfactory. No complaint against integrity". In the year 1973 also the reporting officer said that 'no complaint against his integrity but the Administrative Judge said "Requires to he watched". and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In the year 1974 there are two APARs and in one of them the reporting officer said that the integrity is good but in general remarks he said that in two cases arguments were heard but orders were not pronounced for few months and he has been told to stop this practice. The Administrative Judge remarked "should not delay his reserved judgments. He should also improve the quality of his judgments" again in the other APAR for this year the integrity was found to be good. It will therefore be clear that right from the start of his career during few the integrity of the petitioner had been doubtful and it has been doubted more than once and even the integrity certificate was withheld. Though during other years the integrity was certified to be good. Thus even before his promotion the record cannot be said to be unblemished. Generally adverse entries before promotion can be considered to have been washed-off but as said earlier if the Government servant even after promotion earns like or similar entries then the adverse entries prior to promotion can also be considered and in this case the petitioner earned entry of doubtful integrity even after his promotion and therefore such like or similar entries prior to his promotion can be looked into and will furnish relevant material though more weightage is to be given to the entries of about last 10 years. Even during last about 10 years there is sufficient material on which the competent authority could have formed requisite opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Therefore there is no force in his writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. K N. SAXENA : (D B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 299/87) 57. The date of birth of the petitioner is September 10, 1932. He was selected and appointed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service and joined that service on July 5, 1965. Therefore when he was retired compulsorily under order Anr. B dated September 18 1985. K N. SAXENA : (D B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 299/87) 57. The date of birth of the petitioner is September 10, 1932. He was selected and appointed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service and joined that service on July 5, 1965. Therefore when he was retired compulsorily under order Anr. B dated September 18 1985. he having attained the age of 50 years on September 10, 1982 one of the ingredients of rule 244(2) of RSR was satisfied. He held the posts of Munsif Magistrate and Addl. Munsif Magistrate at different places from July 5, 1955 to May 17, 1976. He was promoted in April. 1976 as Civil Judge after being superseded in May 1975. when his first chance for promotion came. He was Addl. Civil Judge (SCC) cum JM Jaipur City from May 24, 1976 to November 12 1976. The next promotion to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate was in the year 1976 and the petitioner was Chief Judicial Magistrate at different places from Dec.13,1976 to Feb. 8, 1980. He was though promoted and appointed to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service in May. 1979, but on occurring of the vacancies on 15th February 1980. he was posted as Addl District Judge Deeg. He was Addl District Judge Deeg from that date till May 2 1984. He was posted as Special Judge for CBI cases for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order Anr. B dated September 18, 1985 and the said order Annr. B compulsorily retiring the petitioner was sent by the Registrar Rajasthan High Court on September 23, 1985 under letter Annr. 'C'. He was posted as Special Judge for CBI cases for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order Anr. B dated September 18, 1985 and the said order Annr. B compulsorily retiring the petitioner was sent by the Registrar Rajasthan High Court on September 23, 1985 under letter Annr. 'C'. The challenge of the petitioner to the order of his compulsory retirement is inter alia on the grounds that there was no such material on the basis of which the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR to compulsory retire the petitioner could have been formed; the appointment of the Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges by the Chief Justice was without jurisdiction and it was within the power of the Full Court to appoint such Committee; the constitution and working scope of the Committee was bad in law and its report could not have been considered; the Judges who constituted the Committee should have abstained from considerating the case of the petitioner and others by the Full Court; the adverse entries prior to the promotion of the petitioner stood washed-off and could not have furnished the relevant material. Other grounds have also been taken that so far as rule 244(2) of RSR is concerned that it is discriminatory inasmuch as under rule 244(1) of RSR a Government servant seeking voluntary retirement is entitled to leave encashment and calculation of five years service for pension purposes sub. rule (2) of rule 244 of RSR does not so provide. But so fear as rule 244(2) is concerned as stated in the earlier-part of this order the constitutional validity has been upheld by the Supreme Court and as such the validity of rule 244(2) of RSR cannot again be challenged on the ground which could have been agitated but have not been agitated. So far as that part of the report of the Screening Committee which was based on spot inquiries is concerned we have already said earlier that it was only recommendatory and the Full Court could have considered that part of the report also. We have also said earlier that there is no illegality in the Constitution of the Screening Committee. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse entries in respect of doubtful integrity' or 'integrity doubtful' could only be based on some material or some specific instance. We have also said earlier that there is no illegality in the Constitution of the Screening Committee. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse entries in respect of doubtful integrity' or 'integrity doubtful' could only be based on some material or some specific instance. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the entries in respect of doubtful integrity need not necessarily be based on specific instances because had there been any specific instances they could have been and should have been the subject-matter of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore the APARs being basically an assessment of an officer by those who have an opportunity to closely watch his performance and conduct. If the functionary like the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice or for that matter any other Judge of this Court gives any adverse entry that an officer is of doubtful integrity or his integrity is doubtful it will have weight and will furnish relevant material. So far as the case of Nepal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1984(3) SLR 126 is concerned we have already made a reference to it in the earlier part of this order and as said earlier it will be clear from the aforesaid case that the court was dealing with termination and not a case of compulsory retirement. As said earlier that case has no application. 58. The decision in this case primarily and mainly will rest on the question whether there was some material or not on which the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR could be formed to compulsorily retire the petitioner and the said opinion was bona fide. As said earlier impairment of efficiency is one of the considerations to compulsorily retire a Government servant after he has put in service for such number of years to enable him to earn pension benefits. It is in public interest that efficient sincere and devoted persons should be retained in service and inefficient lethargic and corrupt ones must go. As said earlier impairment of efficiency is one of the considerations to compulsorily retire a Government servant after he has put in service for such number of years to enable him to earn pension benefits. It is in public interest that efficient sincere and devoted persons should be retained in service and inefficient lethargic and corrupt ones must go. Any arbitrary exercise of the powers will no doubt attract the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and we will presently consider the service record of the petitioner to come to the conclusion whether there was some material or not to form the requisite opinion as aforesaid and as already stated earlier this court cannot go into the sufficiency of the material and even if there is some material which could have been acted upon. which could furnish the grounds to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR the scope to examine the cases of compulsory retirement being limited it will not be possible for this Court to hold that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner should be set aside. 59. Firstly we will examine the APARs for about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner and other service record if any and if necessary will also refer to earlier service record of the petitioner to see whether after promotion of the petitioner as aforesaid on various posts the petitioner earned like or similar adverse entries or not. But ultimately the weightage has to be given to the service record good or bad of about last 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement under the relevant rules. 60. In the APARs for the year 1975 so far as integrity of the petitioner is concerned it was said by the reporting officer-"nothing adverse said". In the general remarks the entry is -Appears to be a good officer". Administrative Judge remarked "Disposal average". In 1974 got the remark 'required to be watched Nothing adverse reported since then". The Chief Justice said-'Nothing against his integrity. Disposal standard. A good officer'. In 1976 there are two APARs. In the first APAR upto April 1976 the reporting officer said "No complaint received" and for the later part from April 1976. so far as integrity is concerned it was said "beyond doubt". The Chief Justice said-'Nothing against his integrity. Disposal standard. A good officer'. In 1976 there are two APARs. In the first APAR upto April 1976 the reporting officer said "No complaint received" and for the later part from April 1976. so far as integrity is concerned it was said "beyond doubt". So far as the disposal of the work is concerned it was said by the reporting officer "No. of working days 73 work done 66-2/10. The pace of disposal of work needs improvement". In the general remarks it was said that "A good judicial Officer can be assigned higher duties if puts more hard work". The Administrative Judge said- "Disposal rather Poor should put in greater effort and improve the quality of his work". The Chief Justice said 'should work hard'. The underlined words of the above entry were expunged vide orders in File No. 21/77/Ref. During this period out of 15 judgments 3 were below standard 10 standard and in two no remarks were made. This entry was however communicated to the petitioner on July 26, 1977. In 1977 the reporting officer said about the integrity of officer to be sound and in general remarks it was said "An average officer. Out of 19 judgments which came to the notice of various higher courts two were found to be below standard 14 standard and in 3 no remarks were made. Administrative Judge said 'Disposal standard. He has improved his disposal since 23.2.77. Quality of work satisfactory". The Administrative Judge had inspected the court of the petitioner when he was working as Chief Judicial Magistrate Ganganagar on February 23, 1977. In the inspection note it was observed that the percentage of his work comes to 49% and in general remarks in the inspection note it was said:- "The disposal of cases is much below the prescribed standard. He should work hard ta improve his disposal. There is no complaint against him about his integrity". The Chief Justice signed the APAR. and thereby it can be said that he did not change or modify the remarks given by the Administrative Judge. The aforesaid remarks was communicated to the petitioner. It appears from the rejoinder of the petitioner that was communicated the adverse remarks for the year 1975 and be had also filed representation but the same was rejected. and thereby it can be said that he did not change or modify the remarks given by the Administrative Judge. The aforesaid remarks was communicated to the petitioner. It appears from the rejoinder of the petitioner that was communicated the adverse remarks for the year 1975 and be had also filed representation but the same was rejected. There are two APARs for the year 1976 the one from January 1, 1976 to May 10, 1976 and the other for the later period. In the first of these two APARs the reporting officer found the integrity of the petitioner to he good but in respect of the judgments it was said that quality of judgments need improvement'. In the other of the two APARs regarding the integrity the reporting officer remarked 'Beyond doubt while working in this judgeship'. Four of his judgments were found below standard and 8 standard and in 15 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked that the petitioner was an average officer and the Chief Justice agreed with it. In two cases the judgments were found neither lucid to the point nor logical. Discussion of evidence and law not thorough and sentence/order inappropriate and in one of his judgments it was found that the evidence and law not properly discussed. In the year 1977 again there are two APARS by the two reporting officers. In the APAR from January 1, 1977 to June 30, 1977 in the column of Integrity the reporting officer wrote "There were at times rumours about his integrity bust no specific complaint came to me". In the other APAR for the period from July 18, 1977 to December 31, 1977 the reporting officer said that "there were rumours about his integrity. Since my assumption of office no complaint was made to him" Dealing with the judgments the reporting officer said that- "though the judgments are expressed in good language yet in some cases it was not found well reasoned". In column 11 which is for "general remarks" the reporting officer said-'good and balanced office". During this year it appears that many of his judgments came to the notice of higher courts out of which 13 judgments were found below standard out of 37,14 were found to be standard and in 10 no remarks were made. The then Administrative Judge remarked- "Disposal good but quality of work needs improvements". During this year it appears that many of his judgments came to the notice of higher courts out of which 13 judgments were found below standard out of 37,14 were found to be standard and in 10 no remarks were made. The then Administrative Judge remarked- "Disposal good but quality of work needs improvements". In the year 1978, 8 judgments were found below standard out of 33 which came to the notice of various courts including the High Court and 16 were standard and in 9 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked 'Disposal good. Quality of work needs improvement. The officer is no doubt honest and laborious". The Chief Justice merely endorsed it by putting his signatures. There are two APARs for the year 1979 in one of them reporting officer regarding integrity said bond doubt' but of judgments which came to the notice of various courts including High Court i were found below standard 4 standard and in 2 no remarks were made. So far as honesty is concerned it was said to be beyond doubt. For the year 1980 again there are two APARs for different periods and in one of them the integrity was said to be beyond doubt and in the general remarks it was said that his work was found satisfactory. He deserves promotion. The Chief Justice said that the petitioner is an average judicial officer and his quantity and quality of his work are quite satisfactory. In the APAR for the year 1981 the integrity of the petitioner was certified to he satisfactory and the Chief Justice repeated the remarks made in the year 1980. In the year 1982 so far as the integrity of the officer is concerned it was said by the reporting officer 'nothing adverse in writing has been brought to my notice' and Hon'ble Chief Justice said that the petitioner is an average judicial officer and disposal and quality of his judgments are on the whole satisfactory. In the year 1983 so far as the integrity column is concerned. it was reported by the reporting officer "No complaint in writing was received by me against his integrity" but the Chief Justice said-"From earlier ACRs, I find that his judgments have been below standard. He did not impress me at all. Vig. inquiries are pending as complaints re; integrity were received from Alwar". it was reported by the reporting officer "No complaint in writing was received by me against his integrity" but the Chief Justice said-"From earlier ACRs, I find that his judgments have been below standard. He did not impress me at all. Vig. inquiries are pending as complaints re; integrity were received from Alwar". For the year 1984 there are two APARs in one of them i. e. the APAR for the period from May 11 1984 to December 11 1984 the reporting officer regarding integrity of the officer said-' Highly doubtful" and in column No. 11 which is for general remarks the reporting officer said "An officer of widely known ill reputation as to integrity". The perusal of the aforesaid APARs for the last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement will show that the integrity of the officer at times has been certified to be satisfactory and at some time it was found to be doubtful. But lastly it was found to be doubtful. Th it apart the quality of his judgments was not found upto the mark. Even in the year 1975 as said earlier the Administrative Judge remarked that the petitioner should improve his image about integrity. He adjourned a civil suit as many as for 13 t mes for pronouncing judgment. The said remark was communicated to him In the year 1977 there were rumours about his integrity. In respect of quality of his work it was said that it needs improvement. In the last APAR for the part of the year 1984 the integrity of the officer was shown to be highly doubtful and the integrity certificate was withheld by the reporting officer. There is no remark of Administrative Judge or Chief Justice so far as the part of the year 1984 is concerned. It has already been said earlier that even one single entry in respect of doubtful integrity may be sufficient to form the requisite opinion that it will be in the public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner and if such an entry exists it cannot be said that the competent authority could not have bonafide formed the opinion that it was in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. It will appear from the record that the petitioner was superseded in the year 1974 for promotion to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also superseded in 1979 by the Full Court for promotion to the post of Addl.District Judge (RHJS cadre) and it also appears that during the year 1975 the petitioner adjourned a civil suit for 13 times for pronouncing the judgment. It will therefore he clear that even in the year 1984 the integrity of the petitioner was doubted by the reporting officer. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the adverse entry in respect of integrity stands on a different footing and even uncommunicated adverse entry in respect of doubtful integrity can be considered and will furnish the relevant material to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. But as stated earlier this court under its order dated October 4, 1988 the petitioner was also allowed opportunity to file representation he filed representation and it was considered by a committee of three Hon'ble Judges appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and it was partly accepted. The Committee observed that the Warning given in the Registrar Vigilance File No. 217/75/789 dated September 26, 1975 had already been communicated and representation against adverse remarks for the year 1975 deserves for consideration. It can therefore be said that adverse entries for the year 1975 were communicated as well warning was given in file of Registrar Vigilance. Coming to the APAR for the year 1977- the Committee accepted the representation regarding quality of judgment. For the year 1977 the Committee recommended the representation deserves rejection. For the year 1983 the Committee said that the representation needs to be reconsidered. for the year 1984 the Committee refrained from expressing any opinion. We have already said that the representation was also placed before the Full Court considered the representation and dismissed the same. In the year 1978 in column of integrity the reporting officer said "undoubted". The officer was reported to be balanced and cool minded. In column No. 11 which is for general remarks the reporting officer said '-His work is quite sati factory. He is submissive. Well behaved and dependable". Out of 22 judgments 4 were found to be below standard 14 standard and in 4 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked-'-Disposal satisfactory. Quality of work poor and needs improvement". In column No. 11 which is for general remarks the reporting officer said '-His work is quite sati factory. He is submissive. Well behaved and dependable". Out of 22 judgments 4 were found to be below standard 14 standard and in 4 no remarks were made. The Administrative Judge remarked-'-Disposal satisfactory. Quality of work poor and needs improvement". The Chief Justice agreed with the Administrative Judge. For the year 1979 the reporting officer about integrity of the officer said 'good'. Twenty three judgments came to the notice of various courts out of which 4 judgments were found below standard 15 standard and in 4 no remarks were given. The Administrative Judge said "Disposal of work satisfactory. Quality of judgments poor & needs improvement An average judicial officer". The Chief Justice agreed with him. For the year 1980 so far as integrity of the petitioner is concerned the reporting officer said nothing adverse came to notice'. In column No. 7 which is Whether the disposal of work is adequate' the remark is poor. Avoids to do civil work'. In column No. 11 which is "General Remarks" the reporting officer said -An easy going of officer'. During this year 23 judgments came to the notice of various courts out of which 13 were standard and in to no remarks were given. The Chief Justice remarked "Shri K.N. Saxena is an average judicial officer. His disposal is .satisfactory", in 1981 so far as integrity of the petitioner is concerned it was said by the reporting officer -nothing reported adverse' and in general remarks he said that he is a good officer. The Chief Justice said that Shri K N. Saxena is an average judicial officer. Disposal and quality of his judgments are on the whole satisfactory. In 1982 there are two APARs and the first is upto September 11, 82 when the petitioner was posted as Addl. District Judge Deeg in District Bharatpur and the either from 23rd August to December when the petitioner was posted as Addl. District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur. For the first of the said two APARs the reporting officer in respect of the integrity said 'General reputation was not good although there was no specific complaint'. In the second aforesaid APAR about integrity the reporting officer said -Nothing against' and also said that the petitioner was hard working & efficient judicial officer. District Judge No. 2 Jodhpur. For the first of the said two APARs the reporting officer in respect of the integrity said 'General reputation was not good although there was no specific complaint'. In the second aforesaid APAR about integrity the reporting officer said -Nothing against' and also said that the petitioner was hard working & efficient judicial officer. Thus there are two APARs for year 1982 by two District and Sessions Judges the two reporting officers but the Chief Justice will be deemed to have given the remarks for the whole of the year 1982 and it can therefore be said that the entry for this year is not adverse against the petitioner. For the year 1983 there are two APARs by two reporting officers and in the first of the two integrity was said to be good and in column No. 11 which is for general remarks it was said by the reporting officer that 'He is hard working and cooperative judicial officer'. In the other APAR for this year the reporting officer about integrity 'and -no complaint' and in column No. I I which is for general remarks it was said "He is a good judicial officer. His performance on the whole is satisfactory". It can therefore be said that there was no adverse entry in the APAR for the year 1983. Coming to the year 1984 there are again two APARs one from January 1, 1984 to April 7, 1984 and the other from April 22, 1984 to June 14, Fur the first of them the reporting officer says in respect of integrity that 'No complaints' and in general remarks it was said "His overall performance was satisfactory". He writes judgments mostly in English but in the latter APAR for this year in respect of integrity the reporting officer said 'doubtful'. In general remarks it was said by the reporting officer that 'integrity was doubtful'. Integrity certificate was with held. For the remaining period of 1984 i e. from June 15, 1984 to December 31, 1984. the petitioner was Special Judge CBI cases Jaipur City a post equivalent to District Judge and no reporting officer and hence the Chief Justice could have given the remarks for the whole of the year. The Chief Justice said-Bad officer. Integrity doubtful. Even the DJ has withheld the integrity certificate. Complaints about his integrity & impartiality were received from Distt. the petitioner was Special Judge CBI cases Jaipur City a post equivalent to District Judge and no reporting officer and hence the Chief Justice could have given the remarks for the whole of the year. The Chief Justice said-Bad officer. Integrity doubtful. Even the DJ has withheld the integrity certificate. Complaints about his integrity & impartiality were received from Distt. Udaipur & Sirohi. But the remarks of the Chief Justice appears to us mainly on the basis of the remarks about the integrity by Distt. Judge Bharatpur for the period January 1, 1983 to April 7, 1984 when in fact the petitioner had actually worked during this period for only 7 days under him. He had infact handed over charge on May 2, 1984 afternoon as stated by the Committee of three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice under our order dated October 4, 1908, So far as the remarks of the then Chief Justice that complaints about his integrity and impartiality were received from Deeg Udaipur and Sirohi are concerned we may state that the Chief Justice was not in this State during the period when Shri Saxena was posted at Deeg and Udaipur. Shri Banerjee took over as Chief Justice only on October 23, 1983 and Shri Saxena was Addl. District Judge Sirohi from July 14, 1983 to April 7, 1984 i. e. for about five months for the year 1983 and about three months for 1914 For the year 1983 the Chief Justice Shri Banerjee did not agree with the reporting officer that integrity is doubted and said 'An average officer'. Thus his remarks for Sirohi in the absence of anything else in our opinion should not have been considered and should not be attached importance. Thus the APAR for the year 1984 to us appears to be based on the adverse remarks of the reporting officer under whom Shri Saxena had only actually worked for 7 days. His other APARs from 1975 to 1983 are not adverse and his integrity was never doubted. Though as said earlier one single entry of doubtful integrity is sufficient to form the opinion under rule 244(2) but for the aforesaid reasons weightage could not be given and should not have been given to adverse entry for the year 1984. His other APARs from 1975 to 1983 are not adverse and his integrity was never doubted. Though as said earlier one single entry of doubtful integrity is sufficient to form the opinion under rule 244(2) but for the aforesaid reasons weightage could not be given and should not have been given to adverse entry for the year 1984. But even if the aforesaid adverse entry about integrity in the Ai AR for the year 1984 is not considered there is still sufficient material which gees to show that the petitioner was not an efficient judicial officer and his disposal of work was below the standard fixed and the quality of judgments was poor in many years during the last ten years immediately before his compulsory retirement. The entries in respect of last 10 years From 1975 to 1984 made in his APARs have been extracted and discussed in the earlier part of this order. The quality of work in 1976 was not found upto the mark and he was asked to improve the quality of work. In the year 1977 also on inspection of his court the disposal was found much below standard and the petitioner was asked to work hard. In 1978 also the quality of work was found poor and it was said it needs improvement. Similar is the position in 1979. It can therefore be said that quality of work and disposal was not upto the mark from 1976 to 1979. Thus even the record of the petitioner so far as the APARs of the last about 10 years immediately preceding to the order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be completely good and it can be said that there was material about the inefficiency on which the requisite opinion could be formed to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Efficiency is one of the considerations to compulsorily retire a Government servant. We have already said earlier that the scope of this Court in cases of compulsory retirement is limited to the extent that the court is to see whether there is any relevant material or not on which the requisite opinion could be formed and if there is such material on which the requisite opinion could be formed the court will not go into sufficiency of the material. Even some of the material considered for forming requisite opinion under rule 244 (2) of RSR in view of the court while examining the case is such which should or could not have been considered even then if some other material still remains on which the requisite opinion can be formed this Court should not and will not set aside the order of compulsory retirement as it will not be possible for this court to then say that the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR was not formed bonafide or was formed for collateral purposes. 61. Now we will refer to the service record of the petitioner before the year 1975 in order to see whether the petitioner had earned like entries after his promotion as aforesaid? In the year 1970 the then Administrative Judge remarked 'Disposal much below standard. (although may have been partly on account of low institution). Quality of work satisfactory'. The Chief Justice remarked 'In previous years his disposal was good. He should retain more cases on his file so that he is able to give standard disposal'. The work of the petitioner was found to be 6 % of the standard fixed for disposal of cases. The petitioner was intimated the aforesaid remarks that the disposal of his work was much below standard and he should keep more cases on his file. In the year 1971 the remarks given by the Administrative Judge and also by the Chief Justice are-'Disposal above standard. Quality satisfactory'. In the year 1972 his integrity was found to be satisfactory and the petitioner was classified as an intelligent officer. In the year 1973 the reporting officer so for as integrity of the petitioner is concerned said that -Needs Vigilance' and dealing with the judgments in column No. 6 it was said by the reporting officer that 'Not up to expectation' and in the general remarks it was remarked by the reporting officer that 'should improve his image'. The Administrative Judge Justice Shri P.N. Singhal as he then was remarked that 'requiries to be watched by a strict District Judge' The Chief Justice Shri BOP. Beri agreed with it. In 1974 there are two APARs and in both of them the integrity of the petitioner was said to be sound. However in one of them it was said 'his Ex-District Judge told me that he did not enjoy sound reputation. Beri agreed with it. In 1974 there are two APARs and in both of them the integrity of the petitioner was said to be sound. However in one of them it was said 'his Ex-District Judge told me that he did not enjoy sound reputation. My own predecessor gave him only light work". The Resorting Officer in column No. 11 said "The officer is intelligent but needs a close watch". The reporting officer also said- "Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Shri K.N. Saxena except the remarks mentioned against item No. 1". It was further said 'So far as general reputation for honesty so far as he remained in my judgeship is good and I certify his integrity. However a strict watch should be kept on the officer". The representation made by the petitioner against the remarks was rejected in file No. 41/75/Rep. 62. A perusal of the aforesaid APARs of the petitioner prior to 1974 will show that some of them are good and some of them are bad but in two of them the Administrative Judge said that he requires to be watched and the quality of his judgments needs improvement. The District Judge in the year 1973 said that 'Needs improvement' and also withheld the integrity for the year. The Chief Justice said 'requires to be watched under a strict District Judge'. It can therefore be said that the petitioner has earned like or similar entries even to his promotion. Therefore, they can also he looked into. It can be said that even prior to 1975 also the service record of the petitioner was not unblemished or good and even earlier to 1975 the petitioner had earned adverse entries which also related to his integrity. 63. The Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Tudges as stated earlier which was constituted by the Chief Justice, went to various places to examine the case of the officers who fell within the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 244 (2) of RSR. The Screening Committee examined the APARs and other record such as Vigilance inquiry and also visited several places and met the lawyers and litigants to make an assessment about the conduct of the petitioner as a judicial officer in various capacities. The Screening Committee examined the APARs and other record such as Vigilance inquiry and also visited several places and met the lawyers and litigants to make an assessment about the conduct of the petitioner as a judicial officer in various capacities. After referring to the APARs and other service record of the petitioner the Committee made its own assessment on visit to Jhalawar. Kishangarh-Bas Deeg Udaipur and Jaipur. The report of the Committee as aforesaid is also based on the spot inquiries and the Committee said that most of the Advocates who met the Screening Committee at Deeg stated that he was a highly corrupt officer. The Committee was of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to continue in service and it would he in the public interest that he may be compulsorily retired under rule 244 (2) of RSR. 64. The report of the Committee was considered by the Full Court and the Court formed opinion that the petitioner should in the public interest be compulsorily retired. 65. We are of the opinion from the perusal of entire service record of the petitioner that the requisite opinion formed by the Full Court that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired cannot be said to be malafide arbitrary and it cannot also be said that there was no relevant material whatsoever on the basis of which the requisite opinion could be formed. We have said earlier that the Full Court could have considered that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries but even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries is excluded there is sufficient material on the basis of which the requisite opinion could be formed. We may state that if service record about efficiency is not good which cannot be said to be so a Government servant could have been compulsorily retired. 66. As per order October 4, 198 the Chief Justice constituted a committee of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court to examine the representations in respect of APARs and the Committee examined the representation of the petitioner in respect of APARs. So far as the adverse entries for the year 1970, 1974 and 1976 are concerned it said that the same have been communicated to Shri K. N. Saxena. So far as the adverse entries for the year 1970, 1974 and 1976 are concerned it said that the same have been communicated to Shri K. N. Saxena. It does not appear from the record that Shri Saxena filed any representations against them. Dealing with the remarks of APAR for the year 1973 the Committee did not accept the representation and has not expressed any opinion. So far as the APAR for the year 1977 which is in respect of disposal of work the committee said that disposal should be taken for the whole of the year which is 143% but the Screening Committee had taken the disposal for only 271 days immediately after the officer joined at that place. In the APARs for the year 1978 the Committee said that out of 22 judgments only 3 were found to be below standard. The Committee framed some norms. According to which the quality of the work cannot be said to be poor and the Committee was of opinion that the explanation of Shri Saxena deserves to be accepted. So far as quality of judgments is concerned the norms fixed are that in case 20% judgments came to the notice of the High Court and other appellate courts and they are categorised as below standard only then the quality of work should be taken as poor. With due respect to the members of the Committee it could not sat over the assessment of the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice so far as quality is concerned. For the year 1979, again the Committee recommended the acceptance of the representation of the petitioner so far as quality of judgment is concerned in view of the norms set up by the Committee. For the reasons stated just above we find ourselves unable to agree with the members of the Committee. Coming to the year 1982 when there are two APARs the Committee was of the opinion because the Chief Justice has classified the petitioner as an average judicial officer the same should not have been considered. For the year 1984 the Committee was of the opinion that the integrity of the officer cannot he said to be bad and recommended that the report of the Chief Justice deserves to be re-considered. We have already said above about the APAR for the year 1984. 67. For the year 1984 the Committee was of the opinion that the integrity of the officer cannot he said to be bad and recommended that the report of the Chief Justice deserves to be re-considered. We have already said above about the APAR for the year 1984. 67. We have said earlier that it was the Full Court which could consider the representation against adverse remarks and the Full Court considered the recommendations of the Committee which recommendations were recommendatory and rejected the representation of the petitioner. 68. Consequently, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where it can be said that there was no relevant material on the basis of which requisite opinion could be bona fide formed that it is in public interest to retire compulsorily the petitioner. There is no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. ANANDILAL VERMA (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2257/85) 69. Before we give the service history of the petitioner we may at the very outset say that we would like to state the points on which the petitioner has challenged his order of compulsory retirement. The challenge to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 244(2) of RSR is inter alia on the grounds. that the initial order of compulsory retirement was void and therefore the same could not have been corrected; that the petitioner had not completed 25 years qualifying service on the date of his compulsory retirement and therefore he could not have been retired compulsorily and there was nothing adverse against the petitioner and the petitioner was erroneously considered or irrelevant material has been considered while forming the opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner. 70. The date of birth of the petitioner is October 16, 1939 and as such so far as one of the ingredients of rule 244(2) of RSR is concerned he would have attained the age of 50 years on October 15, 1989. He entered the Government service on his appointment as a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service on July 1, 1959 as Munsif Magistrate (Under training) Alwar. He remained posted from the date of joining the service as Munsif Magistrate (under training) Alwar till December 1, 1959; Munsif Magistrate Alwar from December 1, 1959 to April 11, 1962; Munsif Magistrate Nawa from April 20, 1962 to May 1963. He remained posted from the date of joining the service as Munsif Magistrate (under training) Alwar till December 1, 1959; Munsif Magistrate Alwar from December 1, 1959 to April 11, 1962; Munsif Magistrate Nawa from April 20, 1962 to May 1963. He remained under suspension from July 6, 1963 to April 27, 1977. It may be stated that he was removed from service under order dated December 30, 1958 as a result of Disciplinary Enquiry. He challenged the aforesaid order in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 64/140 and the Division Bench of this Court under its order dated November 4, 1974 took a view that under the provisions of the Constitution it was the High Court meaning thereby the Full Court that could direct any enquiry against a subordinate judicial officer. It was further said that it is clear that in the year 1963 when the enquiry was instituted against the petitioner the Full Court had not delegated its powers to the Chief Justice to appoint an enquiry officer or a disciplinary authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent member of the subordinate judiciary and therefore the appointment of Mr. Justice Bhargava made by the Chief Justice by virtue of an authority delegated by the Governor under rule 16(l) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (for shots the Rules of 1958) was positively in violation of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India and did not confer any such power on Mr. Justice Bhargava which could authorise him to frame charge against the petitioner under rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 and initiate inquiry against the petitioner. Since the appointment of Mr. Justice Bhargava was admittedly not by the Full Court the Court was constrained to hold that the enquiry was wholly unauthenticated and that the report made by Mr. Justice Bhargava which formed the basis of further proceedings taken by the Governor could not provide a valid foundation to pass an order of removal or dismissal by the Governor. It was further said that Mr. Justice Bhargava which formed the basis of further proceedings taken by the Governor could not provide a valid foundation to pass an order of removal or dismissal by the Governor. It was further said that Mr. Justice Bhargava while conducting the enquiry did not act on behalf of the Full Court and therefore the authority which he did not possess at the time when the charges were framed and the enquiry was made could not be conferred on him by the Full Court with retrospective effect by subsequently adopting the recommendations made by him in his report. The Division Bench of this Court holding that the Chief' Justice then had no power to appoint Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority and therefore the entire proceedings were not in accordance with law quashed the order dated December 30, 1968 removing Shri Verma from the service. The petitioner had also challenged the order of suspension passed by the Chief Justice on the ground that the Chief Justice was not competent to pass an order. The court said "The act of suspending a judicial officer is undoubtedly a part of the disciplinary action taken against him. The order therefore could be passed by the disciplinary authority which under Article 235 of the Constitution was the High Court (the Full Court) to suspend the member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The power was delegated by the Full Court to the Chief Justice in the year 1971. Therefore in the year 1963 no authority except the Full Court was competent to suspend the petitioner". The Division Bench therefore held that the order of suspension passed by the Chief Justice on July 6, 1963 was without authority and therefore void. 71. After the aforesaid decision so far as the then Chief Justice B.P Beri under his order dated November 12, 1974. the Full Court under its resolution dated October 30, 1971 having empowered him to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers and order suspension under rule 13(1) of the Rules of 1958 ordered that a further enquiry against Shri Verma be conducted on the allegations on which the penalty of removal was originally imposed and that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of removal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders in terms of rule 13(4) of the Rules of 1958. Justice Kan Singh was appointed by the Chief Justice to inquire into the charges against Shri Verma entirely denovo in accordance with the Rules. Thus the suspension of Shri Verma under the aforesaid order continued as it stood on April 7, 197, Mr. Justice Kan Singh gave his report and it was ordered that both the charges stood proved against Shri Verma as Shri Verma has grossly abused his magisterial power in taking revenge upon the enemies of his father and those who had lodged complaint against him as well. It was said that such an officer is unfit to be kept in the judicial service. He therefore proposed that the court should make a recommendation to the Governor to dismiss Shri Anandilal Verma from service after giving him a show cause notice in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution against the proposed punishment. A show cause notice was given to A.L. Verma and the Full Court in its meeting held on June 3, 1977 resolved to give a personal hearing to Shri Anandilal Verma by the Chief Justice and the matter was again to be put up before the Full Court thereafter. Hon'ble Chief Justice gave him personal hearing. Shri Verma submitted an application begging mercy and praying for being pardoned. He also stated in that application that he will not prefer any claim regarding pay seniority promotion or anything whatsoever. The matter was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court gave a recorded warning and it was ordered that the petitioner may be reinstated as Munsif. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated as Munsif and h: was Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kekri from April 28, 1977 to October 6, 1977; Munsif Magistrate Kekri from October 6, 1977 to September 13, 1978; he was promoted as Civil Judge and was Addl. Civil Judge Bharatpur from September 14, 1978 to March 26, 1979; he was then promoted as thief Judicial Magistrate and was Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar from March 28, 1979 to April 15 1980; Chief Judicial Magistrate Kota from April 24, 19F0 to June 11 1980 Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer from June 23. 1980 to July 26, 1980; Chef Judicial Magistrate Jodhpur from August 4, 1980 to September 28, 1981; Add] C.J.M. (Economic Offences) Jaipur City from September 30, 1981 to April 13, 1983; Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalore from April 27, 1983 to March 17, 1985. 1980 to July 26, 1980; Chef Judicial Magistrate Jodhpur from August 4, 1980 to September 28, 1981; Add] C.J.M. (Economic Offences) Jaipur City from September 30, 1981 to April 13, 1983; Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalore from April 27, 1983 to March 17, 1985. He was awaiting posting orders at Jalore from Match 18 1985 and ultimately under order dated September 18, 1985 he was compulsorily retired under rule 244 2) of RSR. In the aforesaid order it was stated that Shri Verma has attained the age of 50 years and the Governor of Rajasthan as aforesaid was pleased to retire Shri Verma in public interest from service on the date of the receipt of that order by payment to him of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice. A bank draft was also annexed therewith. besides raising other grounds the petitioner also raised a ground that he had not attained the age of f0 years and therefore his case could not have been considered for compulsory retirement. The fact is that the petitioner as appears from the date of birth could not have and had not attained the age of 50 years and he could have attained the age of 50 years on October 15, 1989. The aforesaid order was corrected under order No F. 18 (1) (35) Jud/63 dated December 16, 1985. The order dated 16th December, 1985 reads as under : 'Whereas in the order of the even number dated 18th, September 1985, whereby the Governor of Rajasthan was pleased to retire Shri Anandilal Verma from service it was inadvertantly mentioned by mistake that the said Shri Anandilal Verma has attained the age of 50 years. Now therefore in the said order for the expression 'Whereas Shri Anandilal Verma has attained the age of 50 years" the expression -Whereas Shri Anandilal Verma has completed 25 years of qualifying service" shall be read and the mistake shall stand corrected accordingly. By order of the Governor Sd/ S. R. Bhansali Secretary to the Government. After the aforesaid correction the petitioner filed amended petition challenging the aforesaid order also. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the non-petitioners and it has been stated that the petitioner had completed the qualifying service of 25 years initial order dated September 18, 1985, in which mistake crept in inadvertently has been corrected under order dated December 16, 1985. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the non-petitioners and it has been stated that the petitioner had completed the qualifying service of 25 years initial order dated September 18, 1985, in which mistake crept in inadvertently has been corrected under order dated December 16, 1985. When the order dated September 18, 1985, was made compulsorily retiring the petitioner under rule 244 (2) of RSR in fact he had completed 25 years 'qualifying service and thus he fell within the zone of consideration under rule 244 (2) of RSR and therefore the order of compulsory retirement was not void. It is also the case of the non-petitioners that the service record of the petitioner was bad. Disciplinary Inquiry in respect of serious charges was conducted and the Disciplinary Authority held both the charges to be proved against the petitioner but on a mercy petition filed by the petitioner. a sympathetic view was taken and a recorded warning was given but it does not wash-off the same and a bare perusal of which will show that the nature of charges are such which alone are sufficient to form an opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. In other words it is the case of the non-petitioner that there was sufficient material to form the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under rule 244 (2) of RSR. We will now take up the points which had been given by us at the start of the order in respect of this petitioner. Whether the petitioner had 25 years qualifying service on the date of Compulsory Retirement ? 72. As stated earlier the petitioner after his selection and appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service joined on July 1, 1959 as Munsif Magistrate under training at Alwar. He was compulsorily retired on September 18, 1985. It will therefore he clear that prima facie it can be said that the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service on the date of his retirement. He was compulsorily retired on September 18, 1985. It will therefore he clear that prima facie it can be said that the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service on the date of his retirement. A look at the writ petition more so its para 4 will show that the petitioner has come out with a case that the period f service from April 1, 1972 to October 4, 1974 has not been recognised and paid for and cannot be treated as a qualifying service period under the RSR as even subsistance allowance has not been paid for this period though subsistance allowance has been paid from January 1, 1969 to April 1, 1972 and October 5, 1974 onwards. The case of the non-petitioner in reply to the writ petition is that the suspension period w.e.f. April 1, 1979 to October 4, 1974 was treated as a period of continuous service for pension purposes and for counting the qualifying service of the petitioner. The petitioner was further allowed subsistance allowance on the condition that he was to submit a certificate regarding his employment else where during this period. The petitioner submitted an application that he was practising as an advocate and as such the subsistance allowance was not paid to him and the period was treated to be a period for the purpose of pension. Rule 54(1) of RSR also deals with the case of a period who has been dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired from service or suspended. Under it it is within the competence of the authority who orders the reinstatement and to make specific order whether or not the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and dearness allowances which the competent authority may prescribe. Clauses (3) and (5) of rule 54 of RSR read as under:- (3) In other cases the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and dearness allowance as such competent authority may prescribe. .......... (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period on duty unless competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose". A look at Annr. .......... (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period on duty unless competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose". A look at Annr. R2/1 dated April 27 1977 issued by the High Court will show that it is mentioned in para 1 thereof that- "He submitted an application admitting his guilt and begging pardon. further stated that he would not put up any claim regarding pay seniority promotion or anything whatsoever if he was reinstated." It will further appear from para 2 of the aforesaid order that the Full Court considered the matter and resolved that looking to the long-period Shri Anandilal Verma had to face enquiry and remained under suspension It would meet the ends of justice if a recorded warning be issued to him and he be reinstated as Munsif. The Full Court also considered the case of the petitioner under rule 54 of the RSR and in para 3 of the aforesaid it is said- "In pursuance of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules the court considered the matter regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to Shri Verma for the period of his absence from duty and whether or not the said period should be treated as a period spent on duty and was of the opinion that his case fell under sub-rules (3) & (5) of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and provisionally decided to make an order regarding pay & allowances for the period of suspension that the amount of subsistance allowance already paid to him is sufficient and he would not be paid any amount more than that. As regards the period of suspension it shall be treated as a period spent on duty for pension purpose only and for no other purpose whatsoever including increments. A notice to show cause against the proposed order under rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was issued to him. Shri Verma submitted that he had no objection to the above order being passed by the Court". A notice to show cause against the proposed order under rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was issued to him. Shri Verma submitted that he had no objection to the above order being passed by the Court". In paras 4 and 5 of the said order it is mentioned:- "Accordingly the order of suspension of Shri Anandilal Verma No. Est (RJS) 55/75 dated March 18, 1975 and under Rule 13(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 1978 is hereby revoked and he is reinstated as Munsif in the Rajasthan Judicial Service with immediate effect-. As regards pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty he shall not be allowed any pay and allowances beyond what he had actually received by way of subsistance allowance during the period of suspension. The period of his absence from duty shall be treated as a period on duty for pension purposes only and for no other purpose whatsoever including increments". It will therefore be clear from the aforesaid order that as mentioned in the aforesaid order Shri Verma had submitted an application that he had no objection to the order being made by the Full Court that Shri Verma relinquished all his claims and was satisfied with the pay and allowances which had been actually received by him by way of subsistance allowance during the period of suspension. Shri Verma the petitioner had filed an application on January 21, 1977 to the Registrar Rajasthan High Court which reads as under:- "To. The Registrar Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. Sub : Departmental Enquiry. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR Most humbly and respectfully I beg to submit as under in the matter referred above : 1. That I beg for mercy and humbly pray for being pardoned. 2. That I will not prefer any claim regarding pay seniority promotions or anything whatsoever. I most humbly pray that I may kindly be pardoned. Yours faithfully Sd/ (Anandi Lal Verma) RJS At Jodhpur" Though the aforesaid application for mercy and being pardoned was made by Shri Verma on January 21, 1977 before the Registrar Rajasthan High Court later on Shri Verma made an endorsement on January 31, 1977 as under: "I admit my guilt and beg to be pardoned. Sd/- A.L. Verma. Yours faithfully Sd/ (Anandi Lal Verma) RJS At Jodhpur" Though the aforesaid application for mercy and being pardoned was made by Shri Verma on January 21, 1977 before the Registrar Rajasthan High Court later on Shri Verma made an endorsement on January 31, 1977 as under: "I admit my guilt and beg to be pardoned. Sd/- A.L. Verma. 31.1.77" There is yet another application of Shri Verma earlier to the aforesaid application dated December 27, 1976, wherein he wrote to the Registrar in which it has been mentioned that- "That I have suffered much mentally and financially and have been put to a great harassment due to this departmental enquiry extending for a prolonged period of more than 13 years. All my colleagues have been promoted as District Judges. I am quite unable to face the harassment any more. That in case this departmental enquiry is dropped and the order of suspension is revoked I assure your honour that I will not make any claim whatsoever except that which your honour may be pleased to order in my favour. I therefore most humbly request your kind honour to be pleased to take a lenient view in this matter and be pleased to drop the enquiry and revoke the suspension order." It was after the aforesaid application and a prayer for being pardoned and admitting the guilt by the petitioner that the decision was taken to take a lenient view in the matter and instead of a penalty of removal or dismissal as proposed he was only censured. It can therefore not be said that Shri Verma was exonerated of the charge. 73. Rule 119 of RSR deals with conditions of qualifications and according to it the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions namely(i) the service must be under Government (ii) the employment may be in substantive/permanent/temporary or officiating capacity (iii) the service may be paid by the Government. Rule 180 of RSR deals with the government's power to declare any service as qualifying service and it is provided in that rule that the Government may declare that any specified kind of service or service rendered by a Government servant shall qualify for pension subject to such conditions as Government may think fit to impose. Rule 180 of RSR deals with the government's power to declare any service as qualifying service and it is provided in that rule that the Government may declare that any specified kind of service or service rendered by a Government servant shall qualify for pension subject to such conditions as Government may think fit to impose. Under rule 206 of RSR the time passed under suspension pending enquiry into conduct shall count in full whereas on conclusion of the enquiry the Government servant has been fully exonerated or the suspension is held to have been wholly unjustified in other cases the period of suspension shall not count unless the authority competent to pass orders under rule 54 expressly declares at the time that it shall count and then it shall count only to such extent as the competent authority may declare. It will therefore be clear that it is the case of the petitioner that the order has been made under rule 54 of RSR declaring that the total period of suspension may be counted towards pension. It has already been said that the grievance raised by the petitioner in para 4 of the writ petition is that the period of service w.e.f. April 1, 1972 to October 4, 1974 has not been recognised and paid and cannot be treated to be qualifying service under the RSR as even subsistance allowance has not been paid for this period to him. A reference has already been made to the order made by the Full Court and the Full Court had ordered that the entire period including this period of suspension shall be treated as a period of qualifying service for pension purposes and for counting the qualifying service of the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed subsistance allowance on the condition that he was to submit a certificate regarding his employment else-where during this period. The petitioner submitted an application that he was a practising advocate and as such the subsistance allowance was not paid to him and the period was treated to be the period for the purpose of pension. The petitioner was allowed subsistance allowance on the condition that he was to submit a certificate regarding his employment else-where during this period. The petitioner submitted an application that he was a practising advocate and as such the subsistance allowance was not paid to him and the period was treated to be the period for the purpose of pension. In view of the mercy petition which the petitioner made and wherein he had clearly stated that he will not raise any claim for pay seniority promotion or anything whatsoever the petitioner can have no grievance that the whole period of his service could not be counted as qualifying service towards pension. Whether the order dated 18, 9-1985 compulsorily retiring the petitioner was void and therefore could not be rectified by the order dated 16-12-1985" 74. It has already been said that the petitioner had not completed the age of 50 years as on September 18 1985 when he was compulsorily retired under rule 244 (2) of RSR and correction was made after the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dated September 18 1985 whereby it was mentioned:- "Whereas in the order of the even number dated 18th September, 1985 whereby the Governor of Rajasthan was pleased to retire Shri Anandilal Verma from service it was inadvertently mentioned by mistake that the said Shri Anandilal Verma has attained the age of 50 years. Now therefore in the said order for the expression 'whereas Shri Anandilal Verma has attained the age of 50 years' the expression 'Whereas Shri Anandilal Verma has completed 25 years of qualifying service shall be read the mistake shall stand corrected accordingly". This order was made by Shri S. R. Bhansali Secretary to the Government by order of the Governor. If the earlier order was void there can be no dispute that it could not be rectified but if the earlier order was not void and was only invalid then the order could be rectified. If under law the power is to be exercised on alternative conditions then action cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or void. A Government servant who has either attained the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years qualifying service falls within the zone of consideration under rule 244 (2) of RSR and the above conditions are alternate conditions. A Government servant who has either attained the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years qualifying service falls within the zone of consideration under rule 244 (2) of RSR and the above conditions are alternate conditions. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the petitioner Shri Verma who though had not attained the age of 50 years but had completed 25 years qualifying service fell within the eligibility zone of consideration and the competent authority could have considered the case whether or not it was in public interest to compulsorily retire him. If the competent authority has power to act mere mention of wrong rule is not sufficient. 75. In the case of (37) L. Hajari Mal Kuthiala Vs. Income Tax Officer and another AIR 1961 SC 200 , the Court while dealing with Section 5(5) of the Patiala Income Tax Act (Samvat 2001) said that the exercise of a power will be referable to a jurisdiction which confers validity upon it and not to a jurisdiction under which it will be nugatory, the court said- "Where the Commissioner of Income tax when transferring a case from Patiala to Amabala purported to act under Section 5 (5) and (7A) of the Indian Act while be should have acted under Section 5 (5) of the Patiala Act the fact that he referred to Indian Act does not make the action of the Commissioner as one without jurisdiction." In the case of (38) Municipal Corporation Ahemdabad Vs. Ben Biraben Manilal 1983 (2) SCC 422 , . the court said that the exercise of statutory power will assume validity under a proper provision conferring jurisdiction even if a different or wrong provision is referred to. In the case of (39) Gur Pratap Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab 1976 (1) SLR (SC) 399, the court was dealing with a case of compulsory retirement and it was said that : We may examine the first ground briefly. True that the State Government has shown remissness in denying that the main order was passed under Rule 5.32. On a closer and comprehensive study of the papers it is apparent that what was meant was that Government passed the order under Rule 32(c) and not under Rule 5.32 (b). This carelessness cannot certainly found an argument to invalidate the order. On a closer and comprehensive study of the papers it is apparent that what was meant was that Government passed the order under Rule 32(c) and not under Rule 5.32 (b). This carelessness cannot certainly found an argument to invalidate the order. It is perfectly plain that there are two courses for Government to compulsorily retire an officer. The first one under Rule 5.32 (b) has to be invoked when the officer has not attained the age of 15 years'. For exercising this power there are certain conditions mentioned in the note to the said sub-rule. This other provision is 5.12 (c) which applies when a Government employee is retired by the appointing authority on or after he attains the age of 55 years. In this case only three months' notice is called for and no other preconditions have to be fulfilled. However, when the notice is given under this sub-rule before the age of 55 years is attained the order shall take effect from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of 55 years is attained". In (40) M.R. Singh V. Chief Commissioner (1976)4 SCC 709 the Supreme Court said that if power can be traced to a valid power the fact that the power is purported to have been exercised under non-existing power does not invalidate the exercise of the power. 76. We are therefore of the opinion that a distinction has to be made in an order which is void ab initio and being without jurisdiction and an order which is not void or is within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the authority competent to pass an order mentioned a wrong order or wrong fact in it it does not go to the jurisdiction of the competent authority and will not vitiate the order and the competent authority will always be competent to rectify the same. In the instant case it will be clear that though the petitioner had not attained the age of 50 years but as stated earlier completed 25 years of qualifying service on the date when he was compulsorily retired one of the necessary ingredients under rule 244(2) of RSR who has completion of 25 years qualifying service the competent authority could therefore have corrected the mistake which crept in the earlier order inadvertently and which correction was made under order dated December 16, 1985. Whether the opinion to Compulsorily Retire is bona fide or Arbitrary: 77. Coming to the merit of the case we have already deduced the principles which will govern these cases. We have said that though the entire service record of a Government servant is to be considered but weightage is to be given to the entries in his service record for last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement of the Government servant. We have already said that if the Government servant after his promotion has earned adverse entries then the like or similar adverse entries earned by the Government servant prior to his promotion can also be looked into and will furnish the relevant material to form the requisite opinion whether or not it is in the public interest to retire him compulsorily or prematurely. 78. Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of serious charges which charges in our opinion not only related to integrity of the petitioner but they went still further as the charges which shall be extracted herein- after will show that the petitioner misused his judicial office to wrack vengeance against the enemies of his family. We may hasten to add that we are referring to the charges in order to show that they are of serious nature and not because that we are sitting in appeal against the decision of the Full Court we could not and are not doing so. We may hasten to add that we are referring to the charges in order to show that they are of serious nature and not because that we are sitting in appeal against the decision of the Full Court we could not and are not doing so. In the later part of this order N.e will deal with subsequent entries made in APARs of the petitioner and we have already said that if after promotion the Government servant has earned adverse entries in his APARs then the similar or like entries earned by him prior to his promotion can also be looked and it can furnish the relevant material to form requisite opinion whether or not it is in public interest to retire that Government servant prematurely or compulsorily and in such a case the theory of wash-off will not be applicable and it has also been said earlier that though the entire service record of a Government servant is to be looked while forming such opinion but more weightage is to be given to the service record of last about 10 years immediately preceding the consideration of his case under the relevant rale which carries no stigma and is not a punishment We may reproduce the charges framed against the petitioner which reads as under Charge-I That the said Shri Anandilal Verma while functioning as Munsiff Magistrate Nawa during the period from 20.4.1962 to 8.5.1963 abused his powers as Magistrate and passed an illegal order of arrest of Ganpat alias Gania s/o Kalyan Dakot resident of Hirnoda. Tehsil Phulera in Criminal case No. 41 of 1962 State V. Narain and others pending in his court on 26.7.62 and further by order dated 4.8.62 illegally remanded him to police custody for a period of seven days with the result that Ganpat remained in wrongful confinement from 4.8.62 to 7.8.62 as indicated in the statement of allegations. Shri Verma thus misconducted himself. Charge-II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid capacity the said Shri Anandilal Verma committed various irregularities in criminal case No. 114 of 1962 State V. Kalu Ram and others prima facie to cause unnecessary harassment to the accused persons Shri Narain Kalyan and others with whom Shri Verma and his father Shri Chittarmal had prior enmity and inimical relations as indicated in the statement of allegations. Shri Verma thus misconducted himself". Shri Verma thus misconducted himself". A look at the inquiry report made by the Disciplinary Authority will show that both the aforesaid charges were found proved against the petitioner. The charges were of serious nature. 79. After reinstatement as aforesaid the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge and he remained posted as Addl. Civil Judge Bharatpur from September 14, 1978 to March 26, 1979. Generally the earlier adverse record if any would have been washed-off but as will be presently shown the petitioner even after his promotion earned adverse entries in the APARs in respect of his integrity and therefore his earlier adverse record also could have been considered and it could furnish relevant material to form requisite opinion to retire the petitioner compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR. 80. As stated earlier the petitioner remained under suspension from July 6, 1963 to April 27, 1977 and therefore his APRs from 1963 to 1976 are not available. In the APARs for the year 1977 the reporting officer about his integrity said -Beyond doubt' and in general remarks he said-'A good judicial officer but requires to improve his disposal'. In the APAR of 1978 so far as integrity is concerned the reporting officer remarked "Nothing adverse came to my notice" and for disposal the reporting officer said 90%-inadequate. Quarter ending Dec. 78 50%. Administrative Judge remarked- 'Disposal of work poor. Quality satisfactory'. For the year 1979 the integrity was said to be not doubtful and there is no remark of either the Administrative Judge or the Chief Justice for this period. For 1980 there are two APARs by two reporting officers and in one of them it was said about the integrity by the reporting officer that 'Nothing adverse has come to my notice' and in the other it was said 'beyond doubt'. It was also said that on the whole his work and conduct have been satisfactory'. There is report of Registrar (Vigilance) in respect of the Petitioner regarding complaint discipline etc. during the year 1980 and it was said that Shri Verma has not signed some judgments and the explanation of Shri Verma was called for and on perusal of the same the Administrative Judge ordered that recorded warning be issued to him. A recorded warning was issued. For the Year 1981 4 of his judgments were found to be below standard and l1 standard. A recorded warning was issued. For the Year 1981 4 of his judgments were found to be below standard and l1 standard. In 1962 his integrity was said to be fair and there is no remark either by the Administrative Judge or by the Chief Justice. For the year 1983 there are two APARs of the petitioner by two reporting officers and in one of them the reporting officer said 'nothing adverse came to notice' and in the other his integrity was found to be fair. The Chief Justice remarked -"Reputation bad. Not a good Officer'. In the year 1984 again there are two APARs by two reporting officers in each of them it was said that nothing adverse came to their notice but the Chief Justice remarked 'Bad officer. Integrity doubtful'. It will therefore be clear that the petitioner earned bad entries in respect of his integrity after his promotion. Thus the earlier similar or like entries prior to his promotion could also be looked into and could furnish relevant material to the competent authority to form opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. Integrity or doubtful integrity stands on a different footing and even uncommunicated adverse entry in respect of doubtful integrity could furnish relevant material for farming such opinion by the competent authority. Under our order dated October 4, 1988 we granted opportunity to the petitioner to file representation which representation was made and was considered by the committee of three Hon'ble Judges appointed by the Chief Justice. The Committee dismissed the representation in respect of APARs for the years 1977, 78, 1983 and so far as adverse remarks of 1984 is concerned the Committee did not say anything. The Screening Committee of five Judges appointed by the Chief Justice to which a reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order while dealing with the cases of others and while discussing four points formulated in the beginning of this order had recommended that the petitioner be kept under observation and there are no reasons for the aforesaid recommendations so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned but the Full Court had taken a decision that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired. The report of the Committee of three Hon'ble Judges as well as that opinion of the Chief Justice were placed before the Full Court and the Full Court rejected the representation. The report of the Committee of three Hon'ble Judges as well as that opinion of the Chief Justice were placed before the Full Court and the Full Court rejected the representation. 81. It can therefore be said that it is not a case where it can he said that there was no material whatsoever on which the requisite opinion could be formed by the competent authority under rule 224(2) of RSR. There is no force in this writ petition it deserves to be dismissed. J. P. GUPTA (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2135/86) 82. The date of birth of the petitioner is July 15, 1939. The petitioner has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR by the Government dated September 18, 1985 (Annr. 1) inter alia; on the grounds that it is arbitrary unfair unjust unreasonable and in flagrant violation of the Constitution. law and procedure established by law. First the history of the service of the petitioner which is this. The petitioner was appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service vide State Government's order dated July 19, 1960 on the basis of selection held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission which post he joined on August 1, 1960. Thus on September 18, 1985. though he had completed 25 years qualifying service but he had not attained the age of 5u years. One of the ingredient of rule 244(2) of RSR was satisfied. The petitioner was Munsif Magistrate (under training) from August 1 1960 to June 23, 1961; Munsif Magistrate Karauli from July 3, 1961 to April 22 1964; Munsif Magistrate Sikar from August 8, 1964 to August 12 1967; Munsif Magistrate Malpura from October 5, 1967 to March 2, 1968. He was promoted as Civil Judge and was Civil Judge Shambhar from March 11, 1968 to May 24, 1969; Civil Judge Jhunjhunu from May 31 1969 to April 24, 1972 ; Civil Judge Jaipur City from May 4, 1972 to February 7, 1974, On the recommendations of the High Court he was promoted to Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service by the Governor vide order dated August 20, 1973 Annr. 2. He remained on various posts in the cadre of Addl. Distt. Judge till June 15, 1977. 2. He remained on various posts in the cadre of Addl. Distt. Judge till June 15, 1977. He was further promoted as District Judge under order dated June 16, 1977 and the petitioner remained as Director of Prosecution Home Department State of Rajasthan upto December 1978, He was on deputation for training in United Kingdom in different disciplines of law from January 1975 to June 1979 ; District & Sessions Judge at Balotra from July 1979 to June 1980 ; Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan from July 1980 to July 1981 ; Presiding Judge Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal Jaipur from October 1981 to June 1982 ; District & Sessions Judge Jalore from July 1982 to April 1984 ; Distt. & Sessions Judge Alwar from May 1984 till he was compulsorily retired under order dated September 18, 1985. 83. The main grievance of the petitioner is that uncommunicated entries have been considered while forming the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under rule 244 (2) of RSR and uncommunicated entries cannot be relevant material for the aforesaid purpose. It has also been contended on his behalf by his learned counsel that the report of the Screening Committee could not have been considered as the procedure adopted by it was arbitrary and not warranted by law. A.cording to the learned counsel for the petitioner 25 years' qualifying service or 10 years age can only be considered on 31st March each year and so far as the petitioner is concerned none of the aforesaid ingredients was satisfied on March 31, 1985. Therefore, the petitioner was not within the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 241 (2) of RSR. It has also been contended that rule 244 (2) of RSR has not been adopted by the High Court and therefore no decision could be taken under aforesaid rule to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not within the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 241 (2) of RSR. It has also been contended that rule 244 (2) of RSR has not been adopted by the High Court and therefore no decision could be taken under aforesaid rule to compulsorily retire the petitioner. In the earlier part of this order while discussing the cases of other petitioners we have already said that the instructions/circulars/guidelines issued by the Government for examining the cases of Government servant for compulsory retirement under rule 243 (2) of RSR are not applicable to the High Court but we have said that the Governor has power to frame rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and RSR have been framed by the Rajpramukh under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they will also govern the members of subordinate judiciary. We have in the earlier part of this order deduced the principle which shall govern the present batch of writ petitions. It may be stated that a bare reading of rule 244 (2) of RSR will show that rule 244(2) is applicable to a Government servant on the date on which he completes 25 years qualifying service or on the date he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier or on any date thereafter. Therefore the said rule will apply on the date a Government servant completes qualifying service of 25 years or attains the age of 50 years and it is not correct to say that cases of such Government servants who have either completed 25 years qualifying service or who attains 50 years of age on March 31 of the year will alone be considered. The case of the petitioner who completed 25 years qualifying service on July 31. 1985 could have therefore been considered on or after that date under rule 244 (2) of RSR. 84. We will examine the case of the petitioner by first referring to his service records of last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of his compulsory retirement i.e. his service record from the year 1975 onwards. 85. There are two APARs for the year 1975 and so far as the reporting officer is concerned the integrity was certified to be satisfactory. 85. There are two APARs for the year 1975 and so far as the reporting officer is concerned the integrity was certified to be satisfactory. In one of them in column No. 11 the reporting officer said "A smart young officer not yet mature for promotion". The Administrative Judge remarked Disposal average. Quality of Judgments average. Must improve his image which of late has received set-back'. The Chief Justice signed and did not modify the remarks of the Administrative Judge. Shri Gupta was communicated the aforesaid entries in his APAR vide registered/secret letter dated August 19, 1976. In the year 1976 the reporting reporting officer so as integrity is concerned said 'beyond doubt'. Learned Administrative Judge remarked 'A good officer who should try to work as a Judge rather be on deputation'. Chief Justice said-"He has been spoken very highly about his efficiency by the Home Commr. under whom he is at present working. On the whole a good and efficient judicial officer." During this period the petitioner was also posted as Joint L. R. Home and it was remarked that the officer played an important role in the Directorate of Prosecution in Home Department as also entire legal work. His examination of complicated legal matters was of High quality and has keen perception of law. He has great ability for leadership and inspires confidence. The reporting officer for the APAR during the period from November 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978 said that the petitioner can be assigned any other job requiring legal acumen and drive. The reporting officer was Shri L. N. Gupta and the Chief Secretary agreed with the reporting officer. The Chief Justice said that the petitioner was on deputation. For the year 1978 the Administrative Judge said 'No complaint against his integrity. He is an average Judicial Officer'. The Chief Justice signed the same on June 8, 1980. For the year 1979 the petitioner was on deputation and the Home Commissioner gave the same remarks with which the Chief Secretary agreed and also said 'Very good officer'. For this year i. e. 1979 the High Court said that the Administrative work was fair and Justice K. D. Sharma Administrative Judge said that 'Disposal of Judicial cases satisfactory. Quality of judgments on the whole satisfactory. An average judicial officer.' The Chief Justice said-'Devoted & uncomplaining'. For this year i. e. 1979 the High Court said that the Administrative work was fair and Justice K. D. Sharma Administrative Judge said that 'Disposal of Judicial cases satisfactory. Quality of judgments on the whole satisfactory. An average judicial officer.' The Chief Justice said-'Devoted & uncomplaining'. For the dear 1980 Jagannath Pahadia the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan so far as APARs is concerned gave an outstanding ACR as the petitioner served directly under the Chief Minister as Officer on Special Duty and as such both reporting officer and reviewing officer was the Chief Minister himself and the report was for the year 3rd July 19 to December 31, 1980. The petitioner was District Judge Jhalawar from January 1980 to June 30, 1980 and the Administrative Judge said that the administrative work was good an' in general remarks he said that Disposal is good. Quality of work is good. As OSD to CM he held a highly controversial post'. The Chief Justice said that "Shri J. P Gupta is on deputation. His integrity is not certified'. For the year 1981 from Jan . 1981 to July 10, 1981 again the petitioner was OSD with the Chief Minister and the Chief Minister said 'Shri Gupta is a highly devoted officer who gave outstanding performance by assisting the Chief Minister in varied jobs entrusted to him'. There are no remarks by the Administrative Judge but the Chief Justice said that -'Shri J. P. Gupta is an average judicial officer. His integrity is not beyond doubt. He is interested in his posting at Jaipur'. In APAR for the year 1983 the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee remarked "Average Officer. Integrity not above board'. In 1984 the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee said-'Average Officer. Should improve his reputation and image'. 86. A perusal of the aforesaid APARs of the petitioner for the year 1975 and onwards will show that in the APARs of 1975 there is a remark that Shri Gupta must improve his image which of late has received set back. The aforesaid adverse entry was communicated to Shri Gupta as stated earlier. It can also be said that from the year 1976 to 1979 the petitioner had earned good entries in APARs and even his integrity was not doubted. The aforesaid adverse entry was communicated to Shri Gupta as stated earlier. It can also be said that from the year 1976 to 1979 the petitioner had earned good entries in APARs and even his integrity was not doubted. It was in the year 1980 while Shri Gupta was on deputation as Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister that the Chief Justice Shri K. D. Sharma did not certify his integrity. Similarly in 1981 the petitioner was on deputation and again Justice K. D. Sharma said that his integrity was not beyond doubt and he is interested in his posting at Jaipur. In the year 1983 the then Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee said that the integrity is not above board and again in the year 1984 it was said by the Chief Justice that the officer must improve his reputation and image. Out of the APAR for the last about 11 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement it will be clear that the petitioner had earned as many as six adverse entries and a number of them relate to his integrity. We have said in the earlier part of this order that one who has an opportunity to closely supervise the work and conduct of the Government servant is competent to write APAR. We are of the opinion that the period during which Shri Gupta was on deputation as Officer on Special Duty to the Chief Minister it cannot be said that either the Administrative Judge or the Chief Justice had opportunity to closely supervise and watch the work and conduct of Shri Gupta and to assess the same That apart during the aforesaid period there will be two APARs one by Chief Minister under whom the petitioner was working who gave outstanding APAR and the other by the Administrative Judge or Chief Justice which is or may be adverse Under these circumstances prudence requires that the adverse entries given by one may be the Chief Justice should not have any relevance and could not have provided the material and cannot be relevant material for the purpose of forming the requisite opinion under rule 24 (2) of RSR. We will even go to the extent that even for part of the year for which the report is written if the officer has earned outstanding or good APAR from one who had had the occasion to supervise his work or conduct and assess the same and the reviewing authority gave the adverse entry for the same period and even for some part of the other period then the entries made in the absence of the material to the contrary on the basis of which entry in such circumstance be based we will ignore the adverse entry for the part of the year also. We will therefore not consider the adverse entries in respect of the integrity of Shri Gupta so far as years 1980 and 1981 are concerned but even if these entries are not taken into consideration it can be said that the petitioner had earned adverse entries in 1982, 1983 and 1984 not by one but by two Chief Justices Justice K. D. Sharma and Justice P. K. Banerjee. The above adverse entries are of integrity of the petitioner and we have said that even uncommunicated such adverse entries which stand on a different footing will furnish the relevant material to form requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR. Even if the adverse entries prior to the promotion of the petitioner as Distt. Judge in 1977 may be deemed to have been washed off it can be said that there are adverse entries in respect of the integrity for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is and the petitioner also took up the same in his rejoinder that the aforesaid adverse entries were the result of deep bias and malice nursed against the petitioner. In the absence of the then Chief Justice Shri K. D. Sharma and P. K. Banerjee being party to the writ petition the bias or malice if any being nursed against the petitioner cannot be enquired into and even otherwise we find no material on which one can come to the conclusion that the adverse entries in the years 1982, 1583 and 1984 in respect of the integrity of the petitioner were as a result of malice or bias or for any other reason. During the year 1982 the petitioner has said that he had served as Presiding Officer Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal till 20th July, 1982 and the said post was under the administrative control of the State Government and not under the administrative control of the High Court. The petitioner had so served until he was posted as Distt. & Sessions Judge Jalore which post he joined on July 21, 1982. Therefore the High Court had no opportunity to watch the work and conduct of the petitioner until he came to be posted at Jalore and according to the petitioner the APAR for the period upto 20th July, 1982 could not have been drawn by any functionary of respondent No. 2 i.e. High Court and if this period has also been included in the 1982 APAR it will be vitiated for incompetence and lack of authority. Even after July 21, 1982 the petitioner had actually worked only for 52 days till December 31, 1982 as Distt and Sessions Judge. The petitioner has given the details of his work at page 110 of the paper book (internal page 14 of rejoinder). For the year 1983 the petitioner has come out with the case in the writ petition and rejoinder that the remarks are out-come of some bias and prejudice which governed the remarks for the year 19801981 and 1982. It was in the above back ground that the remarks for the year 1983 are couched in the same words in the remarks for the years 1980 to 1982 are made and such remarks therefore had indisputably came to be recorded with a biased and prejudiced eye. We fail to agree with the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Bias is and may be an individual matter and even if K.D. Sharma would have been biased. for which we find no material there is no reason to come to the conclusion that in the absence of any material on record even Justice P.K. Banerjee became biased against the petitioner because his predecessor Justice K.D Shama was biased against him. Bias is and may be an individual matter and even if K.D. Sharma would have been biased. for which we find no material there is no reason to come to the conclusion that in the absence of any material on record even Justice P.K. Banerjee became biased against the petitioner because his predecessor Justice K.D Shama was biased against him. In so far as the alleged groupism based upon the castism which according to the petitioner had affected in the Rajasthan High Court during the particular period we find no merit and even if the then Chief Justice of India had made some comments it cannot be said that there was any groupism and that apart so far as the period of 1983 and 1984 is concerned then Shri P.K Banerjee an outsider had taken over as Chief Justice and therefore there is no question of any groups in based on castism. Thus it can be said that the petitioner had adverse entries in his APAR for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 which entries relate to his integrity. As already stated earlier the adverse entries in respect of integrity even if they are not communicated can furnish the relevant material to form the requisite opinion under rule 244 (2) of RSR and even a single entry in respect of doubtful integrity or the integrity being not beyond doubt in our opinion will be sufficient to form requisite opinion that it is in public interest to compulsorily or prematurely retire a Government servant. At and rate it cannot be said that it is a case where there was absolutely no material whatsoever on which the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under rule 244 (2) of RSR could be formed. The scope of judicial review is limited and if there is no material whatsoever it may be possible for this court to say that the requisite opinion could not be formed bona fide or that the compulsory retirement is for collateral purpose which amounts to casting stigma or punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 87. Under our order dated October 4, 1988 we had thought proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file representation against the adverse material supplied to him which representation was made by the petitioner. 87. Under our order dated October 4, 1988 we had thought proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file representation against the adverse material supplied to him which representation was made by the petitioner. The Committee of three Hon'ble Judges appointed by the Chief Justice examined the representation of the petitioner and the Committee so far as the APAR for the year 1980 is concerned has not accepted the representation because in the opinion of the Committee the petitioner had throughout not been on deputation and was on deputation w.e f. July 2, 1980 with the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. Coming to the APAR for the year 1981 the Committee has not expressed any opinion. We have already said in the earlier part of this order that the adverse entry in the APAR for the year 1981 should not have been considered. Coming to the APAR for the year 1982 the Committee recommended the rejection of the representation. For the year 1983 the Committee said that the submission of Shri Gupta is that Shri P. K. Banerjee seems to be influenced by the earlier entries made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. K.D. Sharma for the previous three years and the explanation did not impress the members of the Committee and the Committee recommended the rejection of the representation. Similarly for the adverse entries in the APAR for the year 1984 the Committee took the same view. The Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the committee and the case was placed before the Full Court and as stated earlier it is the Full Court which could take the final decision on the representation and the Full Court rejected the representation of the petitioner. 88. We may state that the Screening Committee of 5 Hon'ble Judges of this Court which examined the case of the petitioner had recommended that he should be kept under watch and had not recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 244 (2) of RSR. There is no detailed opinion of the Screening Committee and it had recommended that the petitioner should have been watched though the Committee not only considered the entire service record of the petitioner but also made spot inquiries at places where the petitioner had remained posted at one time or the other. There is no detailed opinion of the Screening Committee and it had recommended that the petitioner should have been watched though the Committee not only considered the entire service record of the petitioner but also made spot inquiries at places where the petitioner had remained posted at one time or the other. We have already said that the report of the Screening Committee was only recommendatory and it is the Full Court which has to take ultimate decision and the Full Court after perusal of the entire record formed the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR. 'Public interest' in our opinion requires that not only the efficient person should be retained in service but also persons whose integrity is beyond doubt should be retained. Therefore despite the recommendations of the Screening Committee that the petitioner should have been watched if the Full Court after consideration of the record and deliberations took a decision to retire him compulsorily in our opinion no case for interference in that decision can be said to be made out. 89. We have said earlier that if a Government servant after promotion has earned adverse entries then similar entries prior to his promotion can also be looked into though more weightage is to be given to the service record for last about 10 years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement. It will therefore only be in academic interest to deal with the remarks prior to 10 years. Even then we would like to refer to other service record of the petitioner before 1975 only to say that it is not a case where it can be said that the record of the petitioner has been unblemished throughout his service career. A perusal of the record prior to 1975 will show that the same is some time good or some time bad and at times the disposal was found to be below average and some time it was found average and quality of work was also found average. The disposal being below average as and when was found was also communicated to the petitioner. In the year 1974 Shri P. N. Singal the Administrative fudge as he then was also remarked that 'Disposal unsatisfactory. May have to be watched' and the District Judge Kota was directed to keep a watch over him. The disposal being below average as and when was found was also communicated to the petitioner. In the year 1974 Shri P. N. Singal the Administrative fudge as he then was also remarked that 'Disposal unsatisfactory. May have to be watched' and the District Judge Kota was directed to keep a watch over him. No doubt in the year 1975 the Sessions Judge said that nothing adverse came to his notice about the integrity of the officer and it may be said that as a result of watch nothing in respect of integrity came to the notice of the District Judge but in the year 1975 as stated earlier the Administrative Judge said that the petitioner must improve his image which of late has received setback. 90. We are of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was no material whatsoever to form the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR to compulsorily retire the petitioner or that such opinion was not and could not be formed bona fide. It cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 244(2) of RSR is arbitrary or illegal or was passed for collateral purpose We find no merit in the writ petition of the petitioner which deserves to be dismissed. ACHARYA GIRDHAR LAL (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1495/1986.) 91. The points which arise for determination in this case are (i) Whether such a Government servant though he has attained the age of 50 years but has not put in requisite years of service so as to entitle him for pension benefits can be compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) of RSR and (ii) whether the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under the aforesaid rule had been formed arbitrarily and illegally and there was no material whatsoever on the basis of which the competent authority could bona fide form the requisite opinion as aforesaid? 92. First the facts which are these. The date of birth of the petitioner is October 30 1933 and the age of superannuation being 58 years the petitioner would have attained the aforesaid age on October, 30 1991. The petitioner was a practising lawyer and was selected to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 (for short the RHJS Rules) as a direct recruit from the Bar. The petitioner was a practising lawyer and was selected to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 (for short the RHJS Rules) as a direct recruit from the Bar. He was appointed on probation for two years vide order July 13, 1974 and was posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur (Special Judge for CBI cases) vide order dated July 23, 1976 and he joined the said post on August 1, 1976. He was then posted as District & Sessions Judge Dungarpur which post he joined on July 2, 1977 and remained as District and Sessions Judge at different places Tonk Jhalawar Balotra Jalore Jhalawar from that date till March 19 1982. He was then posted as Officer on Special Duty (Rules) Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur and he remained as such form March 20, 1982 to July 2, 1982. He was again posted as District Judge at Jodhpur and remained there as such from July 6, 1982 to December 22, 1983 and District & Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur from December 23, 1083 till he was compulsorily retired under rule 24412) of RSR under the order No. 19 (57) Jud/75 dated July 27, 1985 (Ex. 16). The said order was enclosed by the Law Secretary under his letter dated August 1, 1985 (Ex. 15) to the petitioner. We will now revert to the two points posed at the beginning of the order in respect of this petitioner. Re : (I) 93. There can be no dispute that under the Rajasthan Service Rules before a Government servant can be eligible for pension on reaching the age of superannuation he must have to his credit qualifying service of not less than 10 years and a Government servant who has less than 0 years qualifying service is not entitled to any pension on superannuation. The petitioner as stated earlier had joined as Addl. District Judge on August 4, 1976 and was compulsorily retired under order Annr. 16 dated July 27, 1985. The petitioner therefore had not attained to his credit 10 years or more qualifying service and had less than 10 years qualifying service as he would have completed 10 years of qualifying service only on August 3, 1986. District Judge on August 4, 1976 and was compulsorily retired under order Annr. 16 dated July 27, 1985. The petitioner therefore had not attained to his credit 10 years or more qualifying service and had less than 10 years qualifying service as he would have completed 10 years of qualifying service only on August 3, 1986. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner unless the petitioner would have been eligible for pension he could not have been compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) of RSR as otherwise he would not be eligible for earned pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even if rule 244(2) of RSR is a valid piece of legislation though be contends that it is not so its application to a Government servant who has not 10 years or more qualifying service to entitle him for pension will be unreasonable and will cause great hardship to him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner under there circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner has reasonably long period of qualifying service and therefore the petitioner should not have been compulsorily retired. While examining the validity of a rule for compulsory retirement of a Government servant the courts have no doubt upheld its validity on the ground that one is entitled to pensionary benefits and the Supreme Court in the case of (41) Gurdev Singh Sidhu V. The State of Punjab and another AIR 1964 SC 1585 , while examining Article 311(2) in para 12 said - "Therefore it seems that only two exceptions can be treated as valid in dealing with the scope and effect of the protection afforded by Article 311(2). If a permanent public servant is asked to retire on the ground that he has reached the age of superannuation which has been reasonably fixed. Article 311(2) does not apply because such retirement is neither dismissal nor removal of the public servant. If a permanent public servant is compulsorily retired under the rules which prescribe the normal age of superannuation and provide for a reasonably long period of qualified service after which alone compulsory retirement can be ordered that again must not amount to dismissal or removal under Article 311(2) mainly because that is the effect of a long series of decisions of this court". Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the following paragraph in the aforesaid case- "But where while reserving the power to the State to compulsorily retire a permanent public servant a rule is framed prescribing a proper age of superannuation and another rule is added giving the power to the State to compulsorily retire a permanent public servant at the end of i0 years of his service that cannot we think be treated as falling outside Article 311 (2). The termination of the service of a permanent public servant under such a rule though called compulsory retirement is in substance removal under Article 311(2). It is because it was apprehended that rules of compulsory retirement may purport to reduce the prescribed minimum period of service beyond which compulsory retirement can be forced against a public servant that the majority of judgment in the case of Moti Ram Deka.......clearly indicated that if such a situation arose the validity of the rule may have to be examined and in doing so the impugned rule may not be permitted to seek the protection of the earlier decisions of this Court in which the minimum qualifying period of service was prescribed as high as 25 years or the age of the public servant at 50 years. We are therefore satisfied that Mr. Bhandari is right in contending that the effect of the majority decision in the case of Moti Kam Deka......... clearly is that the impugned Article 9. 1 contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution and must be struck down as invalid." It will be clear from the aforesaid judgment that the Supreme Court was dealing with the proviso II which was added after proviso I in clause (?) of Article 9. 1 of Pepsu Service Regulations. It was numbered as proviso (ii) and the said proviso vested an absolute power in the Government to compulsory retire a public servant after he had completed 10 years qualifying service. 1 of Pepsu Service Regulations. It was numbered as proviso (ii) and the said proviso vested an absolute power in the Government to compulsory retire a public servant after he had completed 10 years qualifying service. In our opinion the said authority will not apply to the instant case because rule 244(2) of RSR which has been extracted in the earlier part of this order does not vest any power in the Government to compulsorily retire a Government servant after 10 years qualifying service and so far as the aforesaid rule is concerned such power is only vested in the appointing authority in a case where the Government has completed 25 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter. Rule does not vest any power in the appointing authority to compulsorily retire a Government servant after he completes 10 years qualifying service. Therefore so far as the validity of rule is concerned in our opinion it is beyond challenge and as stated earlier if the validity of the rule has been upheld on one ground it cannot be challenged on other grounds. In our opinion merely because the applicability of the rule will lead hardship in a particular case the rule cannot be held to be invalid and the law is settled that hardship is no ground to hold a rule invalid and the rule universally applies to such of the Government servants who have either completed 25 years qualifying service or have attained the age of 50 years whichever is earlier and it will also apply thereafter to such of the Government servants. A look at the RHJS Rules will show that under rule 14 a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the of 45 years on the first day of January preceding the last date fixed for submission of the application. It is settled that Government has power to fix a reasonable age for superannuation. It has been more than once that the Government has either reduced the age from 58 to 55 or has increased it from 55 to 58 years and when the petitioner was appointed the age of superannuation was 55 years. It is common knowledge that the process of recruitment and selection takes some time. It has been more than once that the Government has either reduced the age from 58 to 55 or has increased it from 55 to 58 years and when the petitioner was appointed the age of superannuation was 55 years. It is common knowledge that the process of recruitment and selection takes some time. Under rule 14 of the RHJS Rules as stated earlier one who had attained the age of 35 years and not attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January preceding the last date fixed for submission of the applications was eligible. The possibility that by the time one is selected and appointed to the RHJS he might have crossed the age of 45 years cannot be excluded. There are also cases and we may refer to one such case of Shri Shiv Charan Lal Singhal a member of RHJS who was directly recruited from Bar and who retired after attaining the age of superannuation which was then 55 years but no pension could be granted because of the fact that before one becomes eligible for superannuation he must have completed (10) years qualifying service. Therefore merely because the petitioner had not completed 10 years qualifying service at his credit it cannot be said that the applicability of rule 244(2) of RSR which applies to the case of the petitioner because he had attained the age 50 years at the time of compulsory retirement was unreasonable or the rule could not be applied. Apart from the pension such a Government servant who is compulsorily retired is also entitled to other pensionary benefits like gratuity and leave encasement. 94. We are therefore of the opinion that it cannot be said that either the rule is bad or ultravirus or its applicability to the case of the petitioner is not proper because it will lead to hardship to the petitioner who will be deprived of pension for all times to come. Re : (ii) 95. As the petitioner joined his service after his selection and appointment as a direct recruitee on August 4, 1976 the first APAR of the petitioner which is available is from August 4, 1976 to December 31, 1976. Re : (ii) 95. As the petitioner joined his service after his selection and appointment as a direct recruitee on August 4, 1976 the first APAR of the petitioner which is available is from August 4, 1976 to December 31, 1976. His disposal of work during the said period was not adequate as reported by the reporting officer who said in column No. 7 No. Though he deals with CBI cases but still no justification for disposing 251/2 days work in 88 working days.' So far as the control over the office and administrative capacity and tact is said Satisfactory'. In the general remarks the Administrative Judge said 'Disposal of work poor. Quality of judgments satisfactory. Integrity beyond doubt'. The Chief Justice said. He has to improve'. During the aforesaid year also the disposal of work was 75% and as such was not adequate. For the year 1979 during which the petitioner was posted as District Judge Jhalawar and District Judge Balotra the Administrative Judge so far as administrative work is concerned remarked 'fair and in general remarks it was said -Disposal of judicial work satisfactory. Quality of judgments on the whole satisfactory'. The Chief Justice said. 'Just an average officer'. For the year 1980 Disposal of work was found to be satisfactory and quality of work to be good and he was classified by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge as an average officer. The Chief Justice remarked Shri G. L. Acharya is a good District Judge. He is an honest and laborious Judicial Officer'. For the year 1981 again the disposal of the work was not adequate being 88%. The Chief Justice said 'Shri G. L. Acharaya is a very good judicial officer. He is cool minded sober and honest District Judge'. The Chief Justice inspected the court of the petitioner on March 7, 1981 when he was posted as District Judge Jalore and in para 8 of the inspection note the Chief Justice said that the total number of working days from June 30, 1980 to Dec. 31, 1980 come to 1011/2 against which the presiding officer has given work for 95.49/60 days. Thus the percentage of the disposal comes to 90.33 which is not very satisfactory. There are a good number of cases pending in this court. 31, 1980 come to 1011/2 against which the presiding officer has given work for 95.49/60 days. Thus the percentage of the disposal comes to 90.33 which is not very satisfactory. There are a good number of cases pending in this court. The presiding officer was directed to put in bard labour and give the work as prescribed if not more than the prescribed standard. In the general remarks after perusing few judgments which have been referred in the inspection note the Chief Justice observed that the petitioner required deep study of intricate questions of criminal law. The judgements were of course found in good Hindi language. The petitioner maintained cordial relations with the Bar and exercises proper control over the subordinate officers. The aforesaid inspection note was communicated to the petitioner. It will be clear that in the year 1981 itself the Chief Justice in the inspection note remarked that the petitioner required deep study of intricate questions of criminal law but in the APAR he classified him as a good judicial officer cool minded and sober and honest District Judge. At any rate besides the APAR there is other inspection note of the learned Chief Justice and it can be said that so far as the intricate questions of criminal law are concerned the Chief Justice observed that the petitioner required deep study. For the year 1982 the disposal of work of the petitioner was adequate i. e. more than the prescribed standard being 118% and the Chief Justice said that 'Shri G. L. Acharya is working as District Judge Jodhpur. His work is highly satisfactory. He bears excellant moral character and takes pains in deciding cases". Only one judgment came to the notice of the High Court and it was found to be below standard. The remarks were that 'order is perfunctory. Reason given by trial court for refusal of injunction not considered". For the year 1983 when the petitioner was posted as District Judge Jodhpur the Chief Justice said-"Very bad officer. Integrity highly doubtful. His judicial work is far below the standard and expected of a Distt. Judge. Partisan to the staff & litigant public of a particular class. Bar was always sore about his work". There is no APARs for the year 1984. 96. Integrity highly doubtful. His judicial work is far below the standard and expected of a Distt. Judge. Partisan to the staff & litigant public of a particular class. Bar was always sore about his work". There is no APARs for the year 1984. 96. It will appear from the aforesaid record that so far as disposal of work of the petitioner is concerned it was below standard in the years 1976 1977 and 1981 and his knowledge of criminal law was not found upto the mark. In the year 1983 his integrity was found to be doubtful. No doubt after completion of the period of probation the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated July 28, 1978 under rule 27 of the RHJS Rules, and it can be said that as a result of the principles deduced it the earlier part of this order the adverse entries prior to his confirmation stood washed -off but as stated earlier that if a Government servant earns like or similar entries in his APAR, then the earlier like or similar entries earned by him prior to confirmation/promotion can also be looked into. As far back as in the year 1961 the Chief Justice in his inspection note had said that from the perusal of the judgments of criminal cases he observed that the petitioner requires deep study of intricate questions of criminal law and in the year 1981 his disposal was found to be below standard. That apart even in 1983 the integrity of the petitioner was found to be doubtful. We have said that even uncommunicated adverse entry in respect of doubtful integrity of an officer can be looked into and such an entry stands on a different footing & at any rate it can be said that since the date of his appointment the performance of the petitioner as a judicial officer was not upto the mask and he lacked knowledge if f criminal law and did not come upto the expectation. Therefore if the appointing authority while considering his case under rule 244 (2) of RSR formed opinion which opinion could be formed on the aforesaid material that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner it cannot be said that the requisite opinion hail been formed arbitrarily or illegally or was formed absolutely on irrelevant material. Therefore if the appointing authority while considering his case under rule 244 (2) of RSR formed opinion which opinion could be formed on the aforesaid material that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner it cannot be said that the requisite opinion hail been formed arbitrarily or illegally or was formed absolutely on irrelevant material. Even for the sake of arguments it may be assumed though not accepted that Shri P. K. Banerjee was only Chief Justice for more than 2 months during the year 1983 and therefore he could not be in a position to assess the work and conduct of the petitioner who was then posted as District Judge Sawai Madhopur and as such the adverse remarks in his APAR about the integrity of the petitioner being highly doubtfulshould not have been looked into we are of the opinion that there is other sufficient material which relates to the inefficiency of the petitioner as a judicial officer and his knowledge of the criminal law and disposal of work. Even on that material the requisite opinion as required under rule 244 (2) of R SR that it is in public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily could have been formed. -Public interest' under rule 244 (2) of RSR means that not only a person whose integrity is beyond doubt but also a person who is efficient should be retained in Government service to give the best to the institution and one who has no adequate knowledge of criminal law though he comes from the Bar and who is not consistently able to give the prescribed norms of disposal which norms cannot be said to be excessive if he is retired it public interest it cannot be said that requisite opinion was not and could not be formed under rule 244 (2) of RSR to compulsorily retire the petitioner. We will hasten to add that before the APAR of the officer is written it is not absolutely necessary that during the entire year the reporting officer or reviewing officer as the case may be must have had the occasion to assess the performance of the officer and watch his conduct. 97. As already stated earlier, the Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges was appointed to examine the cases of the petitioner and others who fell within the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR. 97. As already stated earlier, the Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges was appointed to examine the cases of the petitioner and others who fell within the eligibility zone of consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR. The report of the Screening Committee is based not only on the perusal of service record of the petitioner including APARs which have been referred to and discussed above but also on spot inquiries. Taking the disposal of the petitioner the Screening Committee said that the disposal of the work of the petitioner has been far below the standard prescribed and with regard to legal knowledge of the petitioner after perusal of the APARs it was said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the criminal law. The Committee referred a case of State V. Babu etc. decided by the petitioner at Tonk in which only one accused has been convicted under Section 149 IPC alone. Few other cases were also referred by the Screening Committee including the case of State V. Inder Singh Sessions case No. 103/12 . decided by the petitioner at Sawai Madhopur on September 27, 1984 in which accused Inder Singh was convicted under Section 326 IPC and another accused Rajendra Singh was convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and both the accused persons were released on probation under Section 360 Cr. P.C. even though the offence under Section 326 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life and Section 360 Cr. P.C. was not applicable. The Committee therefore said that apart from the fact that the knowledge of the petitioner of law is poor he also tends to arbitrary in the discharge of his judicial functions and the Committee also said that it feels that the petitioner was biased in favour of Brahman being Brahman himself. The Committee referred to remarks of the petitioner him. self in his comments on a complaint by the judicial employees of Sawai Madhopur and the petitioner in his comments said that there is no doubt that he was born in a brahmin family and therefore first of all he will remain a brahmin and thereafter an Indian. This gives a clue to the mental attitude of Shri Acharya. The Committee said that such an attitude generates factionalism amongst the members of the staff as well as the members of the Bar and it adversely affects the administration of Justice. This gives a clue to the mental attitude of Shri Acharya. The Committee said that such an attitude generates factionalism amongst the members of the staff as well as the members of the Bar and it adversely affects the administration of Justice. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid comments of Shri Acharaya that he is born in a brahmin family and he is first brahmin aid thereafter Indian do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is biased in favour of Brahmin. The comments have to be examined in the context in which they were made. But so far as other part of the report of the Screening Committee regarding below standard of work and poor knowledge and understanding of criminal law we are of the opinion that the Committee is right when it said that it was not adequate. Anybody having the knowledge of preliminaries of criminal law will know that in an offence which is punishable with life imprisonment like Section 326 IPC benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 cannot be given and so far as Section 360 Cr.P.C. is concerned it is not applicable because the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 has been made applicable to this State. The Full Court approved the recommendations of the Committee and reached to the conclusion that to retire the petitioner compulsorily under Rule 241(2) of RSR is in public interest. Therefore even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries is excluded there is still sufficient material on which the Committee could have recommended and the Full Court could have taken a decision that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner a dead-wood so far as a judicial officer is concerned. 98. 98. We had in this case also as stated in the earlier part of this order under our order dated October 4, 1988 directed that the adverse material shall be supplied to the petitioner and he will file representation which shall be considered by the Chief Justice and if the representation is partly or wholly accepted the matter shall be re-considered by the Full Court and the Chief Justice appointed a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges who examined the representation of the petitioner and the Committee recommended that the representation so far as adverse entries about the inadequate disposal of work for the year 1977 is concerned it should he dismissed. The Committee for the remarks in APAR of the Year 1978 regarding the disposal of the work of the petitioner said that the representation should not be accepted and the remarks 'Disposal of work Poor' were recommended to be retained. Coming to the APAR for the year 1983 the Committee was of the opinion that the remarks about the integrity should be taken only for two months in that year and no importance should be attached to it. Coming to the inspection note of the Chief Justice the Committee accepted the contention of the petitioner that they are not adverse and were only advisory in nature. We have already dealt with each and every entry in his APAR and we may say that the petitioner cannot be said to be even average judicial officer and his understanding of law is not only inadequate but also poor. Even the Committee has not expunged all the remarks. We have also said that it is ultimately the Full Court who was to decide the representation and the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Full Court and the Full Court rejected the same. 99. We are therefore of the opinion that it cannot be said that the decision taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner by the appointing authority is arbitrary or illegal or it is not based on material. In other words it cannot be said that the requisite opinion under rule 244(2)of RSR that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest could not be formed bonafide. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. CHAMPA LAL BANTHIA (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 705/1986) 100. In other words it cannot be said that the requisite opinion under rule 244(2)of RSR that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest could not be formed bonafide. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. CHAMPA LAL BANTHIA (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 705/1986) 100. The questions to be examined are (i) as to whether there was some material on which the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner could be formed and (ii) as to whether the petitioner had qualifying service of 25 years on the date of his premature/compulsory retirement under rule 244(2) of RSR.101. Before we examine the aforesaid two questions. it will be proper to give relevant facts of the case which are these. The date of birth of the petitioner is April 1, 1938 and as such the petitioner would have attained the age of 50 years on March 31, 1988 After his selection in the Rajasthan Judicial Service the petitioner joined the service on August 1, 1960 and was Munsif Magistrate (under training) Ajmer and was Munsif Magistrate from that date till July 25, 1967. The petitioner was promoted as officiating Civil Judge Balotra from August 3, 1967 to December 3, 1970. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Civil Judge w.e.f. September 3, 1971. After having remained on different posts the petitioner was further promoted to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service as Addl. District & Sessions Judge vide order dated February 22, 1977 and joined as Addl. District Judge on May 13, 1977 at Bhilwara and since then he held various posts in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. As the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was on officiating basis in the meantime the meeting of the Full Court was held on November 23/24 1984 and the petitioner and few other officers holding the charge of the post in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service were reverted and the petitioner was posted at the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate under order dated December 21, 1984. The petitioner challenged the order dated December 21, 1984 by filing a S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 34/1585. The petitioner challenged the order dated December 21, 1984 by filing a S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 34/1585. He also filed transfer application before the Supreme Court under Article 19A(2) of the Constitution of India because some other writ petitions involving identical points were already entertained by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the transfer application of the petitioner ano simultaneously by the same order rejected the writ petition of the petitioner which was pending before this court. The effect of the aforesaid order was that the petitioner stood reverted to the post of Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate which he was holding prior to his promotion on officiating basis. 102. The case of the petitioner is that he had not qualifying service either on September 18, 1985 or the date from which compulsory retirement was made i. e. September 26, 1985 and the reason for the petitioner not having ?5 years qualifying service on the aforesaid date is that the petitioner was on extra-ordinary leave from July 4, 1985 to September 26, 1985 i. e. 85 days and therefore the date of completion of qualifying service in the case of the petitioner stands advanced by 8" days at least beyond August 1, 1985 and thus the condition precedent of the pre-requisite for invoking the provision of rule 244(2) RSR against the petitioner are wanting. The petitioner also raised a ground that the exercise made by the appointing authority under the Government circular dated April 4, 1981 to prepare a list of the candidates who have completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 51) years is to be completed by 31st March every year and therefore the name of the petitioner could not be included in the list of the officers to be considered for compulsory retirement in the year 1985. So far as this ground is concerned we may state that in the earlier part of this order while dealing with the cases of other petitioners we have said that under rule 244(2) of RSR as and when a Government servant either attains the age of 50 years or completes 25 years of qualifying service which-ever is earlier or also thereafter. he becomes due for consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR and the Government circulars are not applicable to a member of the subordinate judiciary. he becomes due for consideration under rule 244(2) of RSR and the Government circulars are not applicable to a member of the subordinate judiciary. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order dated September 18 1985 under rule 244(2) of RSP.. According to the non petitioners the petitioner was on privilege leave and half pay leave during the period from March 19 1985 to September 26 1985 and had therefore completed 25 years qualifying service on July 31 1985 even as per the case of the petitioner himself. So far as the case of the petitioner that his promotion firstly as Addl. Civil Judge and then as Chief Judicial Magistrate and again as a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service obliterated the earlier adverse entries if any and theory of washed-off is applicable is contested on behalf of the petitioners. According to the non-petitioners, there was sufficient material on which the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest could be framed bona fide by the Full Court. We will now deal with the questions formulated for examination at the beginning of this order in respect of the petitioner. Re (i) 103. As stated earlier the petitioner had been promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1976 and as Addl. District Judge in 1977. He was also posted as District Judge and in our opinion if a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service is posted as District Judge it cannot be said to be promotion from the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge to District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner was not confirmed in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and was reverted to his substantive post as Civil Judge. cum. Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1984. Therefore as stated earlier the wash-off theory as propounded by the courts in our opinion will not apply to the case of the petitioner so far as adverse entries if any to his credit after his promotion as Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate are concerned. That apart we have said earlier that though the entire service record of a Government servant is to be considered to form the requisite opinion under rule 244 (2) of RSR but more weightage is to be given to the record of last about 10 years preceding the order of compulsory retirement. We will now see the record of the petitioner. 104. We will now see the record of the petitioner. 104. We will start from the year 1976. In the year 1976 the reporting officer did not doubt his integrity and said that be is most well behaved and submissive. He discharges the job entrusted to him very well and entirely dependable'. The Administrative Judge said-"An intelligent and efficient officer' but the Chief Justice remarked his performance as ADJ needs closely to be observed'. The court o the petitioner was inspected by Justice S. N. Modi on February 26, 1976 when the petitioner was working as Civil Judge .cum. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer and in the inspection note it was said that the petitioner was spoken highly by the advocates and they were fully satisfied with his behaviour and work. The District Judge Bhilwara was informed that he should keep close watch on the petitioner. In the year 1977 his integrity was not doubted and the Administrative Judge said that he was an average officer and the Chief Justice endorsed it. In the year 1978 in respect of the integrity of the petitioner it was said by the reporting officer that 'Nothing so far has come to my notice so as to cast any doubt regarding integrity' and he was classified as a good judicial officer. Administrative Judge said-Disposal & Quality of work satisfactory'. The Chief Justice endorsed it. In the year 1979 also the same remarks were repeated by the same Administrative Judge and the same Chief Justice and the reporting officer also certified his integrity. A Judge of this Court inspected the court of the petitioner when was posted as Addl. District Judge Bhilwara and found his work satisfactory. In the year 1980 and 1981 the petitioner was on deputation as Dy. Legal Draft man and his work was found satisfactory by the reporting officer. In 1982 also he was on deputation and the Chief Justice said that he was an average officer. In 1983 Shri P. K. Banerjee Chief Justice said "Bad Officer. Reputation also bad. He moves around to get a post of his choice. He even went to Calcutta for the purpose and approached my friend-Judge of the High Court at Calcutta for such posting". In 1983 Shri P. K. Banerjee Chief Justice said "Bad Officer. Reputation also bad. He moves around to get a post of his choice. He even went to Calcutta for the purpose and approached my friend-Judge of the High Court at Calcutta for such posting". He was then reverted from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service to his substantive cadre of Civil Judge cure Chief Judicial Magistrate and after reversion he had not done any work and the Chief Justice said that his performance in RJS could not be judged. From the APAR of the year 1983 it can he said that the petitioner had approached the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee through his friend Judge of Calcutta High Court for posting of his choice and there is no reason to doubt what has been written by the Chief Justice Shri P.K. Banerjee who was an outsider and had no ill-will or malice against the petitioner. If an officer can approach persons to speak for him to the Chief Justice for his posting in our opinion his conduct cannot be said to be conclusive to the post of a judicial officer. If one approaches it can be said that he can be approachable while discharging judicial functions. 105. Let us now see his earlier record for the last few years at least. In the year 1975 the petitioner was posted as Addl. Civil Judge .cum .Magistrate First Class Udaipur and the reporting officer did not doubt his integrity but the Administrative Judge said that "the officer has recently been promoted as CJM as he had been passed over by many of his juniors in the past and was reported to have improved at his last two postings at Partapgarh and Udaipur. He is yet far from being cool-minded. He would be well advised to keep himself away from intrigues and be reserved. He should concentrate on work instead of running about for favours". The aforesaid remarks were communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 287/PA/R dated August 19, 1976. In the departmental inquiry a penalty of withholding three grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed and the same was communicated to the petitioner on January 13, 1976. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid penalty and under order dated February 23, 1976 the appeal was partly allowed and penalty of censure was imposed upon him. In the departmental inquiry a penalty of withholding three grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed and the same was communicated to the petitioner on January 13, 1976. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid penalty and under order dated February 23, 1976 the appeal was partly allowed and penalty of censure was imposed upon him. It will be proper to see the nature of charges in which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the aforesaid penalty was inflicted. The charge framed against Shri Banthia was as under:- "Shri Champalal Banthia was functioning as Civil Judge Ajmer into year 1973 Miss Kanta Bhatnagar was District Judge Ajmer at that time and she had filled up the annual confidential report of Shri Banthiya for the year 1973 in which certain adverse remarks were recorded-regarding the integrity of Shri Banthiya Being aggrieved by this in the middle of March 1975 Shri Banthiya met Miss Bhatnagar at her residence and showed his resent- ment and told her that she would have to reply to 11" (Superior authority or God). This amounted to misconduct on the part of Shri Banthiya". Miss Kanta Bhatnagar is row a senior Judge of this Court. The learned Disciplinary Authority Shri K. D. Sharma as he then was under his order dated Dec. 18, 1975. held Shri Banthiya guilty of the charge of misconduct and imposed a penalty of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect on him As stated earlier the appeal filed against the said penalty which was partly allowed and though the petitioner was not exonerated but the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments without cumulative effect was reduced and a censure was recorded. The above incident was of the year 1973 and the disciplinary proceedings terminated in the year 1975. In the year 1974 the reporting officer said about the integrity of the petitioner as good and the reporting officer in general remarks said -Deserves consideration for promotion. I had carefully watched his activities. He has completely dissociated himself extinguishing his energies in election activities when advised to work hard". Shri P. N. Singhal Administrative Judge as be then was remarked "Should improve the quality of the judgments Lacks sense of discipline & balance. Cannot be entrusted with any form of responsibility. Should work hard and develop a sense of rectitude. Requires to be watched as his integrity is seriously in doubt". Shri P. N. Singhal Administrative Judge as be then was remarked "Should improve the quality of the judgments Lacks sense of discipline & balance. Cannot be entrusted with any form of responsibility. Should work hard and develop a sense of rectitude. Requires to be watched as his integrity is seriously in doubt". The petitioner filed representation against the adverse remarks which was communicated to him and on his representation the words underlined were expunged vide order dated September 13, 1979 in File No. PA/R/6 (25)/77. and the portion of adverse remarks -Requires to be watched as his integrity is seriously in doubt" remained. We will later on deal with the alleged acceptance of the representation expunging the underlined portion as a Division Bench of this Court to which a reference will be made at the later stage did not agree with the Chief Justice expunging the remarks of both the APARs for this year as well as for the year 1973. In the year 1973 the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge Ajmer and Miss Kanta Bhatnagar who is now a Senior Judge of this Court was the District Judge and reporting officer and about the integrity of the petitioner the reporting officer said that-"There were rumers about his being dishonest at the places of his previous postings and for sometime here also but during this period of my being here nothing special has come to my notice to substantiate the rumers". In column No.3. If he is cool minded and does not show temper in court the reporting officer said- "He is hot tempered and very often loses temper though he is now a days careful to improve his nature". In column No. 10 Relations with the Bar the reporting officer said-"A few months back there were complaints about his temperament and behaviour but now the reports are favourable and relations with the bar are satisfactory". In column No 11 meant for general remarks-the reporting officer said that-"He is intelligent and hard working but he does not have good reputation for the behaviour with the staff. Under integrity certificate the reporting officer said that "There are rumer against his integrity but despite efforts I could not get positive proof against him rather it is told that for the last few months he has improved and has started earning reputation for fair dealing and honesty and so certify his integrity". Under integrity certificate the reporting officer said that "There are rumer against his integrity but despite efforts I could not get positive proof against him rather it is told that for the last few months he has improved and has started earning reputation for fair dealing and honesty and so certify his integrity". But Hon'ble Administrative Judge Shri P. N. Singhal as he then was said there is nothing straightforward about the officer. He is rash hot beaded and irresponsible. Even his reputation for integrity is bad. Suspended twice. Requires to be watched with strictness". The Chief Justice said that- "I had inspected his court. His reputation which I gathered from the members of the Bar is BAD in regard to his integrity. The scuffle he had had with his peon in his chambers shows that he is unable to maintain judicial dignity. His judgments which I perused are 'B'. The underlined portion has been expunged vide order dated September 13 1979 in file No. PA/R/6(25)/77 on the representation by the petitioner after the said remarks were communicated to him. But as said earlier a Division Bench of this Court did not find the expunction in order. In Full Court circulation case on the occasion of promotion of Chief Judicial Magistrate on April 1 1974 the note so far as the petitioner is concerned was as under : "He is presently posted as Civil Judge Ajmer. There have been consistent complaints about his integrity. Hon'ble Kan Singh J who was sent to make an enquiry found the reputation of the officer not good when he was posted at abu Road. The Hon'ble Sharma J. under whom he has worked also knows about his lack of integrity. I have been receiving complaints about his reputation and he is being watched. I do not consider him fit for appointment to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Recently there was a physical fight between him and his peon and cases were instituted against Shri Banthia and the peon which were later on compromised". The petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under order dated February 22 1977 having been superseded on earlier occasions when persons junior to him were promoted. Recently there was a physical fight between him and his peon and cases were instituted against Shri Banthia and the peon which were later on compromised". The petitioner was promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under order dated February 22 1977 having been superseded on earlier occasions when persons junior to him were promoted. The petitioner filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/1978 Champalal Banthia V. State and the learned Single Judge under his order dated February 18, 1980 took a view that there was no justified ground for not promoting the petitioner to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. A D.B. Special Appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Judge and the Division Bench consisting of M. C. Jain as he then was and K. S. Sidhu JJ under its judgment dated December 2, 1981 allowed the special appeal set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. It will appear from the judgment of the Division Bench that so far as the question whether the entries in APAR of the year 1973 and 1974 are concerned more so the underlined portion which have been extracted earlier they were taken to exist and it was held that the Chief Justice had no power to expunge them. The Division Bench in para 19 of the judgment said that "We may also dispose of here the petitioner's contention that in September 1979 Lodha CJ reviewed the whole position in respect of the adverse remarks against the petitioner for the years 1973 and 1974. and that he ordered the expunction of the said remarks. We have already pointed out that the petitioner's representation against the adverse remarks recorded by Shri Beri CJ for the year 1973 had already been rejected by singhal CJ in 1975. Moreover Beri CJ's opinion recorded in his note of August 19/3 to the effect that there were complaints against the integrity of the petitioner and that he had received information from various quarters about the lack of his integrity had been unanimously approved by the Full Court. The petitioner's representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1974 had also been disposed of by Tyagi C.J. with the remarks that it did not require any further action' in view of his order on the petitioner's other representation dated January 14, 1976. The petitioner's representation against the adverse remarks for the year 1974 had also been disposed of by Tyagi C.J. with the remarks that it did not require any further action' in view of his order on the petitioner's other representation dated January 14, 1976. It may be mentioned here that Tyagi CJ was inclined to consider favourably the petitioner's case for promotion. He therefore requested two other Judges to make spot enquiries about the integrity of the petitioner at Udaipur Pratapgarh and Ajmer and report the the result of their enquiries." The learned Judge further said- "It is significant to note that the note prepared by the Selection Committee which was later approved by the Full Court specifically mentioned the adverse remarks against the petitioner as recorded in his ACRs for the year 1973, 1974 and 1975. In other words the Full Court implicity endorsed the adverse remarks against the petitioner for those three years. That being so, there was no occasion for Lodh'c CJ as late as in September 1979 to deal with those adverse remarks which had been directly or indirectly affirmed by the Full Court. It Lodha C. J. still felt that the matter required reconsideration. we would have thought that the proper thing to do for him was to request the Full Court to reconsider the adverse remarks We are constrained to hold that Lodha C.J.'s order directed the expunction of the adverse remarks in the petitioner's ACRs for the year 1973 and 1974 is of no legal consequence and in any case, it cannot be of any avail to the petitioner in the face of the decisions of the Full Court taken from time to time. It will therefore be clear that the remarks cannot be said to be expunged and the adverse remarks in the APAR of the year 1973 and 1974 extracted in the earlier part of this order stand. In the year 1972 the reporting officer found the integrity of the petitioner to be sound Integrity was certified. In the year 1971 the reporting officer said that the integrity was good and work was satisfactory. The Administrative Judge said "Disposal standard. After his transfer to Ajmer he has improved his disposal. When he was at Abu there were some adverse reports but there was no evidence to substantiate them. At Ajmer the D.J has expressed satisfactory opinion about him. The Administrative Judge said "Disposal standard. After his transfer to Ajmer he has improved his disposal. When he was at Abu there were some adverse reports but there was no evidence to substantiate them. At Ajmer the D.J has expressed satisfactory opinion about him. The quality of work is also satisfactory". The Chief Justice signed the above remarks. In the year 1970 when the petitioner was posted as Addl. Civil Judge and Judge Small Causes Court Ajmer the reporting officer said "No complaint has come to my notice against his integrity. His dealing with public and bar are fair. His private character is also good. He is cool minded and does not show temper in court. Judgments are fair. Disposal of work is adequate. He had proper control over his office." But the Administrative Judge said Disposal poor. Explanation cannot be accepted to explain fully the poor disposal. Quality of work average". The Chief Justice said that "Disposal poor. Quality of work needs improvement as the only judgment which came up before the High Court was found to be below average. The officer is capable of giving a good out-turn & doing better quality of judicial work if he applies himself seriously to it". In the year 1969 so far as integrity is concerned the reporting officer said -Departmental enquiry is pending in Hon'ble High Court" and did not say there it his integrity was fair or good. Administrative Judge said-'Disposal poor. Quality average. Adverse report about his integrity; has to be watched an respect of non-observance of court hours by Shri Champalal Banthia. a D. O. letter was addressed to the District Judge Balotra on April 29, 1970. and he was asked that Shri Banthia may be warned to be careful in future. The Officer on Special Duty also gave report about Shri Banthia that so far as integrity of Shri Banthia is concerned he came to know that he does not take delight in working. He some times all of a sudden goes to Barmer or Jodhpur. His lack of interest in the work can be judged from the fact that for the last 8 months he did not decide even a single criminal case on merits. He is Magistrate with First Class Powers and has got pretty good number of criminal cases to deal with. For the year 1968 the Administrative Judge remarked .-"Disposal good. His lack of interest in the work can be judged from the fact that for the last 8 months he did not decide even a single criminal case on merits. He is Magistrate with First Class Powers and has got pretty good number of criminal cases to deal with. For the year 1968 the Administrative Judge remarked .-"Disposal good. Quality of work average. He did not enjoy a good reputation about his integrity at Abu Road". The Chief Justice remarked "Disposal good. Quality of work average Integrity doubtful." Under letter dated January 6, 1970 through the District Judge Balotra the petitioner was communicated that his reputation at Abu Road was not good and he should try to improve it. The District Judge was asked to keep a close watch on him. Even in the year 1967 there were complaints about his integrity as appear from the remarks of Administrative Judge who remarked -Disposal average. Quality of work average. Certain complaints were received against him which are being inquired into". The Chief Justice agreed with it. 106. It will therefore be clear that not only on 1983 when his reputation was bad as per the Chief Justice but his integrity was doubted even earlier to it it was remarked that the petitioner was hot-headed quarrelsome and Shri Banthia also misbehaved with his District Judge when he came to know about the adverse entries given by her. There was a Disciplinary Enquiry in which he was not exonerated as stated earlier. It will also appear that he was found to be not taking to his job seriously and was going for favours. A judicial officer who goes for favours cannot be said to be having judicial temperament and outlook. The possibility that be will be willing to reciprocate cannot be excluded. At any rate service record of the petitioner cannot be said to be good. 107. The Screening Committee of 5 Hon'ble Judges on examining the service record and making spot inquiries had submitted its report to the Chief Justice and a perusal of the report of the Screening Committee will show that on the basis of record the Committee said that ever since 1966 the complaints have been received with regard to the integrity of the petitioner as well as his behaviour. The Committee also visited Ajmer Partapgarh Udaipur Bhilwara Dungarpur and Jhalawar where the petitioner had remained posted at one time or the other and most of the lawyers at Ajmer Udaipur Partagarh and Bhilwara expressed grave doubts about integrity of Shri Banthia and some of the lawyers even used the expression that be was "highly corrupt officer". The Screening Committee recommended that the petitioner should be retired compulsorily in public interest and he was compulsorily retired. 108. We have said that generally the adverse entries in APARs prior to the promotion stand washed-off but we have also said that if after promotion a Government servant earns like or similar adverse entries then the adverse entries prior to his promotion can also be looked into and in that case the theory of washed-off will not apply. It has already been said that after his promotion to the post to which he was reverted the petitioner earned similar or like adverse entries as earned by him prior to his promotion therefore the theory of wash-off will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The record of the petitioner has not been unblemished. It can be said that there was sufficient material for the appointing authority on the basis of which requisite opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner could be formed. Even if the record of last 10 years immediately preceding the compulsory retirement is seen in our opinion there was material on which the petitioner could be compulsorily retired. Under our order dated October 4 1988 we had thought proper to give opportunity to the petitioner to file representation against the adverse material. The petitioner filed representation and the Chief Justice appointed a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges of this court to examine the representation. The Committee said that the adverse entries for the years 1963,1964,1969,1970,1973,1974 and 1975 were communicated to the petitioner. He made representations against the ACRs of 1973,1974 and 1975 which were rejected. The Committee said when the question of expunging adverse entries for the year 1973 1 and 1974 came for consideration before the Division Bench the expunging of the remarks was not found justified. The Committee recommended that the remarks for the year 1976 should not be treated as adverse. The remarks for the year 1979 about the work-being below and complaint about misbehaviour with Junior Accountant of this Court, was kept intact. The Committee recommended that the remarks for the year 1976 should not be treated as adverse. The remarks for the year 1979 about the work-being below and complaint about misbehaviour with Junior Accountant of this Court, was kept intact. So far as the remarks of 1983. are concerned the Committee said that the remarks for the year 1984 were not justified because the petitioner was mostly on deputation but nothing was said about the remarks of 1983. The Chief Justice had ordered the recommendations to be placed before the Full Court and the Full Court who was alone competent to take final decision considered it and rejected the representation. 109. Consequently, we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out as it cannot be said that it is a case where the requisite opinion was formed on irrelevant material and even if the old and stale entries are ignored which should be ignored more so when the petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries is ignored even then there is sufficient material to form the requisite opinion under rule 244C2) of RSR. Re. (ii) 110. The petitioner having joined service on August 1, 1960 and having been compulsorily retired under rule 244(2) of RSR by order dated September 18, 1985 bad prima facie completed qualifying service. But the case of the petitioner is that the period of 85 days extra-ordinary leave has to be deducted from 25 years completed qualifying service and therefore he had not completed qualified service of 25 years. 111. It cannot be disputed that if the period of 85 days or even part of it that is 43 days on which the petitioner was on extraordinary leave is included he had completed 25 years qualifying service even earlier to September 18, 1985. when he was compulsorily retired under order Ex. 4. The Governor made the order in pursuance of the recommendations of the High Court. Therefore the question is as to whether the period of 85 days or less of extra-ordinary leave is to be included or excluded from the period of qualifying service or not. when he was compulsorily retired under order Ex. 4. The Governor made the order in pursuance of the recommendations of the High Court. Therefore the question is as to whether the period of 85 days or less of extra-ordinary leave is to be included or excluded from the period of qualifying service or not. According to the petitioner he had no leave balance to his credit and therefore leave from July 4, 1985 to September 26, 1985 85 days could not have been granted and extra-ordinary leave of 85 days cannot be and does not convert into qualifying service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to rule 179 of RSR under which the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the three conditions namely-(i) the service must be under Government. (ii) the employment may be in substantive/permanent/temporary/or officiating capacity and (iii) the service may be paid by the Government. So far as the period of extra-ordinary leave is concerned the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since it was neither payable nor was paid the period of extra ordinary leave does not satisfy the third condition of rule 179 as aforesaid. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the question of determination of qualifying service of the petitioner was pending and in this connection a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Ex. 9 and 10. Ex. 9 is a form for pension and gratuity under rules 264, 285(5), 288, 289, 290, 291 & 293 of RSR. In column 'period of service qualifying for pension' it has been mentioned 1st August, 1960 to 3rd July 1985'. It is also mentioned that qualifying service-24 years 11 months and 1 day. A note was also inserted at the end of pension form that the matter regarding revision of extra-ordinary leave is pending. A perusal of Ex. 11 Section III which is 'Period (s) of non-qualifying service' will show that it was sent by the Registrar of the High Court Jodhpur and in col. No. 2 which is Extra-ordinary leave not qualifying for pension" it is mentioned 85 days from 4th July, 1985 to 26th September, 1985. It will also appear that the Director Pension Department under his communication Ex. No. 2 which is Extra-ordinary leave not qualifying for pension" it is mentioned 85 days from 4th July, 1985 to 26th September, 1985. It will also appear that the Director Pension Department under his communication Ex. 8 which does not bear a date but which was sent to the Dy. Secretary Law and Judicial Department Government of Rajasthan with reference to his letter dated September 6, 1986 said that the total qualifying service of the petitioner is 25 years 1 months and 25 days but extraordinary leave as been sanctioned to him from July 4, 1985 to September 26, 1983 i.e. 85 days and if this period is excluded from the total qualifying service the qualifying service will be 24 years 11 months and therefore the papers were returned by the Director Pension Department Jaipur. It can therefore be said that after the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Ex. 4 dated September 18, 1985 the papers for pension were sent to the Director Pension It thus can be said that prior to sending the pension papers no dispute had arisen about the petitioner not having to his cred 25 years qualifying service. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in case where there is dispute whether or not a Government servant has completed 25 years' qualifying service before the matter can be decided the requirement of principles of natural justice is that he should be given an opportunity at being heard and no such opportunity was given to him. either before the order of compulsory retirement was made or subsequently thereafter. 112. As we are concerned with the question whether 85 days extra-ordinary leave can be treated as a part of the qualifying service or not it will be proper to refer to the relevant part IV of the RSR. Part IV-Chapter X deals with leave'. Under rule 59 of RSR leave cannot be claimed as a right. Discretion is reserved to the authority empowered to grant leave to refuse or revoke leave at any time according to the exigencies of the public service provided that any leave applied for and due as preparatory to retirement shall not be refused by such authority and it shall be refused in writing by the Government or by such authority to whom powers have been delegated in this behalf. The nature of leave due and applied for by a Government service cannot be altered at the option of the sanctioning authority and so while it is open to the authority competent to refuse or revoke leave due and applied for under rule 59 it is not open to him to alter the nature of such leave. Again Chapter XI also deals with leave' and its Rule 93 is in respect of admissibility of Half Pay leave and commutted leave. Under this rule leave is of different kinds (1) half pay leave and (2) commutted leave. In respect of each completed years of service one is entitled to half pay leave. He is also entitled to commuted leave not exceeding half the amount of half pay leave due but on medical certificate of an authorised medical attendant when commuted leave is granted twice the amount of leave shall be debited to half pay leave due. The difference therefore in half pay leave and commuted leave is that when half pay leave is taken it is debited whole in the half pay leave account and when commuted leave is taken twice the amount of leave is debited to half-pay leave due. A reference has already been made to rule 179 of RSR while dealing with other cases and unless the service conforms to any of the three conditions mentioned therein it does not qualify for pension. One of the aforesaid conditions is that service may be paid by the Government. Chapter XIX Section 1 deals with Periods of Leave and Training and rules for reckoning service. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 204 of RSR time passed on leave with allowances shall count as service in respect of Government servants retiring on or after January 31 1979. One of the aforesaid conditions is that service may be paid by the Government. Chapter XIX Section 1 deals with Periods of Leave and Training and rules for reckoning service. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 204 of RSR time passed on leave with allowances shall count as service in respect of Government servants retiring on or after January 31 1979. Under sub- rule (2) of Rule 204 of RSR time passed on extraordinary leave (Leave without pay & allowances) taken in any of the circumstances mentioned below shall in respect of Government servants retiring on or after January 31 1979 count as service (i) if it is taken on medical certificate granted by the authorised medical attendant (ii) if it is taken for prosecuting higher scientific and Technical Studies and (iii) if it is taken due to inability of the Government servant concerned to join or rejoin duty due to civil commotion or a natural calamity provided that he has not any other kind of leave to his credit. Extra-ordinary leave under rule 96 of the RSR may be granted to a Government servant under special circumstances (i) when no other leave is by rule admissible or (ii) when other leave is admissible but the Government servant concerned applies in writing for the grant of extra-ordinary leave. We had sent for the leave file of Shri Banthia and have perused it. He had filed various leave applications and few of them were on medical grounds. We will refer them at a later stage. So far as leave for the period from July 15, 1985 to September 30, 1985 78 days is concerned the petitioner himself applied for grant of extra- ordinary leave and July 14, 1985 being Sunday was prefixed. The purpose of extra-ordinary leave was given urgent personal work. The aforesaid application of Shri Banthia for extra-ordinary leave was annexed with a letter dated September 28, 1985 by Shri Banthia wherein it was stated that he has come to know that after July 15, 1985 no kind of leave remains to his credit and therefore he was enclosing an application for extra-ordinary leave. The said application was recommended by the District Judge Jhalwar and was processed in the Registry of the High Court. Under order of the Registrar. High Court the aforesaid leave application was forwarded by the Distt. The said application was recommended by the District Judge Jhalwar and was processed in the Registry of the High Court. Under order of the Registrar. High Court the aforesaid leave application was forwarded by the Distt. Judge Jhalawar and Shri Banthia had submitted other applications for grant of various kinds of leave. He had sent an application on inland letter on July 28, 1985 that he has been advised to undergo surgery and was indoor patient in S. M. S. Hospital. He requested to extend the leave upto the end of August 1985 and promised to produce a medical certificate. With the application dated August 24, 1-85. besides requesting for leave of other kinds he had prayed for grant of privilege leave for 3 days. The Sessions Judge forwarded a letter dated August 28, 1985 to the Registrar Rajasthan High Court referring to the leave applications of Shri Banthia wherein it was mentioned that Shri Banthia in his letter dated August 24 1985 has requested for sanction of medical leave from June 29, 1985 to July 20, 1985 on the ground of his illness and medical certificate was also attached. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid letter that Shri Banthiya has also requested for extension of leave vide his letter dated July 21, 1985 and July 28, 1985. Shri Banthiya had stated earlier in his application dated Sep. 12, 1985 wherein he sought privilege leave from May 17, 1985 to July 10, 1985 for a period of 46 days. As stated earlier in the inland letter dated August 30, 1985 Banthia requested for leave upto Sept. 20, 1985. Earlier the petitioner himself had sought leave on medical ground from June 29, 1985 to July 20, 1985 and had also enclosed certificate of medical attendant. Under his letters dated July 21, 1985 and July 28, 1985 be sought extension of leave on medical ground upto July 31, 1985 and end of August 1985 respectively. From letter dated July 28, 1985 it is clear that till then he was an indoor patient in S. M. S. Hospital (cottage No. 23) and according to the doctor looking to the nature of the operation it will take considerable time to heal up. Though Shri Banthia had applied as aforesaid but processing of the applications took time. From letter dated July 28, 1985 it is clear that till then he was an indoor patient in S. M. S. Hospital (cottage No. 23) and according to the doctor looking to the nature of the operation it will take considerable time to heal up. Though Shri Banthia had applied as aforesaid but processing of the applications took time. Before that also Shri Banthia was continuously on medical or other kinds of leave from December 1984 except for a day or two when he joined and again proceeded on leave. An order dated November 16, 1985 Ex. 5 was issued sanctioning leave including 42 days commuted leave (32 days at S. No. 21-10 days at S. No. 3) and 85 days extra-ordinary leave from July 4, 1985 to Sep. 26, 1985. In this period of 85 days is also included the period from July 4, 1985 to August 31, 1985 for which as stated earlier the petitioner had applied for medical leave or for extension of the ground on his illness. Under rule 96 of RSR extraordinary leave has to be granted to a Government servant in special circumstances when no other leave is by rule admissible or when other leave is admissible but the Government servant concerned applies in writing for the grant of extra-ordinary leave. A reference to the application of the petitioner dated September 18, 1985 has already been made and a perusal of which will show that the petitioner himself having come to know after giving applications as aforesaid for grant of medical leave on the ground of his illness and having enclosed medical certificate till 20th July, 1985 that no kind of leave is at his credit applied for sanction of extraordinary leave to him also on medical ground and the same has been sanctioned and no illegality was committed. Under rule 97 (4) a Government servant on extra-ordinary leave is not entitled to any leave salary. Rule 96 is in part IV. Chapter XI which deals with leave and it has nothing to do with Chapter XIX which contains rules for reckoning service. Rule 204 of RSR was added vide F. D. Notification No. F. 1(3)FD1Gr. 2/79 dated February 13, 1979 and effective from January 31, 1979. Under sub-rule (1) thereof time passed on leave with allowance shall count as service in respect of Government servant retiring on or after January 31, 1979. Rule 204 of RSR was added vide F. D. Notification No. F. 1(3)FD1Gr. 2/79 dated February 13, 1979 and effective from January 31, 1979. Under sub-rule (1) thereof time passed on leave with allowance shall count as service in respect of Government servant retiring on or after January 31, 1979. Under sub-rule(2) of Rules 204 of RSR time passed on extra-ordinary leave (leave without pay & allowances) taken in any of the three circumstances mentioned therein shall in respect of Government servant retiring on or after January 31 1979 count as service and one circumstance in its clause (i) is, if it is taken on medical certificate granted by the Authorised Medical Attendant. A perusal of the aforesaid rule 204 of RSR will show that only in the circumstances mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) time passed on extra-ordinary leave (leave without pay and allowances) will count as service. Before rule 203 was deleted and rule 204 of RS was substituted as aforesaid only time passed on leave with allowances was to count for service as provided therein. Simultaneously with it rule 204,A was also deleted. But even before that the question arose whether period of extra- ordinary leave should count as qualifying service. Though rule 204,A did not provide so and provided for only time spent on leave with allowances (other than extra-ordinary leave) to be counted as service but Government of Rajasthan took a decision that extra-ordinary leave may be allowed to count as qualifying service for pension at the discretion of the competent authority in the three circumstances mentioned in (i) to (iii) and extra-ordinary leave taken on medical ground was one such circumstance. It was after the aforesaid decision that rule 203 and 204,A were deleted on February 12, 1979 with effect from January 31 1979 and rule 204 in the present form was introduced. It will appear from a perusal of the prescribed form which is available at page 58 of the aforesaid leave-case file No EST. B2(lV)58/77B of Shri Banthia that Shri Banthia applied for extra-ordinary leave from July 15, 1985 to September 30, 1985 (78 days). It appears from para 65(N) of the file of leave case of Shri Banthia that on re-calculation it was found that there were 65 days privilege leave and 84 days half pay leave upto August 31 1985 at his credit. It appears from para 65(N) of the file of leave case of Shri Banthia that on re-calculation it was found that there were 65 days privilege leave and 84 days half pay leave upto August 31 1985 at his credit. By the time the aforesaid note was prepared Shri Banthia had already been compulsorily retired under order dated September 18, 1985 which was received by him on September 26, 1985. Leave as per Ex. 5 dated November 16 1985 as stated earlier was sanctioned. To the credit of Shri Banthia there was no leave of any kind and therefore from July 4, 1985 to September 26, 1985 i.e. for 85 8ays extra-ordinary leave was sanctioned to him. This sanction too was communicated to the petitioner after be was compulsorily retired. No doubt Shri Banthia was sanctioned 78 days extra- ordinary leave on his application dated September 18, 1985 but as per his leave account because other kind of leave were available they were first sanctioned and then extra-ordinary leave for 85 days was sanctioned. The aforesaid order it appears was revised under order dated Nov. 7, 1986 and following leave was sanctioned: i. 2 days privilege leave from 19.3.85 to 20.3.85. ii. 32 days half pay leave from 21.3.85 to 21.4.85 iii. 63 days privilege leave from 22.4.85 to 22.6.85. iv. 10 days half pay leave from 24.6.85 to 3.7.85 v. 42 days half pay leave from 4.7.85 to 14.8.85 vi. 43 days extra-ordinary leave from 15.8.85 to 26.9.85. A comparative look at the order dated November 16, 1985 and November 7, 1986 will show that the change in commuted leave and extra-ordinary leave was made whereas under order Ex. 5 dated November 16, 1985 42 days commuted leave and 85 days extra-ordinary leave was sanctioned to the petitioner under (order Ex. R2/1 dated Nov. 7, 1986 commuted leave of 42 days was converted to 42 days half pay leave and in piece of 85 days extra-ordinary leave 43 days extra-ordinary cave was granted. Rules for commuted leave and half pay leave are the same. There can be no dispute that if the order dated November 7, 1986 Ex. R2/1 dated Nov. 7, 1986 commuted leave of 42 days was converted to 42 days half pay leave and in piece of 85 days extra-ordinary leave 43 days extra-ordinary cave was granted. Rules for commuted leave and half pay leave are the same. There can be no dispute that if the order dated November 7, 1986 Ex. R2/1 is correct and legal order the petitioner as per his own case has completed 25 years 13 days qualifying service and there can be no dispute that so far as the period of commuted leave is concerned because it is paid it satisfies the condition under rule 179 of RSR for qualifying service for pension purpose. But even if this order is not correct then no exception can be taken to the order Ex. 5 dated November 16 1985 under which period of extraordinary leave will be 85 days because under rule 204 period of extra-ordinary leave taken in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule 2(i) of that rule counts as service for the Government servant retiring. At any rate in this period the period of leave on medical ground upto August 31 1985 as aforesaid is included. Therefore if out of 85 days of extra-ordinary leave which was upto September 26, 1985 period of Extra-ordinary leave upto 31st August is deducted being on medical ground then the period of only 26 days from 1st September, to 26th September will remain and even if this period is excluded from the period of qualifying service the petitioner will still be completing 25 years qualifying service as he having joined service on 1st August 1960. completed 25 years qualifying service on 31st August 1985 much before the date he was compulsorily retired. A conjoint reading of rule 179 and 204 is made it will appear that rule 204 carves out an exception and even if the time is passed on extra- ordinary leave under the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule,(2) (i) of rule 204 and though no pay or allowance is paid to the Government servant such period shall count as service. Various leave applications of the petitioner have already been dealt with on the basis of leave case file referred to earlier. It can therefore be said from aforesaid application for leave of Shri Banthia that he himself applied for commuted or medical leave upto the end of August 1985. Various leave applications of the petitioner have already been dealt with on the basis of leave case file referred to earlier. It can therefore be said from aforesaid application for leave of Shri Banthia that he himself applied for commuted or medical leave upto the end of August 1985. As stated earlier under rule 204(2)(i) of RSR that the time passed on extra-ordinary leave (leave without pay & allowances) it it is taken on medical certificate granted by the Authorised Medical Attendant shall count as service. Thus the petitioner knowing that there was no commuted leave to his credit applied for extra.ordinary leave which leave could be applied on medical certificate upto July 20, 1985 and thereafter also he continued on leave on the ground of his illness after writing letters for extension of leave upto end of August 1985 on medical ground failed to produce medical certificate or application in the prescribed form. In our opinion at least upto August 31, 1985. extraordinary leave could be sanctioned to the petitioner and under rule 204(2)(i) of RSR it will count as service even if it has not been paid. Under rule 244(2)(i) of RSR a Government servant who has either attained the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years qualifying service can be compulsorily retired in case conditions mentioned in that rule are satisfied. The petitioner was compulsorily retired under order dated September 18, 198 which was received by him on September 26, 1985 he may be entitled to salary upto the date of order of compulsorily retiring him under rule 244(2) of RSR. 113. If extra-ordinary leave granted to the petitioner upto August 31, 1985 can be said to be extra-ordinary leave under rule 204(2)(i) and in our opinion should be then as stated earlier the petitioner had 25 years qualifying service to his credit on September 18 1985 and therefore he could have been retired compulsorily under order dated September 18, 1985. In our opinion neither the order Ex. 5 nor Ex. R. 2/1 which only modified the order is bad. There is no challenge to Ex. 5. In our opinion neither the order Ex. 5 nor Ex. R. 2/1 which only modified the order is bad. There is no challenge to Ex. 5. The ruling Bahadur Singh V. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) in para 24 where in para 24 the court said that the dispute regarding the period of qualifying service of a Government servant should only be decided after giving opportunity to the person concerned with due respect to the learned Judge who said so does not appear to have laid down correct law. It may be stated that the reliance in that case was placed on (42) State of Orissa V. Dr. (Mrs.) Bina Pani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 . It was a case of change of date of birth recorded in the service book. In our opinion case of date of birth recorded stands on a different footing and hat principle cannot be attracted to a case of qualifying service. The question whether a Government servant has completed 25 years of qualifying service or not is a question of fact and only if the question comes before a court the court can examine it and it will be for the court to say if he had completed 25 years qualifying service or not. In the instant case as stated earlier the petitioner did have 25 years' qualifying service on September 18, 1985. The petitioner in fact fulfilled one of the conditions of rule 244(2) of RSR which is necessary for compulsorily retiring the petitioner. He himself applied or extra- ordinary leave because no leave was to his credit. In this back ground that he sought leave upto August 31 1985 on medical ground there can be hardly any dispute that the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service on September 18, 1985 or on September 26, 1985. Thus we are of the opinion that the petitioner fulfilled one of the conditions of rule 244(2) of RSR having completed 25 years of qualifying service on the date of compulsory retirement. 114. Consequently we find no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. V. P. Agrawal (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2566/1986) 115. Thus we are of the opinion that the petitioner fulfilled one of the conditions of rule 244(2) of RSR having completed 25 years of qualifying service on the date of compulsory retirement. 114. Consequently we find no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. V. P. Agrawal (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2566/1986) 115. Two questions arise for determination in this writ petition (i) whether compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 244(2) of RSR was in public interest or is punitive in nature and (ii) whether the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service when Annr. 6 order dated September 18, 1985 retiring the petitioner compulsorily under rule 244(2) of RSR was passed? 116. The date of birth of the petitioner as per service record is March 26, 1936 and after his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the petitioner was appointed in Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) and joined as Judicial Officer on August 1, 1960. He continued as Munsif Magistrate upto February 23, 1968 and worked as such at various places. He was promoted as Civil Judge on February 12, 1968 and continued on that post at various places. With effect from April 15, 1972 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and was further promoted on officiating/temporary basis under order dated March 23, 1974 to the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. He was Additional District and Sessions Judge at various places including Bharatpur Dholpur and Kota. After serving on various posts at various places in the cadre of Addl. District Judge the petitioner was posted as Judge Labour Court Kota District Judge. Tonk Judge Labour Court Udaipur and District Judge Churu and was awaiting posting orders at Jaipur with effect from August 7, 1984 till he was compulsorily retired vide order dated September 18, 1985 under rule 244(2) of RSR which was communicated to him under letter dated September 23, 1985 Annr. 5 of the Registrar Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. We will take the arguments advanced while dealing with two points which have been framed at the beginning of this order in respect of the petitioner. Re. (I) 117. 5 of the Registrar Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur. We will take the arguments advanced while dealing with two points which have been framed at the beginning of this order in respect of the petitioner. Re. (I) 117. As the petitioner was retired under order dated September 18, 1985 and as the APAR for the year 1985 would have been due for being written after December, 1985 we will examine the record of the petitioner for last about 10 years i.e. from the year 1975 onwards. That apart as we have said earlier even after promotion on ad hoc basis generally the adverse entries if any earned before promotion should be deemed to have been washed-off and obliterated but if a Government servant after his promotion as aforesaid has earned similar or like adverse entries then the like or similar adverse entries earned by him prior to his promotion can also be looked into and as the petitioner was promoted in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on officiating/temporary basis in the math of 4. March, 1974 and joined as Additional District and Sessions Judge on April 3, 1974. even otherwise first we will examine his record after the aforesaid promotion. We will therefore first start from his APAR for year 1975 and other service record. During the year 1975 the petitioner was Addl. District and Sessions Judge Jhalawar and then Jhalawar used to be under Kota Judgeship. Reporting Officer about his integrity for that year said 'No complaint about his integrity was received by me'. The reporting officer also said in general remarks that he proved a fairly good officer at Jhalawar. It appears that for part of the year there was one reporting officer and for the remaining part of the year there was :mother reporting officer. The other reporting officer while endorsing the view of the reporting officer said-'On the whole the officer is good except that he should be more polite with the Bar members and put in more labour in disposal of civil cases. The disposal was good. He has good grasp of the work and is systematics in his work". The Administrative Judge said Disposal good. Quality of judgment needs improvement seems to have improved in general behaviour as compared to his posting at Udaipur". The Chief Justice said "Has shown definite improvement in his general behaviour and quality of work". The disposal was good. He has good grasp of the work and is systematics in his work". The Administrative Judge said Disposal good. Quality of judgment needs improvement seems to have improved in general behaviour as compared to his posting at Udaipur". The Chief Justice said "Has shown definite improvement in his general behaviour and quality of work". Nothing against his integrity was heard of". In the year 1977 . there are two APARs because the petitioner had worked under two reporting officers. He was during that period posted as Addl. District and Sessions Judge Bharatpur. So far as integrity is concerned both the reporting officers said 'sound' and both also said that the petitioner is a seasoned officer with sufficient maturity and senior enough to be considered favourably for the posting of District and Sessions Judge independently. But Shri A. P. Sen J. Administrative Judge as he then was said "A man of doubtful integrity. Enjoyed a bad reputation at Bharatpur. Needs to be closely watched". The chief Justice said that "He should be watched". During this period Justice R. Sachar then a Judge of this Court had inspected the court of the petitioner at Bharatpur in December 1976. Mr. Justice R. Sachar went through the various cases in respect of which complaints were made to him. Mr. Justice Sachar on the basis of his inspection wrote a letter to the Chief Justice on January 27, 1977 and it is the case of the petitioner that though the Administrative Judge A. P. Sen. J. as he then was gave adverse entry in his APAR but when Sachar J inspected the Bharatpur Judgeship and gave a clear-chit the remarks of Administrative Judge A.P. Sen J. in his APAR are not of any relevance. According to the petitioner at any rate it can be said that there are two reports and both of them are contradictory to each other and therefore the remarks given by A.P. Sen J. should not be given any weight in view of the enquiry and report given by Sachar J. after his inspection. Sachar J. in his aforesaid letter dated January 27, 1977 written to the Chief Justice said that the complaints were that Shri V.P. Agrawal was adjourning number of cases on judgment dates and delaying them. The oblique suggestion given was that it was for ulterior purpose. Sachar J. in his aforesaid letter dated January 27, 1977 written to the Chief Justice said that the complaints were that Shri V.P. Agrawal was adjourning number of cases on judgment dates and delaying them. The oblique suggestion given was that it was for ulterior purpose. After the list of cases was furnished and after going through them Sachar J. said that he did not find any justification for the complaint made by the lawyers Sachar J. also said that the District Judge had no complaint and was rather happy with the working of Mr, Agrawal and he bad a good impression of the team of officers at Bharatpur and found that the District Judge and the other officers were having a good mutual equation with one other. 118. It may be stated that the Registrar (Vigilance) placed the aforesaid letter of' Sachar J. dated January 27, 1977 but still A.P. Sen J. had given the afore- said report and the Chief Justice said that he should be watched. It will therefore be clear that A.P. Sen J. and V P. Tyagi Chief Justice gave three remarks after the aforesaid letter of Sachar J. and those remarks were given after consideration of the letter of Sachar J. Even Sachar J. in his inspection note said that "I have impressed upon the Addl. Sessions Judge and I have also told the District & Sessions Judge that efforts should be made to announce judgment on the day fixed and it might be better if the judgment is kept a few days hence rather than that the date is fixed quickly and adjournment is given because it is not ready. I also found that because of the nature of the work and the pressure the practice of adjourning the date of judgment is a common phenomenon in all the courts and atleast 10 to 15 per cent of dates of judgments are adjourned because it is not ready on that day. Though it may be desirable that the judgment is announced on the very date fixed it has also to be appreciated that because of the pressure of the work adjournment may be inevitable in some cases. I have of course impressed upon the Judges that the adjournments should be to the minimum and should as far as possible be avoided". Though it may be desirable that the judgment is announced on the very date fixed it has also to be appreciated that because of the pressure of the work adjournment may be inevitable in some cases. I have of course impressed upon the Judges that the adjournments should be to the minimum and should as far as possible be avoided". It may also be stated that some complaints against Shri Agrawal were received and the Registrar (Vigilance) was directed to proceed to Bharatpur and to make inquiry into the matter. The Registrar (Vigilance) visited Bharatpur and submitted his report on February 8, 1977. after inspection by Sachar J. and after his aforesaid letter dated January 27, 1977. Learned Chief Justice on May 25, 1977 on the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) dated February 8, 1977 said- "The report of the Registrar (V) is quite damaging. I have from other sources heard about his habit of taking liquor in the company in which Mr. Agrawal as a Judicial Officer should not move. The note of these remarks may be kept in the file of the confidential report. The Officer has been transferred from Bharatpur therefore no further probe in the matter is required". It can therefore be said that even after the letter to the Chief Justice by Sachar J. the Chief Justice had from his own sources heard about his taking liquor in the company in which Mr. Agrawal as a Judicial Officer should not move and the afore- said adverse remarks were entered in the APAR of Shri Agrawal and communicated. In the year 1977 the petitioner was for part of the year as Addl. District & Sessions Judge Bharatpur and the reporting officer about the integrity of the petitioner said 'sound' and that Shri Agrawal is an experienced and seasoned officer. Senior enough to be considered favourably for promotion. Mr. Justice M.L. Joshi. Administrative Judge as he then was said that ' Man of doubtful integrity. From the report of the Vigilance Registrar it appears that he is addicted to heavy drinks and moves in the company of undesirable persons. He requires to be watched". The Chief Justice said-'Further verification about his conduct necessary'. In the year 1978 the Administrative Judge said-'Disposal average quality of Judgments average. An average Judicial Officer" and the Chief Justice endorsed it. He requires to be watched". The Chief Justice said-'Further verification about his conduct necessary'. In the year 1978 the Administrative Judge said-'Disposal average quality of Judgments average. An average Judicial Officer" and the Chief Justice endorsed it. During this year Shri Agrawal was Secretary Udaipur University Enquiry one man Commissionheaded by Shri S.D Singh a retired Judge of Allahabad High Court and Shri S.D. Singh appreciated the work of the petitioner and wrote a letter dated June 16 1978 to the Chief Justice wherein he expressed his gratitude to the High Court for having spared the services of Shri Agrarwal for working as Secretary to the Commission appointed by the Government for looking into the affairs of Udaipur University. Shri Singh placed on record his appreciation of the work received by him from Shri Agrawal. In the year 1979 the Administrative Judge said that Disposal of Judicial work good. His knowledge of law and procedure needs improvement. Quality of judgments not upto the mark'. Out of four judgments which came to the notice of higher courts two were found standard one below standard and in one no remark was given. In the judgment which was found below standard the remark was given' Discussion of evidence and law not thorough. Sentence/order not appropriate. The Addl. Sessions Judge committed an illegality when while releasing the accused under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1956 he refused to take bonds". In the year 1980 the Administrative Judge said "Disposal is good. Quality of work is good. He is a good officer". There is no remark by Chief Justice. The Administrative Judge also inspected the court of the petitioner when he was posted as District Judge Tonk and submitted his confidential report to the Chief Justice about his work and said that on inspection of his court on De . 6 1980 it was found that Shri Agrawal has taken pains to improve the court premises and to give better amenities to un litigants and the members of the Bar. The relations of Shri Agrawal were found to be very cordial with other Judicial Officers. It was further said that as the matter regarding the purchase of a scooter is under inquiry fuller report would be given thereafter. The relations of Shri Agrawal were found to be very cordial with other Judicial Officers. It was further said that as the matter regarding the purchase of a scooter is under inquiry fuller report would be given thereafter. In 1981 the petitioner was District Judge Tonk from July 2, 1979 to June 24, 1981 and Judge Labour Court Udaipur from August 18, 1981 to date and thus for part of the year 1981 the petitioner was District Judge Tonk. The Chief Justice said-Shri V. P. Agrawal is on deputation as Labour Judge Disposal of work is below standard and the quality of his judgments is not satisfactory. His integrity is not beyond doubt". We are of the opinion that if during the part of the year a person has done judicial work then it can be said that-his work and conduct could be assessed by the High Court and any entry good or bad during that period can be read for or against the officer. Because as stated earlier the petitioner was District Judge Tonk from January 1981 to June 1981 the Chief Justice could have given the aforesaid remarks and as stated earlier no specific instance is required and the Chief Justice/Administrative Judge or any other Judge has sources to know about the work or conduct of judicial officers. It can therefore be said that for part of the year the learned Chief Justice said that the integrity of the petitioner is not beyond doubt. In the year 1983 the petitioner was on deputation as a Judge. Labour Court Udaipur which is a Judicial work. The Chief Justice said that-"Shri V. P. Agrawal is on deputation as Judge Laboir Court. His integrity is not beyond doubt. He is an average Judicial Officer." In 1983 the petitioner was Judge Labour Court Udaipur and the Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee said "Not a good officer. Reputation in Udaipur was bad". In the year 1984 the petitioner was Judge Labour Court Udaipur for part of the year i. e. upto May 26, 1984 and with effect from May 28, 1984 to August 6, 1984 the petitioner was District & Sessions Judge Churu and thereafter was awaiting posting orders. The Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee said -"Integrity of the officer is very doubtful. Not a good officer". The Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee said -"Integrity of the officer is very doubtful. Not a good officer". It can therefore be said that so far as in the APARs for the year 1981 to 1984 i. e. four years are concerned the integrity of the petitioner was not found beyond doubt and was found to be bad and doubtful". Apart from immediately last four years preceding the compulsory retirement of the petitioner the APAR of 1976 shows that the petitioner enjoyed a bad reputation at Bharatpur and was found to be a man of doubtful integrity. So far as the adverse entry of the year 1977 is concerned though the Administrative Judge said that the integrity is doubtful the Chief Justice said that further verification is necessary. In our opinion it should be ignored. 119. A Screening Committee of five Hon'ble Judges was appointed by the Chief Justice and the aforesaid Committee on the basis of service record of the petitioner and spot inquiries recommended that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest. It may be stated that no bias or malice has been alleged in any of the members of the Screening Committee which as already stated earlier consisted of Hon'ble N.M. Kasliwal and Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal JJ as they then were. The petitioner filed an application that the adverse material which was considered by the Full Court including the report of Screening Committee should be supplied to him and we had under our order dated October 4 1988 given an opportunity to the petitioner to file representation and directed the Chief Justice to consider the representation if any. The Chief Justice appointed a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges to consider the representation of the petitioner and others and it may be stated that the adverse entry for the year 1977 in which the Chief Justice said that further verification about his conduct is necessary for which we have said that it may be ignored was ordered to be retained. Similarly adverse entries for the years 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983 and for part of the year 1984 about integrity were retained. The Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the committee of three Hon'ble Judges so far as the petitioner is concerned. Similarly adverse entries for the years 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983 and for part of the year 1984 about integrity were retained. The Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the committee of three Hon'ble Judges so far as the petitioner is concerned. The matter was placed before the Full Court and it was the Full Court alone which could have taken the final decision as it had put its seal on the adverse entries on the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the Full Court rejected the representation. 120. The result of the above discussion is that it cannot be said that the opinion to compulsory retire the petitioner is not based on any material or the petitioner has been retired compulsorily unreasonable or for collateral purpose. It cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever on which the requisite opinion under rule 244(2) of RSR could be formed. As stated earlier the principles deduced in the cases of detention do not apply to the case of compulsory retirement. Even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries is excluded there was still sufficient material on the basis of which the requisite opinion could have been formed that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Re: (ii) 121. It is the case of the petitioner as contained in para No. 18 that he was awaiting posting orders with effect from August 5, 1984 and continued as such till he joined as Presiding Officer Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal Jaipur on March 26, 1985. The petitioner was not paid any salary from February 1, 1985 to March 25, 1985 nor the Government has regularised the period of awaiting posting order for purpose of qualifying service and the period for which no salary has been paid nor has been treated to be qualifying service cannot be computed for arriving at completed service years of 25 years under rule 1979 of RSR. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the appointing authority passed the order much before the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service the order is avoid having not satisfied the essential ingredients of rule 244(2) of RSR. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the appointing authority passed the order much before the petitioner had completed 25 years qualifying service the order is avoid having not satisfied the essential ingredients of rule 244(2) of RSR. The case of the non-petitioners is that the petitioner no doubt remained under awaiting posting order from August 6, 1984 to March 21, 1985 but it is stated in reply to the averments of para No. 18 of the writ petition that salary from February 1, 1985 March 24, 1985 was ordered to be paid and the High Court had directed the District Judge Churn to draw the salary of the petitioner for the above period and remit the same to the petitioner under intimation. The payment of the salary hay been made by the District Judge Churu to the petitioner for the aforesaid period as appears from Annr. R2/1. It is also the case of the non-petitioners that so far as the regularisation of the period of awaiting posting order is concerned the High Court vide its letter dated June 31985 recommended to the State Govt. that the said period be treated as on duty and a copy of the same has been submitted as Annr. R2/7. In rejoinder the petitioner in para No. 11 page 78-79 (two paras have been numbered as para 11) does not dispute that the District Judge Churu has drawn the salary as stated in the reply by the non-petitioners but according to him the said salary was not paid to him by the District Judge as far as record with him is concerned. and it has been stated that the answering respondents may put the proof of such payment and disclose the manner in which the said amount was paid. It is also the case in the rejoinder that the High Court might have recommended to the Government under its letter dated June 3, 1985 to treat the aforesaid period on duty but no such order was passed till September 18, 1985 when the petitioner was made to compulsorily retire and therefore the services of the petitioner in the absence of the order of the State Government of retirement cannot be said to have been regularised. Any order subsequent to the date of retirement cannot be made validly with retrospective effect. Any order subsequent to the date of retirement cannot be made validly with retrospective effect. It appears from the rejoinder of the petitioner that the order has been made by the State Government but according to him after his compulsory retirement to fill in the gap and lacuna. A look at Annr. R2/a details of pay drawn by the petitioner with effect from June 1984 to March 1985 which period includes the period from August 5, 1985 to March 24, 198 the period of awaiting posting orders shows that the salary for the aforesaid period i.e. upto March 23, 1985 was drawn by the District Judge It can therefore be said that the period during which the petitioner was awaiting posting order relates to Churu and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement Annr. R2/a that the District Judge has drawn the salary of the petitioner. From perusal of Annr. R2/I it can hardly be disputed that the salary upto March 23 1985 was drawn by District Judge much before the petitioner was retired and was paid to him. The High Court directed the District Judge to draw the salary and pay to the petitioner and even if the petitioner did not take the amount it will not make any difference because it was for the petitioner to hive taken the amount of his salary for the aforesaid period and it shall be deemed to have been paid. That apart a perusal of Para l l of the rejoinder will show that tb petitioner has said that-"to the best of the petitioner's knowledge and as per record with the petitioner the said salary was not paid by the District Judge Churu". The petitioner is not categorical and he has not categorically said that the payment of salary has not been made to him or he has not received the same. Therefore in our opinion it can be said that one of the conditions under rule 179 of RSR that the service may be paid was satisfied. The petitioner is not categorical and he has not categorically said that the payment of salary has not been made to him or he has not received the same. Therefore in our opinion it can be said that one of the conditions under rule 179 of RSR that the service may be paid was satisfied. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no order for the aforesaid period made by the State Government to regularise the aforesaid period of awaiting posting orders as stated earlier the High Court under its letter dated June 3 1985 recommended to the State Government that the said period be treated as on duty and the State Government granted sanction for total period vide Annr. R2/2. It will appear from the aforesaid annexure that no doubt it was issued on October 27, 1987. but from the endorsement to various authorities it appears that at item No. 2. a copy of which was sent to the Registrar Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur with reference to his letter No. 4108 dated June 3, 1985. Rule 7(8)(a) defines 'duty'. The definition is inclusive definition and reads as under:- "Duty" includes:- (i) Service as a probationer or apprentice; provided that such service is followed by confirmation, (ii) Joining time, (iii) In respect of a Government servant returning from leave the day of taking over charge of the same post from which he proceeds on leave. Rule 7(8)(b) vests power in the Government and the Government may issue orders declaring that a Government servant may be treated on duty and the order Annr. R2/2 was issued under clause (iii) of sub-rule(s) of rule 7 of RSR. A clarification was issued delegating the powers on Administrative Departments to issue orders treating a Government servant as on duty during the period of awaiting posting orders. As stated earlier the High Court had already recommended much before the order of compulsory retirement was made and merely because the order Annr. R2/2 could be issued on October 27, 1987 in our opinion it will have no consequences. That apart in our opinion so far as qualifying service of a Government servant is concerned a reference to rule 179 will show that three conditions have been provided namely. R2/2 could be issued on October 27, 1987 in our opinion it will have no consequences. That apart in our opinion so far as qualifying service of a Government servant is concerned a reference to rule 179 will show that three conditions have been provided namely. (i) the service must be under Government (ii) the employment may be in substantive/permanent/temporary or officiating capacity and (iii) the service may be paid by the Government and in the instant case all the three conditions are satisfied. Therefore we are of the opinion that there is no force in the contention raised by the petitioner that he had not completed 25 years' qualifying service on September 18, 1985 when the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was made under rule 244(2) of RSR by the appointing authority. 122. Consequently we find no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 123. In the result even if that part of the report of the Screening Committee which is based on spot inquiries is ignored there was sufficient material in the case of each of the petitioners on which the appointing authority could bonafidely form the requisite opinion that it is in public interest to retire each of the petitioner compulsorily. There is no merit in any of the writ petitions and each of them is dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******