JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner, aged 57 years, who was working as Additional District Judge, has been compulsorily retired vide order dated 28th October, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules"). The petitioner impugns the said order of compulsory retirement in this petition. 2. The petitioner claims that he had meritorious judicial record with honesty and integrity and that the compulsory retirement amounts to punishment. He further contends that by the said order, he has been lowered in the estimate of dear and near ones and also of the society. The order is further challenged on the ground that it does not disclose that the same is issued on the recommendation of the learned Chief Justice of this Court (respondent No. 2) and that standard which is applied to the members of the executive cannot mutatis mutandis be applied to the members of the judiciary. According to the petitioner, the retirement casts a stigma and also civil consequences. 3. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by the Additional Registrar (Legal) of this Court wherein it is stated that the first promotion of the petitioner was after ten years of service and the petitioner was superseded as he was not found fit for the promotion of Additional District Judge and Judicial Officers Junior to him were promoted to the cadre of Additional District Judge. Though subsequently he was promoted as Additional District Judge and was accordingly superseded. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it has been urged that compulsory retirement is not punitive nor it attaches any stigma on the service career of the employee. It is further averred in the said affidavit that the case of the petitioner was liable to be reviewed at the time of attainment of 50 years under the said Rules. The case of the petitioner was, accordingly, placed before the Review Committee and after considering the petitioner's entire Annual Confidential Reports, disposal record, leave record and complaints received by the Special Investigation Department of this Court, the Review Committee unanimously decided that the petitioner be compulsorily retired in the public interest. The case of the petitioner was, accordingly, placed before the Review Committee and after considering the petitioner's entire Annual Confidential Reports, disposal record, leave record and complaints received by the Special Investigation Department of this Court, the Review Committee unanimously decided that the petitioner be compulsorily retired in the public interest. The report of the Review Committee was placed before the Committee of Administrative Judges consisting of the learned Chief Justice and other Senior Judges of this Court and the Administrative Judges decided to accept the report of the Review Committee with further direction that the petitioner be paid salaries in lieu of notice period. In view of the said decision, the Government was moved and the Government acting upon the recommendation made by this Court issued the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed after following due process. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in (Madan Mohan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar and others)1, J.T. 1999(1) S.C. 459. 5. In this petition, the petitioner has indulged in eulogising himself claiming to be meritorious, efficient and honest which is, in fact, belied by the record. The Review Committee had examined the entire confidential reports, disposal record, leave record and complaints received by the Special Investigation Department of this Court after which decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. The Review Committee has observed : "On perusal of the Annual Confidential Reports for the years ending 31st March, 1993 to 1997, it is observed that throughout the Judicial Officer is remarked to be lacking integrity and requiring to be watched. His performance on Judicial side is also reported to be poor. He is continuously rated as "poor". Thus confidential record of the Judge is consistently unsatisfactory." The report of the Review Committee consisting of the Judges of this Court was placed before the Administrative Judges and the same was accepted and in pursuance of which the impugned order was passed. 6. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Choudhary's case (supra) is misplaced. 6. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Choudhary's case (supra) is misplaced. The Apex Court in this judgment has approved the five principles laid down in (Baikunta Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada)2, J.T. 1992(2) S.C. 1, which has been followed in subsequent decisions, including the case of (Union of India v. V.P. Seth)3, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1261, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das's case had laid down the following five principles:- "(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." The decision in the said case rested ultimately on the facts of that case wherein it was found that adverse remarks in the confidential reports for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were not recorded in the "normal course" but were recorded "at one go" and that too when the Standing Committee of the High Court had already formed an opinion to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. It was on account of these abnormalities coupled with other strange circumstances of the said case that the Apex Court had held that if the said adverse remarks are excluded in the circumstances the impugned action of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service cannot but be termed as arbitrary. Thus the said ruling cannot, in any manner, help the cause of the petitioner. In Union of India v. V.P. Seth (supra), it has been laid down that an order of compulsory retirement can be made subject to judicial review only on grounds of mala fide, arbitrariness or perversity and that the Rule of audi alteram partem has no application since the order of compulsory retirement in such a situation is not penal in nature. 7. The Apex Court in the (High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil and another)4, Civil Appeal No. 1656 of 1998 decided on October 28, 1999, has laid down that it is settled legal position that if there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in the said case :--- "The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority, unlike the bureaucracy or the members of the other service. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. Judicial service is not merely an employment nor the Judges merely employees. They exercise sovereign judicial power. They are holders of public offices of great trust and responsibility. If a Judicial Officer tips the scales of justice its ripping effect would be disastrous and deleterious. " 8. In the light of the well-settled law on the subject and the material which was taken into consideration by the Review Committee recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest which was accepted by the Commitment of Administrative Judges of this Court on whose recommendation the order of compulsory retirement was passed, we do not find any merit whatsoever in this petition. The petition is accordingly summarily rejected. Certified copy expedited. Petition rejected. -----