Judgment :- F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. The petitioner has come forward with the prsent Writ Petition, challenging the order of compulsory retirement passed in G.O.Ms.No.64 Home (Courts-IA) Department, dated 21-01-1999 as well as the subsequent order in letter No.15741/Courts-IA/99 dated 10-11-1999. 2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate of II Class, Neyveli. He joined the services of the Judiciary as Judicial II Class Magistrate under G.O.Ms.No.918 Home dated 21-4-1981. Previously, he was employed as Assistant in the Prohibition and Excise Department in the state of Tamil Nadu. He was posted as Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Vilathikulam on 4-3-1982. His date of birth is 30-7-1948. So, in the second half of 1998, the case of the petitioner was ripe for review under FR 56(2) by the Review Committee as he was 50 years at that point of time. The petitioner's records were considered by the Review Committee along with certain other officers and it was resolved not to recommend the petitioner for continuance in service beyond the age of 50 years and that in the public interest, he should be compulsorily retired. The recommendation of the Review Committee was placed before the Full Court which also approved the minutes of the Review Committee, recommending the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Based on the recommendation of the Full Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 21-1-1999. Against which, the petitioner preferred a review and as there was no provision for review, the same was also rejected. 3. Mr.K.Chandru, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that during the period of his service as Judicial Officer, the petitioner had unblemished record of service except on one occasion where a remark came to be made in the year 1994 to the effect that he must improve his performance; that even the said remark was communicated to the petitioner only on 11-9-1996; that on 9-6-1998 another communication was served on him where again it was mentioned "... poor disposal', for lack of procedural laws and lack of aptitude of hard work"; and that at that point of time, as the Court was newly set up, the petitioner did not have the assistance of the Steno-typist. According to the petitioner, the then District Judge, Cuddalore who was presiding over the Court in the year 1996-97 was prejudiced against him and therefore, the said remarks came to be made. According to the petitioner, the then District Judge, Cuddalore who was presiding over the Court in the year 1996-97 was prejudiced against him and therefore, the said remarks came to be made. It was contended that as there was no indication in the communication served on him, within which time, he should submit his reply, he could not respond to the said communication. It is, therefore, contended that barring the above, when the performance is considered, the disposal of the cases was substantial, except when he came to be posted as District Munsif. According to the petitioner, all along he was manning only Criminal Courts as Judicial Magistrate and therefore, when he came to be posted as District Munsif to handle the civil cases, due to initial hurdles though the disposals were not appreciable, that cannot be a ground for taking the extreme step of compulsorily retiring him from the service. The learned Senior counsel contended that when there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner and since the lack of performance was the only allegation against him, the petitioner ought not to have been compulsorily retired as it caused extreme hardship to the petitioner. 4. As against the above submissions, learned Spl.Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents after placing the personal record of the petitioner before us, contended that the overall performance of the petitioner was very poor, that there were adverse entries against the petitioner, some of which were also communicated to the petitioner and in the circumstances, as the continuation of the petitioner in service beyond 50 years was found to be not in public interest, the respondents had no other option except to compulsorily retire him from service. 5. We had the advantage of perusing the personal records files of the petitioner. Initially up to the middle of 1995, there was nothing against the petitioner. Thereafter, there was a gradual decline in the performance of the petitioner. Up to May 1995, the petitioner was working as Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram. On and from 1-6-1995, he was posted as District Munsif, Vridhachalam. Thereafter, it was found that the petitioner was not able to give satisfactory disposals on the civil side. Thereafter, there was a gradual decline in the performance of the petitioner. Up to May 1995, the petitioner was working as Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram. On and from 1-6-1995, he was posted as District Munsif, Vridhachalam. Thereafter, it was found that the petitioner was not able to give satisfactory disposals on the civil side. In fact, in the performance appraisal for the period 1-1-1996 to 31-3-1996 and from 1-4-1996 to 13-8-1996, it was found out that there was sharp decline in his performance and a remark came to be made in his confidential record that he should improve his overall performance. That was an assessment made by the Honourable Judge of this Court who had the opportunity to appraise his performance. Even his performance between 28-8-1996 to 31-12-1996 was found to be 'poor in all respects' by the Unit Head, which was also endorsed by the concerned Portfolio Judge. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with an Official Memorandum dated 26-5-1998 pointing out that his disposal was poor and the same was due to lack of knowledge of procedural laws and also due to lack of aptitude for hard work. 6. Though the petitioner acknowledged the office memorandum on 15-6-1998, he had no explanation to offer. Again when his performance was appraised between 1-1-1997 and 6-4-1997, his industry and aptitude for hard work was found to be 'poor' by the Unit Head as well as the concerned Portfolio Judge. Such remarks were based on the statistics available on record. The same position continued even during the period 7-4-1997 to 26-5-1997. Even during the period 2-6-1997 to 31-12-1997 as Judicial Magistrate-cum-District Munsif, Neyveli, the petitioner was disposing of at an average only two suits per month which was found to be 'not satisfactory' at all. Further in respect of his honesty, integrity and impartiality also, it was found to be 'very poor' apart from his promptitude in disposal of the cases not having improved in the report covering the period 1-1-1998 to 18-2-1998. Even during the period 19-2-1998 and 31-12-1998, the same position continued and the remark in the record was 'poor' in performance and 'very poor' as regards his honesty, integrity and impartiality, and overall view was also noted as 'not satisfactory'. Even during the period 19-2-1998 and 31-12-1998, the same position continued and the remark in the record was 'poor' in performance and 'very poor' as regards his honesty, integrity and impartiality, and overall view was also noted as 'not satisfactory'. When such were the adverse entries made in the personal confidential record of the petitioner, the Review Committee while considering the same, thought it fit not to continue him in service beyond 50 years. As the Full Court was also convinced with the recommendation of the Review Committee, the impugned order of compulsory retirement came to be passed. 7. With the above background in regard to the petitioner's service, when the principles relating to compulsory retirement of a public servant, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various decisions can be considered. 8. In this context, we wish to be guided by the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases relating to compulsory retirements. Of the various judgments cited at the Bar, we feel that certain definite principles set out in some of the decisions alone would be sufficient for our present purpose. We find such guidelines from the following judgments, namely, the cases reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 , AIR 1999 SC 1677 , 2001(3) SCC 314 , AIR 2002 SC 1345 (cited supra). 9. In AIR 1992(2) SLR 299 (BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS AND ANOTHER versus CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER BARIPADA AND ANOTHER), in paragraph 34, five principles have been set out which reads as under:- "34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (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. 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; is short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 10. In the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1677 (HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA THOUGH R.G. Versus ISWAR CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER), paragraph 31 is relevant for our purpose "31. ... In the case where Full Court of the High Court recommends compulsory retirement of an officer High Court on judicial side has to exercise great circumspection in setting aside that order. Here it is a complement of all the judges of the High Court, who go into the question. It may not be possible that in all cases evidence would be forthcoming about the doubtful integrity of a judicial officer and at times Full Court has to act on the collective wisdom of all Judges." 11. In 2001(3) SCC 314 (STATE OF GUJARAT versus UMEDBHAI M.PATEL), the law relating to compulsory retirement was considered and the crystallised principles were stated as under in paragraph 11: "11. In 2001(3) SCC 314 (STATE OF GUJARAT versus UMEDBHAI M.PATEL), the law relating to compulsory retirement was considered and the crystallised principles were stated as under in paragraph 11: "11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into a definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the Officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure." 12. In AIR 2002 SC 1345 (STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS versus VIJAY KUMAR JAIN), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid stress on the integrity of a Government Employee in the following words in paragraph 14. "14. .... Integrity of a Government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a Government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, the Government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The Government's right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. The Government's right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to Screening Committee or the State Government, as the case may be to find out whether a Government Servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll, the Government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not." 13. While the principles relating to compulsory retirement has been so succinctly set out by the Honb'le Supreme Court in above referred decision, the question is whether the order of compulsory retirement issued to the petitioner and impugned in this Writ Petition calls for interference. 14. In G.O.Ms.623, 14-7-1983 and the appended guidelines, it is stated that 'in cases where the Government have a reasonable cause to believe that an officer is lacking in integrity', that would be an appropriate ground to consider him for compulsory retirement irrespective of an assessment of his ability or efficiency in work. It is also stated therein that, 'in cases where the Government have reason to believe that the Officer habitually takes bribe but there is no proof of a specific act of corruption or where the Officer has a bad reputation and where there is abundant suspicion against him even though the guilt may not have been established, such case can also be brought for review. 15. As stated earlier, though in the initial part of the service of the petitioner in his judicial career, while working as Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner had shown sufficient disposals in the matter of criminal cases, we find that after his posting as District Munsif, i.e. on the civil side of his Judicial career, the petitioner was finding it difficult to improve his performance. His allegation that the concerned Principal District Judge was not getting along with the petitioner was not substantiated and based on a stray averment contained in the affidavit, we are unable to hold that the adverse entry in the personal record by the Unit Head, namely, the then District Judge of Cuddalore was due to personal animosity as against the petitioner. Even the statistics of disposals made by the petitioner were admittedly far low even after he was advised through official memorandum by the Registry of the High Court once in the year 1996 and 1998 which only shows that the petitioner was not able to show sufficient improvement in the disposal of the civil cases. When the petitioner goes up in the ladder in the judicial career, he has to necessary deal with not only the criminal matters, but also the civil cases of substantial nature. When the petitioner was not able to cope up with the nature of the work entrusted to him in his capacity as District Munsif while handling the civil cases, it can only be said that he was incapable of improving himself to the expectation of the job entrusted him as he goes up in the ladder. In such circumstances, when constantly his performance was found to be declining right from the year 1996, this Court had no option except to view it seriously at the time when the question of continuing him in service beyond 50 years came up for consideration. 16. It will have to be reiterated that when the petitioner came to be appointed as District Munsif after 1995, there was no scope to restrict his work to that of criminal cases alone. Necessarily he had to handle the civil cases thereafter and when in spite of repeated persuasions when he was not able to show any improvement, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on completion of 50 years became inevitable. Further, it was also found out that his honesty and integrity was also not satisfactory and the endorsements found in the personal files after 1996 discloses that even his integrity and honesty was also 'poor'. A perusal of the Vigilance files do show that there were numerous complaints against the petitioner though many of them found to be not substantiated. Further, it was also found out that his honesty and integrity was also not satisfactory and the endorsements found in the personal files after 1996 discloses that even his integrity and honesty was also 'poor'. A perusal of the Vigilance files do show that there were numerous complaints against the petitioner though many of them found to be not substantiated. In the said circumstances, when the principles set out in the above referred to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applied, especially the third principle set out in AIR 1992(2) SLR 299, viz., that there being no mala fide or the action being not arbitrary or that the decision was based on sufficient material available on record, it will have to be held that the order of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner cannot be interfered with. Equally as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in 2001(3) SCC 314 , the adverse entries found in the confidential record, which had the endorsement of the concerned Judge of this Court merits due weightage. In fact, the entries made in the confidential records were also duly communicated to the petitioner. When the entire service record of the petitioner is thus perused, we find that in the better administration, it became necessary for the Review Committee to recommend for the petitioner's compulsory retirement which was found to be perfectly justified by the Full Court. 17. Therefore, by applying the principles set out in the judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1677 , when the Full Court of this Court, after considering the entire service record of the petitioner, recommended his compulsory retirement, there is very little scope for this Court to scrutinise the same in this Writ Petition in the absence of apparent perversity, arbitrariness or mala fide. In the case on hand, the only mala fide was alleged against the then District Judge of Cuddalore. As we have held earlier, the same was not substantiated at all. A perusal of the personal records of the petitioner reveals that the conclusion of the Review Committee as well as that of the Full Court was based on acceptable material and well founded and therefore, we do not find any scope to interfere with the said decision. We do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.