Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The petitioner was born on 12th July, 1946. The petitioner joined the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service as Munsif on 11th April, 1975. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Sub-Judge w.e.f. 10th July, 1987 and as an Additional District and Sessions Judge from 5th August, 1999. At the relevant time, in this State in terms of the statutory provisions a judicial officer could work up to 58 years of age. The petitioner was thus to retire on 12th July, 2004. 2. On 19th August, 2003 a News report was published in the Hindustan Times, Patna edition, wherein it was reported that the Standing Committee of this court had decided to send the petitioner on premature retirement two years before his superannuation, as his service record was not found clean. 3. Subsequently, the District and Sessions Judge, under whom the petitioner was then working, by a letter dated 28th August, 2003 informed the petitioner that he has received a confidential letter dated 26th August, 2003 from the Registrar General of this court whereby he has been directed to relieve the petitioner of all judicial works. The petitioner stopped judicial work but continued attending the court daily. 4. At that stage the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a copy of the notification dated 8th June, 2004 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Patna, Government of Bihar notifying that the petitioner would be deemed to be compulsorily retired from the date of service of the said notification in terms of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code and he would be entitled to salary of three months alongwith allowances in lieu of three months prior notice. 5. The petitioner then filed an application for amending the writ petition in order to challenge the said notification dated 8th June, 2004. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 5. The petitioner then filed an application for amending the writ petition in order to challenge the said notification dated 8th June, 2004. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. In that it has been stated that while Evaluation Committee was considering the case for grant of extension beyond 58 years to Sri Tabarak Hussian, the Hon ble Chief Justice directed the Registrar General to put up the records of Sri Tabarak Hussian and of the petitioner before the Standing Committee and accordingly, service records of Sri Tabarak Hussian and the petitioner were placed before the Standing Committee and Standing Committee at its meeting held on 11th July, 2003 resolved as under: "Upon having examined the entire service records of the officer concerned, the committee resolved that Sri Ram Gopal Pandey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khagaria, be made to retire from service in lieu of notice on payment of an amount equal to three months pay and allowances. The Government be moved accordingly forthwith". 7. In the counter affidavit the High Court has stated that the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 18th July, 2003 confirmed the minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 11th July, 2003 and resolved that the resolution be circulated to the Full Court and thereupon the same was Circulated and ratified by the Full Court. As a result, the recommendation of the court regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner was sent to the Government. This recommendation was sent by the Registrar General of this Court by a letter dated 25th August, 2003. The contents of the said letter are as follows: "I am directed to say that having examined the entire service records of Sri Ram Gopal Pandey, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khagaria, court are of the opinion that it is not in the public interest to retain him in service any longer and the power under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code should be exercised to make him retire from service. The court, accordingly recommended that Sri Ram Gopal Pandey, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khagaria, may be made to retire compulsorily in public interest, under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code on giving him three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months prior notice. The court, accordingly recommended that Sri Ram Gopal Pandey, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khagaria, may be made to retire compulsorily in public interest, under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code on giving him three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months prior notice. I am, therefore, to request that necessary orders of the State Government giving effect to the above recommendation of the court may be issued at an early date." 8. There is, therefore, no dispute that after the letter dated 25th August, 2003 was received by the Government, the Government issued the Notification dated 8th June, 2004 compulsorily retiring the petitioner before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 9. It is the case of the High Court in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that from perusal of the Annual Confidential Records (A.C. Rs.) of the petitioner since 1976-77 to 1996-97 it appears that thrice criminal outturn of the petitioner was recorded inadequate and once as low but for the rest he received good and satisfactory remarks. It also appears that no C.R. was recorded for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 inasmuch as during that period the petitioner was under suspension. 10. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that during the course of inspection in March, 1986, the petitioner was adjudged B+ by the Inspecting Judge and in May, 1987 he was adjudged as B (satisfactory). In April, 2000, the petitioner was accorded A (very good) by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge. 11. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that a complain was received against the petitioner, that was enquired into and the allegation was found not satisfactory. At the same time it was reported that the petitioner is maintaining good reputation at the station. 12. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that another allegation was received against the petitioner, the same was gone in and was found to be untrue. 13. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that an allegation was made against the petitioner relating to delay in disposal of a criminal case and the said allegation was investigated, when it was found that the investigation was still under progress and hence the petitioner could not be blamed. 14. 13. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that an allegation was made against the petitioner relating to delay in disposal of a criminal case and the said allegation was investigated, when it was found that the investigation was still under progress and hence the petitioner could not be blamed. 14. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that a complain was received against the petitioner to the effect that he was convicted for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was upheld by the High Court, but still then the petitioner is continuing in judicial service. The complaint was investigated and after enquiry it was found that the said conviction was set aside by the Apex Court much before the petitioner entered the judicial service. 15. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that a complain was received to the effect that the petitioner is showing favour to certain lawyers. In the complaint reference to different cases had been given. The Hon ble Inspecting Judge at that time was present at the station to examine the work of the petitioner and found that there is no substance in those allegations. 16. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the High Court in its judicial side while hearing an application for anticipatory bail found that compensation amount awarded in a land acquisition matter to the land owner was paid to the advocate of the land owner by Sri Tabarak Hussian in an Execution Case and the said amount was misappropriated by the advocate concerned, for which the said criminal case was lodged. It was also found by the High Court in the judicial side that the petitioner was then working in his capacity as Sub-Judge-!-cum-designated court for land acquisition cases and he handed over the bank draft of the decreetal dues to the advocate which was considered contravention of the established financial rules. It was also found that instead of directing payment to the decree holder or for depositing the amount in the court, the same was paid to the conducting lawyer. It was also found that instead of directing payment to the decree holder or for depositing the amount in the court, the same was paid to the conducting lawyer. In the circumstances the High Court in its judicial side directed the matter to be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice whereupon Inspection report of the concerned Judgeship was received and both were considered by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 17th July, 1997 when the Standing Committee, as stated in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, decided to put Sri Tabarak Hussian and the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. 17. It has also been stated in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit that Sri Tabarak Hussian and the petitioner filed their explanation which were found not satisfactory by the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 12th December, 1997 and as a result disciplinary proceeding was initiated against both of them. In the disciplinary proceeding charges were not proved and accordingly suspensions of Sri Tabarak Hussian and of the petitioner were re-voked, they were directed to be treated in service with full pay and allowances during the period of suspension in terms of the decision of the Standing Committee taken on 23rd February, 1999 and in the meantime on 7th August, 1998 the case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Additional District Judge was deferred by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 7th August, 1998 and subsequently the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 23rd February, 1999 itself upon finding the petitioner fit for promotion granted him promotion in the cadre of superior Judicial Service, i.e. to the post of Additional District Judge. 18. In the case of Baikuntha Das V/s. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr., reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1020 the Supreme Court has pointed out the principles to be taken note while dealing with a matter pertaining to compulsory retirement. Those principles are as follows: "(i) An order of compulsory retire- ment 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. 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 an 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, moreso, 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 circumstances by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 19. The principal object of compulsorily retiring a public servant is to weed out indolent or dead wood. If the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) are applied to test the impugned order, whether it could be sustained on subjective satisfaction and on the evidence or materials on record is the question that requires to be decided in this case. 20. In addition to what has been stated in the counter affidavit, we have looked into the entire records of the petitioner as were made available to us. 20. In addition to what has been stated in the counter affidavit, we have looked into the entire records of the petitioner as were made available to us. For the year 1975-76 no remark was recorded in his C.R. For the year 1976-77 it was recorded in his C.R. that the petitioner is picking up his work satisfactorily. For the year 1977-78 it was recorded in his C.R. that Judicial work of the petitioner and his relationship with the Bar is satisfactory. At the same time thrice it was found that the criminal outturn during the year 1977-78 is inadequate. Therefore, in the counter affidavit what was intended to be stated is that for the three quarters of the year 1977- 78 Criminal outturn of the petitioner was found inadequate. For the year, 1979-80 it was recorded that for two quarters the outturn of the petitioner was found fair and capable of improvement and on the whole the work of the petitioner was found satisfactory for that year. For the year, 1980-81 it was recorded in the C.R. that the petitioner is hard working, intelligent and well mannered. It was added that he is strict and has administrative capability. For the year 1981-82 it was recorded that the petitioner is an officer of average merit but at the same time it was added that he is a hard working officer No. C.R. was available for the year 1982-1983. For the year, 1983-84 it was recorded that the Judgments and orders passed by the petitioner are average. His outturn of works was low but integrity and relationship with Bar and colleague was good. For the year 1985-86 in his C.R. it was recorded that his outturn on the whole is satisfactory and the petitioner is well mannered and punctual, it was also recorded that his knowledge of law and procedure is fair. For the year ending 31st of March, 1998 it was recorded in the C.R. that the petitioner is a good officer, his marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence is praiseworthy and his outturn is satisfactory. For the year ending 31st of March, 1998 another District Judge had reported that the petitioner is an officer of average merit, his outturn is satisfactory, his relationship with the colleagues and the members of the Bar is cordial. For the year ending 31st of March, 1998 another District Judge had reported that the petitioner is an officer of average merit, his outturn is satisfactory, his relationship with the colleagues and the members of the Bar is cordial. For the year ending 31st of March, 1989 it was recorded in his C.R. that the petitioner is a sober Judicial Officer and his dealing with the members of the Bar and his colleagues are cordial and he is a good Judicial Officer and is quite intelligent and writes good orders and Judgments. We could not locate the C.R. for the year ending 31st March, 1990. For the year ending 31st of March, 1991 in his C.R. it was recorded that the petitioner is an intelligent officer and averagely writes good judgments and orders and he maintains a good reputation about his integrity and honesty as Sub-Judge as well as Special Judge, C.B.I., he maintained a good relationship with officers, staff and members of the Bar, but he should devote more time and energy in disposal of cases. At the same time it was stated that he is industrious and prompt in disposal of the cases. For the year ending 31st of March, 1992 in his C.R. it was recorded that the petitioner is industrious and prompt in disposal of the cases, he is an intelligent and sober officer and takes pains in his work and maintains good relationship with the members of the Bar and his colleagues. For the year ending 31st of March, 1993 it was recorded in his C.R. that the petitioner is industrious and prompt in disposal of the cases, he is put incharge of the Registry he has managed the work very efficiently and smoothly. He has maintained good relationship with the members of the Bar and his colleagues. It was added that his outturn is fair. A similar report he got from another officer for the said period. Same remark he got for the next year and also for the year 1995 when in the final assessment it was recorded that he is a good Judicial Officer. In 1996 it was recorded in his C.R. that the petitioner is an efficient officer with pleasing manners and judicial impartiality. His integrity and honesty are unquestionable. Almost same remarks he got in 1997. In 1996 it was recorded in his C.R. that the petitioner is an efficient officer with pleasing manners and judicial impartiality. His integrity and honesty are unquestionable. Almost same remarks he got in 1997. We have not been able to locate his confidential reports for the subsequent periods from the records as was placed before us. 21. in a departmental proceeding it was found that though handing over of a draft to a lawyer is in contravention of financial rules, but the same had been the practice throughout and accordingly many officers took recourse to handing over drafts to lawyers of decree holders. In such view of the matter, the petitioner was exonerated with full honour in the disciplinary proceeding. 22. That apart immediately after the disciplinary proceeding was concluded, the Standing Committee found that the petitioner is fit to be promoted and the petitioner was accorded promotion. 23. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the minutes of the Standing Committee held on 30th April, 1987 when the Standing Committee resolved as follows: "The following officers are found fit to be promoted to the post of Sub-Judge." The petitioner was one of those Subordinate Judges. At the same time at the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 23rd February, 1999 the Standing Committee resolved as follows: "Having considered the matter, it is resolved that S/Shri Narendra Mishra Sushil Kumar Bhartiya and Ram Gopal Pandey be and are hereby found fit for promotion in the cadre of Superior Judicial Service. The case of Sri Sheo Nandan Yadav be and is hereby deferred. Therefore, both the promotions obtained by the petitioner were on merit and accordingly the adverse remarks against the petitioner in his confidential repoorts for the period prior to the dates of the said promotions lost their sting. 24. Subsequent thereto in the year 2000 the petitioner was adjudged by the Inspecting Judge as a very good officer. Therefore, from the records placed before us we could not locate any evidence or material upon which it could be opined that the petitioner was a dead wood and as such on a subjective consideration it could not be opined that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement after allowing the amendment petition seeking amendment of the writ application. 25. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement after allowing the amendment petition seeking amendment of the writ application. 25. Before parting it is our duty to point out that Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code is as follows: "74(a) The State Government may require any Government servant who has completed twenty one years of duty and twenty-five years of total service calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire from Government service, if it considers that his efficiency or conduct is not such as to justify his retention in service. Where any Government servant is so required to retire, no claim to any special compensation shall be entertained. (b) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule, a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date of which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government: [Provided further that in case of the officer and servants of the Patna High Court (including those of Circuit Bench at Ranchi) under the rule making authority of the Chief Justice, no such officer and servant under suspension shall retire from service except with specific approval of the Chief Justice.] (ii) The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three months previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. (iii) A Government servant who retires voluntarily or is required to retire in public interest under this rule on attaining the age of 50 years, or completing qualifying service of 30 years, shall be entitled to retiring pension would be death cum-retirement gratuity." It would be evidenced from sub-rule (a) of Rule 74 of the said Code that compulsory retirement contemplated thereunder is dependent upon consideration of efficiency and conduct of the officer concerned. Sub-rule (b)(i) permits a Government servant to voluntarily retire. Such retirement is not a compulsory retirement. Sub-rule (b)(ii) requires forming of an opinion as to public interest to compulsorily retire an employee from service. The Standing Committee while resolving to compulsorily retire the petitioner did not express any opinion that such retirement is a requirement for public interest. It also did not record that the said resolution is being adopted after considering the efficiency or the conduct of the petitioner. The decision contained in the said resolution was, therefore, not a decision under Rule 74 of said Rules. Apart from Rule 74 contained in the said Code, there is no other provision, whereunder such a decision could be taken. The said decision is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 26. While, however communicating the said decision of the High Court to the Government, the Registrar General added public interest as the reason for the compulsorily retirement of the petitioner. The Registrar General had and has no authority to add to or subtract anything from the decision of the High Court. 27. The writ petition is thus, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. V.N.Sinha, J. 28 I agree.