Judgment : F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. The petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned G.O.(2D) 458, dated 13.7.2007 in and by which he was compulsorily retired from service by invoking FR 56(2) on attaining the age of 50 years. 2. The brief facts, which are required to be stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 27.11.1995. According to the petitioner, after he joined service, he had worked in several places and that while working at Nanguneri as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, due to difference of opinion with the bar members, he faced certain problems and that by an order, dated 13.6.2005, he was placed under suspension based on the complaint of the Bar members. He would claim that basing that he had unblemished record of service and that to his utter shock, the impugned order of compulsory retirement, dated 13.7.2007 was served on him on 30.7.2007. 3. While attacking the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner would contend that the same was issued to him in violation of principles of natural justice, that the reasons assigned in the order were flimsy, that he was not afforded an opportunity before the issuance of the impugned order, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Gothandaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition, submitted that the integrity and honesty of the petitioner was above board and that simply because there were certain complaints made by the Bar members, while he was working at Nanguneri, the petitioner ought not to have been retired compulsorily on completion of 50 years. 5. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah (1983) 3 SCC 211, M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others AIR 1998 SC 3058 : (1999) 7 SCC 310 : 1999-I- LLJ-923 and Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar And Others Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar And Others Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar And Others AIR 1999 SC 1018 : (1999) 3 SCC 396 : 1999-II-LLJ-229 in support of his submissions. 6. 6. As against the above submissions, D. Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed before us the entire service records of the petitioner and contended that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner on completion of 50 years was recommended after due deliberations by the Administrative Committee, whose recommendation was also placed before the Full Court and based on the unanimous decision of the Full Court, the order of compulsory retirement came to be issued to the petitioner. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the service records of the petitioner disclose that the same contained very many adverse entries, apart from innumerable complaints of corruption against the petitioner which weighed with the first respondent to take the extreme decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in the interest of judicial administration. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after a perusal of the service records which contained the entries in the Annual Confidential Report both by the Unit Head and the concerned Portfolio Judge for the entire period of service of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. 9. At the outset, we wish to state the law relating to compulsory retirement as has been laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in various decisions. Few of those decisions of recent origin can be usefully referred to support our conclusion. 10. In the decision State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel AIR 2001 SC 1109 : (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001-II-LLJ-1140, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has crystallised the principles in paragraph 11, which reads as under at p. 1143 of LLJ: “ 11. Few of those decisions of recent origin can be usefully referred to support our conclusion. 10. In the decision State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel AIR 2001 SC 1109 : (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001-II-LLJ-1140, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has crystallised the principles in paragraph 11, which reads as under at p. 1143 of LLJ: “ 11. The law relating to compulsory retirement as now crystallised into definite principles which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the service of the 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 of dead wood but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer forthcoming; (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such orders; (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.” 11. In the decision Nawal Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 2003 SC 4303 : (2003) 8 SCC 117 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case in respect of an officer in judicial service, who was compulsorily retired, has stressed that the judicial service cannot be treated as any other service in the sense of an employment and that a person, who is discharging his functions as a judicial officer, is discharging such functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, therefore, highlighted as to how persons entrusted with such an onerous responsibility is expected to maintain high amount of integrity and honesty, which should be beyond doubt in order to ensure that the judicial officer dispensing justice should be impeccable and any act of the judicial officer should not leave an iota of doubt in the minds of a common man in regard to dispensation of justice. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has expressed its views in lucid terms in paragraph 2, which reads as under: “ 2. At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further, the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the same, particularly because the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority.” 12. The decision Chandra Sough and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another Chandra Sough and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another Chandra Sough and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another AIR 2003 SC 2889 : (2003) 6 SCC 545 , is also related to the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer, wherein, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court went on to hold that even though the order of compulsory retirement passed in that case was an illegal one but yet declined to extend the benefit of discretionary relief as the Hon‘ble Supreme Court felt that mere illegality by itself did not render the order liable to be interfered, with since the facts, which related to the compulsory retirement of the concerned judicial officer, cannot be ignored. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has expressed its views in paragraph 44, which reads as under: “We have been taken through the annual confidential reports as against the appellants. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has expressed its views in paragraph 44, which reads as under: “We have been taken through the annual confidential reports as against the appellants. Having gone through the same, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants. This Court in Brjj Mohan Gupta case has also refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants although the order of the High Court was found liable to be set aside being not in accordance with law.” 13. In yet another decision, Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni (2006) 6 SCC 794 : 2006-III-LLJ-802, relating to compulsory retirement, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that the administrative decision should not be interfered with unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court also held that the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator as the scope of the judicial review is limited to the flaw in the decision making process and not the decision itself. 14. In two recent orders of the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (S.J. MUKHOPHADAYA, J.), was a party ( viz.) in W.P. No. 34351 of 2007, dated 10.3.2008 and W.P. No. 28259 of 2007, dated 4.2.2008, which are related to the compulsory retirement of judicial officers at the level of Civil Judge (Junior Division), where again, the laws on compulsory retirement have been succinctly stated. 15. In the above stated background of the legal principles relating to compulsory retirement, when we analyse the factual position as regards the service records of the petitioner, we set out the following facts. 16. The petitioner joined the service on 27.11.1995 as Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The first Annual Confidential Report (for short ACR) came to be recorded for the period between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.1996. In that report, while the Unit Head recorded “Satisfactory” in all the columns, the Portfolio Judge stated to the effect that ‘no adverse remarks as the officer was not personally known‘ to the learned Judge. 17. The first Annual Confidential Report (for short ACR) came to be recorded for the period between 1.1.1996 and 31.12.1996. In that report, while the Unit Head recorded “Satisfactory” in all the columns, the Portfolio Judge stated to the effect that ‘no adverse remarks as the officer was not personally known‘ to the learned Judge. 17. The second ACR was for the period from 1.1.1977 to 31.12.1997. This time also the report disclose that the general recording of satisfactory‘ was entered in all the columns. 18. For the period from 9.2.1998 to 31.12.1998 while the Unit Head recorded satisfactory‘ performance in respect of all aspects, the concerned Hon‘ble Portfolio Judge merely recorded his views as ‘fair‘. 19. For the period 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999, though the Unit Head recorded its comments as ‘good‘ on all aspects, the concerned portfolio Judge merely recorded as satisfactory‘. 20. For the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000, though the Unit Head recorded as satisfactory‘ in all the columns, the concerned portfolio Judge recorded as under: 1. Knowledge of Law and Procedure: Should improve 2.Promptitude in disposal of Cases : a. Current: Should Improve b. Old: Should improve 3. a. Industry : Should improve b. Aptitude for hard/heavy work : Should improve c. Readiness to take up responsibility: Should improve 21. For the period from 1.1.2001 to 30.9.2001, the Unit Head made the following adverse entries in the ACR: 1. Supervision and Control: a. OnSubordinate Judges: -- b. On Office Staff: Poor 2. Attitude towards: a. Superiors: Satisfactory b. Subordinates: -- c. Colleagues: Poor 3. Conduct and Dignity: a. Inside Court: Poor b. Outside Court: Poor 4. Outlook towards: a. Members of the Bar: Satisfactory b. Public: Poor 5. Over all view: Poor 22. For the above said period, the learned Portfolio Judge recorded as ‘Satisfactory“ in all the columns. 23. For the period from 1.10.2001 to 30.11.2001, the Unit Head made the following adverse remarks: 1. Supervision and Control: a. OnSubordinate Judges: -- b. On Office Staff: Poor 2. Attitude towards: a. Colleagues: Poor 3. Conduct and Dignity: a. Inside Court: Poor b. Outside Court: Poor 4. Outlook towards: a. Public: Poor 5. Overall view: Poor 24. Such adverse entries made by the Unit Head was said to have been “seen” by the concerned Portfolio Judge and the same were duly intimated to the petitioner by communication, dated 8.10.2002. Attitude towards: a. Colleagues: Poor 3. Conduct and Dignity: a. Inside Court: Poor b. Outside Court: Poor 4. Outlook towards: a. Public: Poor 5. Overall view: Poor 24. Such adverse entries made by the Unit Head was said to have been “seen” by the concerned Portfolio Judge and the same were duly intimated to the petitioner by communication, dated 8.10.2002. It is relevant to note that the petitioner did not make any representation as against the above entries. 25. For the year 2002, there were entries to the effect that the performance of the petitioner was ‘good‘. 26. For the period from 3.2.2003 to 31.12.2003, the Unit Head made an adverse entry under the column, Special remarks if any, to the effect that “Integrity to be watched”. The learned Portfolio Judge also made the following adverse entries: a. Inso far as the Conduct and Dignity inside Court and outside Court as well as the outlook towards the members of the Bar and the Public are concerned, the learned Portfolio Judge has made a remark to the effect that ‘Not Satisfactory in view of numerous complaints.‘ b. In so far as Reputation as to honesty, integrity and impartiality are concerned, the learned Portfolio Judge has made a remark to the effect that ‘ in view of special remarks unsatisfactory. The learned Judge also remarked as ‘unsatisfactory‘ as against the column ‘overall view‘. 27. For the period between 1.1.2004 and 31.12.2004, both the Unit Head as well as the learned Judge only recorded as ‘fair‘ in all the columns. 28. When we looked into the vigilance records, we find as many as 22 complaints between the period 2000-2004. Except one or two of those complaints, most of the complaints related to corruption, misuse and abuse of power. Even for the period between 2003 and 2005, we find as many as 13 complaints and every one of those complaints were all corruption charges. 29. When the petitioner was about to cross the age of 50 years in the month of June 2005, his file was placed before the Administrative Committee along with nine other officers, who also completed their age of 50 years during the very same period. Before the Administrative Committee, all the above personal particulars and the confidential entries relating to the petitioner were perused. Before the Administrative Committee, all the above personal particulars and the confidential entries relating to the petitioner were perused. After a detailed consideration of the entries recorded in the confidential reports, work done statements and other relevant records including latest vigilance reports, the Administrative Committee took a decision to recommend for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and one other officer by name, P. Ramaraj, who was also in the cadre of civil Judge (Junior Division). 30. The Administrative Committee, while resolved to retain the service of four other officers, in respect of one officer by name, Thiru. R. Ravindran, it was resolved to continue him in service with a warning to be careful in future and in respect one other officer, by name, Tmt. S. Mary Anselam, it was resolved to defer her case till the completion of the enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance). 31. The resolution of the Administrative Committee relating to all the ten officers was placed before the Full Court meeting held on 11.4.2007 at 5.00 p.m. and in the Full Court, it was unanimously resolved to approve the minutes of the Administrative Committee, dated 3.4.2007. 32. Having considered the above records relating to the case of the petitioner, the decision of the Administrative Committee and as approved by the Full Court, with which we have no reason to differ, we hold that such a decision taken by the first respondent was perfectly justified and the same does not call for any interference. 33. The contentions of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity and the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in violation of principles of natural justice are all contentions which cannot be permitted to be made. Such contentions cannot be appreciated in the case of compulsory retirement. It is well settled that the decision of a compulsory retirement is purely an administrative one, which istaken based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and so long as such decision was based on relevant materials and judicious consideration, there is very little scope for interference with such a decision. 34. As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that none of the decisions would support the case of the petitioner. 35. 34. As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that none of the decisions would support the case of the petitioner. 35. As far as the decision Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah (supra) the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has noted that there was no formal order passed by the Governor under FR 56(d), apart from the fact that there was no material to justify the order of compulsory retirement. It was also noted therein that none was even circulated to the Hon‘ble Judges after the recommendation of the review Committee, whereas in the case on hand, there was absolutely no flaw in the decision making process as has been demonstrated before us. 36. In the decision M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others M.S. Bindra (T) v. Union of India and Others (supra), the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has found that the officer of Indian Revenue Service in that case was enjoying high reputation throughout his career, however, at the age of 52 years, his integrity was doubted and he was compulsorily retired as he was found to be of unreliable integrity and unfit to be entrusted with any position of responsibility in Government Service. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court has noted that there was absolutely no material in support of the said conclusion. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. The facts involved in the said case differs in all respects to the case on hand, where, we have found overwhelming materials to support the decision of the first respondent. 37. Similar is the one Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar (supra)where also there was no material on record to reasonably form an opinion that compulsory retirement was made in public interest. In fact, in that case, merely based on single act of granting anticipatory bail in a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. the order of compulsory retirement came to be passed against the concerned officer. In fact, in that case, merely based on single act of granting anticipatory bail in a criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. the order of compulsory retirement came to be passed against the concerned officer. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, therefore, held that the decision to compulsorily retire the concerned officer was not properly made and therefore, the order was set aside, whereas, in the case on hand, there are sufficient materials to show that the petitioners integrity and honesty was lacking to considerable extent, which was imminent to the post which he was holding. 38. Since none of the above decisions support the case of the petitioner, we are not in a position to apply the above referred to decisions to the facts of this case. 39. As has been laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, when the judicial service cannot be equated to any other employment of an ordinary nature, but is to be treated as one of discharge of a sovereign power of the State and high amount of integrity and honesty have to be ensured and when the personal records of the petitioner disclose that the petitioner was not able to maintain the stature expected of him, as has been outlined by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, we are convinced that the decision taken by the first respondent was purely in public interest and was based on relevant consideration. Further, there being no flaw in the decision making process, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Moreover, the petitioner was not able to point out any other vitiating circumstances in the said decision of the first respondent in order to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ petition. At the risk of repetition we state that there were overwhelming materials in the personal records of the petitioner, which disclose that the petitioner as a judicial officer disentitled himself to be continued as judicial officer. Therefore, it will be wholly inappropriate to interfere with the well considered decision of the first respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition. 40. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same dismissed. No costs.