Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner, a compulsorily retired Judicial Officer, has challenged the order dated 20th May, 2005 by which he has been compulsorily retired. 2. We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned Counsel for the respondents. In addition to the pleadings and documents annexed thereto, we have perused records as produced by the High Court for our perusal. 3. The order by which petitioner was compulsorily retired was not passed upon conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding, instead the same was passed under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, which rule is reproduced below: 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 allowance 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. 4. Upon being selected, petitioner was directly recruited in the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service, whereupon he joined as a Munsif [now Civil Judge (Jr. Division)] on 13.3.1984 and at the time when the impugned order was passed, petitioner was working as Additional Munsif, Benipur (Darbhanga). The said state of affair indicates that in course of his service tenure, i.e. between 13.3.1984 and 20.5.2005 petitioner did not get any promotion. 5. Services rendered by the petitioner had been evaluated by the District & Sessions Judges of the Judgeships where the petitioner remained posted from time to time and also by the Hon ble Inspecting Judges five times. The evaluations so made were recorded in the confidential reports of the petitioner. Summary of such reports recorded by the District & Sessions Judge as handed over to us by the learned Counsel for the High Court are as follows: 1986-87Satisfactory knowledge of law. He is industrious and efficient officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. He may be vested with the power of 1st Class. No apparent defect has come to light. Efficient and well behaved officer. 1987-88Satisfactory knowledge of law. He is industrious and efficient officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. He may be vested with the power of 1st Class. No apparent defect has come to light. Efficient and well behaved officer. 1987-88Satisfactory knowledge of law. He is industrious and efficient officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. No apparent defect has come to light. He is a good, efficient and well behaved officer. His dealings with the Bar is equally good. 1988-89Satisfactory knowledge of law. He is industrious and efficient officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. No defect has come to light. He is a good, efficient and disciplined officer. His dealings with the Bar is also good. 1989-90Good knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and efficient officer and prompt in the disposal of cases. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. No defect. He is intelligent, smart and competent. He is well behaved and disciplined. His relation with the members of the Bar is fair. 1990-91He has got satisfactory knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. He is an efficient officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartialaity. Defect, if any, - No defect. He is well behaved and disciplined. His relation with the members of the Bar is on the whole normal. He has good relationship with the colleagues. He works hard. 1990-91Average knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. His supervision of the distribution of business and control over the subordinate courts are good. He is an efficient officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. Defects, if any - No any defect was found. He is an honest and painstaking officer. He maintained good relation with Bar and colleagues as well. 1991-92XX XX XX 1992-93I have no occasion to see his work during the year under report as he is under suspension since Jan. 1992, hence no comment. 1993-94No occasion to see his work as he was under suspension during the period under report. 1994-95Average knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and disposal of cases - average. An average efficiency. Nothing against his integrity and impartiality was reported. He has been placed in the permanent court of Munsif. Defects - Not known. 1992, hence no comment. 1993-94No occasion to see his work as he was under suspension during the period under report. 1994-95Average knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and disposal of cases - average. An average efficiency. Nothing against his integrity and impartiality was reported. He has been placed in the permanent court of Munsif. Defects - Not known. An average officer with sober temperament. His conduct as Judicial Officer has been good. He maintained good relationship with the members of the Bar and Judicial officers. 1995-96Knowledge of law and procedure -Average. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? Capable of improvement. Is he an efficient officer? Average. Has he maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality? Yes, Defects - Nil. His work, conduct, relation with Bar and officers good. 1996-97Knowledge of law and procedure - Average. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Capable of improvement. Is he an efficient officer? - Average. No any complaint against his honesty and impartiality made before me. His work, conduct, relation with Bar and officers fair. 1997-98Knowledge of law and procedure - Normal. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? Average. Is he an efficient officer? - Normally efficient. An officer of general judicial personality. 1998-99Knowledge of law and procedure - Fair. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Average. Is he an efficient officer? - Average. Has he maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality? - Yes. Defects - No. He is an average good officer. 1999-2000Knowledge of law and procedure - Above average. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Yes. He is an officer of average efficiency. He does not enjoy a good reputation, so far. Is he fit for the exercise of any enhanced power? - I do not think so. Defects - As in Column No. 5. He is an officer of average merit, who has not maintained good and congenial relationship with the members of Bar, his colleagues and staff. 2000-2001Average knowledge of law and procedure. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Average. An officer of average efficiency. Regarding reputation for honesty and impartiality, he should be kept under watch for some time. Is he fit for the exercise of any enhanced power? If so, which? 2000-2001Average knowledge of law and procedure. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Average. An officer of average efficiency. Regarding reputation for honesty and impartiality, he should be kept under watch for some time. Is he fit for the exercise of any enhanced power? If so, which? - He should be kept under watch for some time. So, it may be considered thereafter. No apparent defect found. He should exert more to improve his performance and should maintain good relationship with all concerned. 2001-2002Average knowledge of law and procedure. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases? - Satisfactory. An average officer. Several complaints touching his integrity and reputation were received for which the matter has been reported to the Hon ble Court. He has not maintained good reputation for his honesty and impartiality. Is he fit for the exercise of any enhanced power? If so, which? - No. A quarrelsome and desperate officer. Not a good Judicial Officer. 2002-2003Good knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. Is his supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts good? - Yes. An efficient officer. Reg. reputation for honesty and impartiality -Complaints were received previously and he was under observation and he was under constant watch and he improved himself. He is now maintaining reputation for honesty and impartiality. His case may be considered for promotion to the rank of Subordinate Judge. No defects. He is an officer of good merit and he improved himself in the discharge of his judicial work. 2004-2005Good knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. An efficient officer. No complaint was received. No comment regarding fitness for exercise of any enhanced power. Defects, if any. - None. The Officer has got knowledge of law. He is efficient in his work. His relationship with the members of Bar and colleagues is cordial. No complaint was received regarding his honesty and impartiality. 6. The Five Hon ble Inspecting Judges in October, 1985, May, 1988, February, 1997, July, 1999 and May, 2003 evaluated the services rendered by the petitioner, summary whereof is as follows: December, 1985Average knowledge of law and procedure. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and has he coped efficiently with heavy work? - Average. 6. The Five Hon ble Inspecting Judges in October, 1985, May, 1988, February, 1997, July, 1999 and May, 2003 evaluated the services rendered by the petitioner, summary whereof is as follows: December, 1985Average knowledge of law and procedure. Is he industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases and has he coped efficiently with heavy work? - Average. Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed? - B - Satisfactory. Is he an efficient Judicial Officer? - Nothing of note. Has he maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality? - Satisfactory. Remarks about his attitude towards his Superiors, Subordinates and colleagues. - Satisfactory. Behaviour towards members of the Bar and the public. - Satisfactory. Net result - Satisfactory. May, 1988Knowledge of law and procedure - Workable. Industrious and prompt in disposal of cases and has coped efficiently with heavy work. Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed?- B/Satisfactory. An efficient Judicial Officer. Has maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality. Remarks about his attitude towards his Superiors, Subordinates and Colleagues - Good. Good behaviour towards members of the Bar and the public. Net result - B/Satisfactory. February, 1997Good knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and prompt in disposal of cases and has coped efficiently with heavy work. Are his judgments and orders well written and clearly expressed? - B. An efficient Judicial Officer. Has he maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality? - He was controversial at Pakur. Attitude towards superiors, subordinates and colleagues - Good. His behaviour with Bar was good, public had some grievance. He is a good officer on the average. July, 1999.Satisfactory knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and prompt. Judgments and orders to be placed in Category B+ Good. An efficient Judicial Officer. No complaint regarding judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality. Attitude towards his superiors, subordinates and colleagues - Good. Cordial behaviour towards members of the Bar and the public. Net result - Satisfactory. May, 2003.Average knowledge of law and procedure. Industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. Judgments and orders to be placed in Category - C (Below Average). Is he an efficient Judicial Officer? - Requires improvement. In my discussion with the Judicial Officers and Lawyers at large they complained regarding his judicial integrity was heard. Certain complaints are being enquired into. His past record is also not good. He is warned to be careful in future. Is he an efficient Judicial Officer? - Requires improvement. In my discussion with the Judicial Officers and Lawyers at large they complained regarding his judicial integrity was heard. Certain complaints are being enquired into. His past record is also not good. He is warned to be careful in future. Remarks about his attitude towards his superiors, subordinates and colleagues. - Requires improvement. Behaviour towards members of the Bar and the public. - Requires improvement. Net result - C (Below Average). 7. A sub-committee of Hon ble Judges was constituted in the year 2004 to select Munsifs for their posting as S.D.J.Ms. / Railway Magistrates. This committee proposed to transfer the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City as S.D.J.M., Benipur (Darbhanga) because of adverse remarks recorded by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge about integrity of the petitioner. The said recommendation was accepted by the Standing Committee of the High Court at its meeting held on 27th March, 2004. 8. One of the agendas of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the High Court held on 20th August, 2004 was to consider the matter as to whether petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City be kept under watch of the present District & Sessions Judge in view of Grade-C awarded to the petitioner in his confidential report recorded on 1st May, 2003 by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship. In relation to the said agenda, the Standing Committee of the High Court on 20th August, 2004 decided to post the petitioner as Additional Munsif at Benipur resulting in withdrawal of his criminal power. 9. On 30th September, 2004, the Standing Committee of the High Court was considering three agendas being Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19, which were directly connected with the petitioner. The first of them was to consider the minutes of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Purnea Judgeship and report of the District and Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with allegation petition directed against the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Kishanganj, at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur. The first of them was to consider the minutes of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Purnea Judgeship and report of the District and Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with allegation petition directed against the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Kishanganj, at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur. The second of such agendas was to consider the confidential remarks recorded on 1st May, 2003 by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Purnea Judgeship as also the report of the District & Sessions Judge in the light of the minutes dated 9th October, 2002 of the Hon ble Chief Justice in connection with keeping strict vigil over the work and conduct of the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City, then posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur (Darbhanga). The third of such agendas was to consider the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Patna as was required from him in connection with the allegation petition of Sri Rameshwar Prasad, Advocate with four others and Smt. Aarti Rani directed against the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City and at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur. These three agendas were decided in the following manner: After examining the entire service records of Sri Hira Prasad Pandey, the then S.D.J.M. of Kishanganj and Patna City, now posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur and various reports submitted by the concerned District Judges, it is resolved that Sri Pandey, who is above 50 years of age, be made to retire from service compulsorily in lieu of notice on payment of an amount equal to three months pay and allowances. Let it be circulated to the Hon ble Judges of the Court. The Government be moved accordingly. 10. On the said date, i.e. on 30th September, 2004, the Standing Committee of the High Court was also considering four more agendas, being Agendas No. 20(a), 20(b), 21 & 22, concerning the petitioner. The first of them was to consider the representation of the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City and at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur for expunction of adverse confidential remarks recorded in his confidential report by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship on 1st May, 2003 as also the minutes of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge on the representation. The second of such agendas was to consider the supplementary representation dated 10th March, 2004 of the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City, then posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur along with earlier representation dated 25th August, 2003 for expunction of adverse confidential remarks recorded on 1st May, 2003 by the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship. The third of such agendas was to consider the representation of the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur for his promotion to higher post. The last of such agendas was to consider the representation of the petitioner, the then S.D.J.M., Patna City at that time posted as Additional Munsif, Benipur for grant of Junior Selection Grade of scale from due date. The said agendas were disposed of by the Standing Committee of the High Court on 30th September, 2004 by rejecting the representations, which were made the subject matter of the agendas, but after the resolution to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken. 11. On 29th November, 2004, the Registrar General of the High Court wrote the following letter to the Government: Rn_532A.htm 12. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court it appears that after receipt of the aforementioned letter of the Registrar General of the High Court, the State Government requested the High Court to send all the relevant documents on the basis whereof the Court had recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner, but the request of the State Government was refused, whereupon the Notification compulsorily retiring the petitioner was issued by the State Government, the English translation whereof is as follows: Rn_532B.htm 13. The impugned order was received by the petitioner, on 24th May, 2006 and on 24th June, 2006, payment in lieu of three months salary and allowances was made to the petitioner. From the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the High Court, it appears that the Standing Committee of the High Court at its meeting held on 24th /25th February, 1995 having found the petitioner not fit for time bound promotion refused to petitioner not fit for time bound promotion refused to grant the same to the petitioner. From the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the High Court, it appears that the Standing Committee of the High Court at its meeting held on 24th /25th February, 1995 having found the petitioner not fit for time bound promotion refused to petitioner not fit for time bound promotion refused to grant the same to the petitioner. From the facts, as above, it appears that on 30th September, 2004, the Standing Committee while considering the minutes of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge of Purnea Judgeship, the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with allegation petition directed against the petitioner, confidential remarks of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge, Patna recorded on 1.5.2003 as also the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Patna thought it fit to examine the entire service records of the petitioner instead of going into the subjects to be considered in terms of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19. 14. While considering the service records of the petitioner, without being influenced by the subject matters of the said agendas, as would appear from the service records of the petitioner, the Standing Committee could only gather that all throughout petitioner was adjudged as an industrious, efficient and well behaved officer, prompt in disposal of cases and had sufficient knowledge of law, the petitioner was suspended once but ultimately did not suffer a punishment order, he maintained good relationship with members of the Bar and Judicial Officers and also maintained good reputation all throughout, except during the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 & 2001-2002, and he regained the confidence of his reporting officers pertaining to his reputation during the years 2002-2003 & 2004-2005. The Standing Committee while considering the service records of the petitioner could also ascertain that in 1985 & 1988, the Hon ble Inspecting Judges found his conduct as a Judicial Officer satisfactory and in 1997 as "Good", although it was recorded that he was controversial at Pakur. It could also notice that in 1999 there was no complain against the petitioner regarding his judicial reputation or for honesty and impartiality before the Inspecting Judge. It was only in 2003, as depicted from the service records, the Hon ble Inspecting Judge found that the conduct of the petitioner is "below average and he requires improvement on all branches". It could also notice that in 1999 there was no complain against the petitioner regarding his judicial reputation or for honesty and impartiality before the Inspecting Judge. It was only in 2003, as depicted from the service records, the Hon ble Inspecting Judge found that the conduct of the petitioner is "below average and he requires improvement on all branches". It could also notice that the Inspecting Judge in 2003 reported that Judicial Officers and lawyers have complained against the petitioner regarding his judicial integrity and some of such complains were being enquired into. 15. The question is, such being the service records of the petitioner, could the Standing Committee without being influenced by the materials, being the subject matter of the said agendas, opine that the petitioner is such a dead wood that in the public interest it would be appropriate to compulsorily retire him? It was the opinion of one Inspecting Judge, as against four, that knowledge of law, promptness in disposal of cases and quality of judgments and orders of the petitioner are below average. Similarly, as against four Inspecting Judges, one Inspecting Judge commented upon the integrity of the petitioner with a rider that the same is based on complains received, some of which are being enquired into. At the same time during the service career of the petitioner stretching from 1984 though there was no complain by the reporting officers as regards knowledge of law and disposal, only in three years, the reporting officers raised a pointer as regards reputation of the petitioner without, however, indicating the basis thereof. The reporting officers of subsequent years in no uncertain terms pointed out that the petitioner has no defects. The question is whether in such circumstances, could it be opined that in public interest it would be appropriate to compulsorily retire the petitioner just by looking into his service records and by not taking into account the materials, being the subject matter of those agendas? Dispassionately considered, the answer would be - No. The conclusion, therefore, would be that while considering the service records of the petitioner, the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004 also considered the materials being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19. Dispassionately considered, the answer would be - No. The conclusion, therefore, would be that while considering the service records of the petitioner, the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004 also considered the materials being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19. Admittedly, the minutes of the Inspecting Judge of Purnea Judgeship and the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Purnea, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 17, the report of the District & Sessions Judge in connection with keeping strict vigil over the work and conduct of the petitioner, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 18 and the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Patna in connection with allegation petition of Sri Rameshwar Prasad, Advocate with four others and Ms. Aarti Rani directed against the petitioner, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 19, did not form part of the service records of the petitioner. The only material of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19, which formed part of the service records of the petitioner, was the confidential report of the Inspecting Judge of the year 2003. As aforesaid, the inspection report of the Inspecting Judge of the year 2003 indicated that he has received complains against the petitioner regarding his judicial integrity and some of them were being enquired into. The result of those enquires were admittedly not communicated in any form to the petitioner. Similarly, the minutes of the Inspecting Judge of Purnea and the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Purnea, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 17 and the report of the District & Sessions Judge, Patna as was required from him in connection with allegation petition of Sri Rameshwar Prasad, Advocate with four others and Ms. Aarti Rani directed against the petitioner, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 19, were not served upon the petitioner. At the same time, the report of the District & Sessions Judge in the light of the minutes dated 9th October, 2002 of the Hon ble the Chief Justice in connection with keeping strict vigil over the work and conduct of the petitioner, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 18, was also not served upon the petitioner. At the same time, the report of the District & Sessions Judge in the light of the minutes dated 9th October, 2002 of the Hon ble the Chief Justice in connection with keeping strict vigil over the work and conduct of the petitioner, being the subject matter of Agenda No. 18, was also not served upon the petitioner. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004 opined that in public interest the petitioner should be compulsorily retired on the basis of materials which it could not look at. 16. In course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the High Court wanted us to look into the materials, being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19. He submitted that a look at these reports would indicate how atrocious certain conducts of the petitioner were. We did not look into those reports, for we did not permit ourselves to commit the same mistake as was committed by the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004. It may be possible that those materials show open and shut cases of dishonesty of the petitioner, but the fact remains that they are not conclusive, inasmuch as they reflect opinion of the creator of those materials only. A unilateral opinion about the conduct of a Public Officer behind his back expressed by a person, howsoever high he may be is of no consequence at all, unless the same has been entered in the service record or character rolls of the officer concerned. 17. There is one more aspect of the matter. In law, a compulsory retirement abridges the service tenure of the public servant. In other words, the date of retirement of the public servant is preponed by the order of compulsory retirement. A compulsorily retired person, therefore, is entitled to the benefits of the services rendered by him until the date of his retirement, including pension and gratuity. 18. Under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, compulsory retirement can be ordered only in public interest. A public officer, who has conducted himself in such a manner that he should be dismissed cannot be made to retire compulsorily for that would not be in public interest inasmuch as a dismissed public officer is neither entitled to gratuity nor to pension. A public officer, who has conducted himself in such a manner that he should be dismissed cannot be made to retire compulsorily for that would not be in public interest inasmuch as a dismissed public officer is neither entitled to gratuity nor to pension. It would not, therefore, be in public interest to compulsorily retire a public officer, who is otherwise liable to be dismissed. The conclusion, therefore, would be that if the materials, being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19 of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 30th September, 2004, were such that the same depicted unjust, unreasonable and dishonest conduct on the part of the petitioner, an order of compulsory retirement could not be passed in public interest, instead the same should have entailed steps to be taken for termination of the services of the petitioner. We think that in that background, in the decision of the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004, as regards Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19, there is no whisper of consideration of public interest, which is sin qua non for exercise of power under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. 19. We would now consider the judgments cited at the Bar. In Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. V/s. Chief District Medical Officer reported in, a Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court comprising three Hon ble Judges were concerned with an order of compulsory retirement passed not on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding but in exercise of power similar to that of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code set out above. 20. The Hon ble Court in paragraph 32 of the reported judgment enunciated principles pertaining to such compulsory retirement. Those are as follows: "(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 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 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. 21. The judgment, referred to above, makes it clear that in order to pass an order of compulsory retirement, which implies no stigma, nor any suggestion of misbehaviour, the employer is required to consider entire service records, namely, entries in the confidential records / character rolls, including those which are uncommunicated, and, while doing so, the employer is obliged to attach more importance to records of performance during the later years in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that it is in public interest to pass such an order. That clearly suggests that the entries made in the confidential records and character rolls, even those which have not been communicated, should be taken note of, but not things which have not been entered in the confidential records or character rolls. That clearly suggests that the entries made in the confidential records and character rolls, even those which have not been communicated, should be taken note of, but not things which have not been entered in the confidential records or character rolls. Furthermore, it is the performance as reported and entered in the confidential records and character rolls which should be taken note of for the ultimate order that would be passed, which would not imply any stigma or suggestion of misbehaviour. Honesty, being the basic requirement of a Judicial Officer, cannot be a part of his performance. In absence of honesty, a Judicial Officer ceases his right to remain a Judicial officer. Honesty of a Judicial Officer has hardly any bearing in so far as his performance is concerned. A dishonest Judicial Officer should be dismissed after proving his dishonesty. There is no scope to compulsorily retire a dishonest or apprehended dishonest Judicial Officer. 22. In the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana V/s. Ishwar Chand Jain and Anr. reported in, a Judicial Officer was facing a departmental enquiry and was placed under suspension. When the departmental enquiry was pending, he was compulsorily retired. The Hon ble Court while upholding the judgment of the High Court quashing the order of compulsory retirement, was pleased to observe, amongst others, that the High Court found a short-cut to remove the employee concerned from service, when the order of retirement was passed on the charges of misconduct, the subject matter of an enquiry, and that the impugned order of compulsorily retiring the employee concerned, though innocuously worded, is, in fact, an order of his removal from service and cannot be sustained. 23. At the same time the Hon ble Supreme Court in M.S. Bindra V/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in, in paragraph 13 of the judgment observed as follows: ...While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". 24. In this connection it would also be appropriate to refer the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Ramachandra Raju V/s. State of Orissa, reported in 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 424. At paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows: It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the government employee is entitled to draw all retrial benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore before exercising the power the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and balance the public intention as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service. 25. Therefore, there is a direct authority that while evaluating materials for consideration of compulsory retirement of a public servant, doubtful integrity of the public servant concerned is also an element to be taken note of. The word "doubt" makes it amply clear that the same does not denote conclusion. Still then, the doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given materials. The materials so to be taken note of must be apparent on the materials to be considered, i.e, in the form of entries in the confidential records and character rolls. Still then, the doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given materials. The materials so to be taken note of must be apparent on the materials to be considered, i.e, in the form of entries in the confidential records and character rolls. The opinions of the reporting officers for three years recorded in the concerned confidential reports for the said three years are mere opinions unsupported by any connected material and, at the same time, the doubt expressed by the Inspecting Judge based on complains received were under enquiry. The doubt as were expressed in those four confidential reports, according to our opinion were not of such nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given materials. Those were mere possibilities and, accordingly, were not sufficient and, therefore, the conclusion would be that in addition to the entries in the confidential records and character rolls of the petitioner, the Standing Committee at its meeting held on 30th September, 2004 considered the materials, being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19, and thereby erroneously recommended to compulsorily retire the petitioner. 26. At this juncture one must understand the power of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. In Chandra Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in, a Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court comprising three Hon ble judges at paragraph 40 of the judgment has observed as follows: Article 235 of the Constitution of India enables the High Court to assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out the deadwood. 27. In order to discipline a black sheep, one is required to take steps as are required to be taken. That can only be done by initiating a disciplinary proceedings and concluding the same in accordance with law. In so far as a dead wood is concerned, who is of no use for the judiciary, recourse to compulsory retirement can be taken. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that while taking steps against a black sheep, an appropriate action is required to be taken, but to weed out a dead wood he may be compulsorily retired without attaching any stigma. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that while taking steps against a black sheep, an appropriate action is required to be taken, but to weed out a dead wood he may be compulsorily retired without attaching any stigma. To do so, however, it is not permissible to take note of his proven dishonesty based on unilateral opinion expressed by somebody, which opinion has yet not formed part of the service records of the Judicial Officer concerned. 28. We quiet appreciate that it may not be possible in all cases to establish judicial misconduct on the part of a Judicial Officer. We also appreciate that in many cases proceedings initiated to prove misconduct conclude in favour of Judicial Officers. We are thus alive that in most cases doubtful integrity remains doubtful. When doubtful integrity is reported for successive years and for a long time or intermittently stretching over a long period of time, the same suggests that the Judicial Officer concerned has not been able to conduct himself in a manner he is required to conduct his affairs as an impartial Judicial Officer. In such circumstances, without waiting for an opportunity to come in the way to prove misconduct, it may be in public interest to compulsorily retire him. But while doing so, maximum caution should be taken, so that the Officer concerned is not victimized. We think in such circumstances, it would be a requirement of law to ascertain whether the reported doubtful integrity is based on some materials or are mere opinions of the Reporting Officers. 29. Furthermore it is a necessity for the authority exercising power of compulsory retirement to at least show that they were exercising their power in public interest and, accordingly, it is a requirement of law that the order directing compulsory retirement should at least mention the words "public interest". In this connection one may take note of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajat Baran Roy V/s. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in, where it was contended that compulsory retirement of the employee concerned was effected in exercise of powers granted by a provision akin to Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, which required exercise of such power in public interest. The order, as was passed, compulsorily retiring the employee did not say that the same was passed in public interest. The order, as was passed, compulsorily retiring the employee did not say that the same was passed in public interest. In that background, the Hon ble Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment observed as follows: A perusal of this Rule shows that this Rule can be invoked for the purpose of retiring a Government servant in "public interest" on satisfying the conditions mentioned in Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of that Rule. A careful perusal of the impugned orders nowhere shows that the said orders are being issued in "public interest" which is a condition precedent for invoking this Rule. Nor does it advert anywhere in the impugned orders in regard to the conditions specified in sub-paras (1) and (2) of the said Rule. If we have to examine the impugned orders in the light of this Rule then the same has to be held to be bad in law for non-application of mind and want of material particulars which are mandatory for invoking the said Rule. Therefore, the argument of the respondents seeking to justify the impugned orders based on Rule 75(aa) of the said Rules also has to be rejected. 30. In the instant case, the decision of the Standing Committee neither mentions Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code, nor the words "public interest". However, in the communication of the decision of the Standing Committee to the State Government by the Registrar General, he included both of them. The Registrar General was not entitled either to add or to substract any word from the decision of the Standing Committee. As aforesaid, the Government, which ultimately passed the order of compulsory retirement, had no clue as to on what basis the said order was being passed, inasmuch as the High Court refused to divulge any thing pertaining thereto to the State Government as has come on records by way of an affidavit. 31. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that the said decision of the Standing Committee dated 30th September, 2004 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, all follow up actions thereof are also not sustainable. The same are accordingly quashed. 32. The State Government and the High Court in its Administrative side are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service. The same are accordingly quashed. 32. The State Government and the High Court in its Administrative side are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service. It is declared that in view of the said unjust decision and follow up actions, the petitioner was restrained from discharging his duties attached to his post and, accordingly, shall be entitled to all benefits of his service from the date of effectuating the compulsory retirement of the petitioner until the date he is reinstated and posted in an appropriate post including his salaries and allowances, increments and all other benefits attached to his post. 33. This order will not stand in the way of the High Court in taking appropriate action against the petitioner on the basis of the materials, being the subject matter of Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19 of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 30th September, 2004, in accordance with law. 34. Inasmuch as Agendas No. 20(a), 20(b), 21 & 22 of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 30th September, 2004 were considered, after taking the decision in relation to Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19 of the said meeting of the Standing Committee, the logical conclusion would be that the decision pertaining to Agendas No. 20(a), 20(b), 21 & 22 was influenced by the decision taken in relation to Agendas No. 17, 18 & 19 of the said meeting of the Standing Committee and, accordingly, the decision pertaining to Agendas No. 20(a), 20(b), 21 & 22 are struck down with a direction upon the High Court to reconsider the Agendas No. 20(a), 200(b), 21 & 22 of the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 30th September, 2004 in accordance with law. 35. It is made clear that while settling the dues of the petitioner, three months salary paid to him in lieu of three months prior notice while compulsorily retiring him shall be taken note of and appropriately adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs.