JUDGMENT 1. - In these two writ petitions, the petitioner who was a member of the Judicial Service, has assailed the order of his compulsory retirement passed on 13.7.2004 and corrigendum dated 15.7.2004, while he was holding the post of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. 2. In Writ Petition No. 653/2006, petitioner has claimed the benefit of grant of Selection Scale with effect from May, 1996 and also the benefit of Super Time Scale, when it was given to his juniors. He has also claimed for promotion as Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) and as ADJ on regular basis with effect from the date, his juniors were promoted. He has also claimed for the post retiral benefits to be recomputed. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) on 31.12.1981 and he joined on 11.1.1982. He was placed at S.No.14, whereas Shri Hari Ram Jat was placed at S.No.15. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) cum ACJM vide order dated 9.4.1996. Shri Hari Ram Jat was promoted as Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) cum ACJM vide order dated 26.5.1993. The grievance in the matter of promotion as Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) cum ACJM was redressed by order dated 2.6.1999 and it was ordered that he shall be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 26.5.1993. Thus, the wrong done with the petitioner vis-a-vis Hari Ram Jat was undone. He was further promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.5.1999. Petitioner was discriminated in the matter of grant of Selection Scale. Hari Ram Jat was given the benefit of Selection Scale with effect from 25.5.1996 vide order dated 25.6.1999, whereas the petitioner was given the benefit of Selection Scale with effect from 25.1.1997 vide order Annex.3 dated 25.6.1999 filed in Writ Petition No.653/2006. However, the representation was made by the petitioner in the matter of discrimination meted out vis-a-vis his junior while granting Selection Scale. The charge sheet was issued on 7.10.1999 and he was suspended on 6.11.1999. The statement of Ms Asha Jain was recorded and the petitioner was not intimated of the next date in the enquiry. Another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with respect to misuse of the vehicle in which he was exonerated vide order dated 18.11.2000. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated vide order dated 12.7.2004. The statement of Ms Asha Jain was recorded and the petitioner was not intimated of the next date in the enquiry. Another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with respect to misuse of the vehicle in which he was exonerated vide order dated 18.11.2000. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated vide order dated 12.7.2004. He was visited with compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on 13.7.2004. 4. Petitioner has submitted that the order of his compulsory retirement could not be said to be in accordance with law. His service record was not such that he could have been retired compulsorily. The departmental enquiry relating to charges levelled on him as to outraging the modesty of Ms. Asha Jain was not taken to its conclusion. In other departmental enquiry, he was exonerated. Most of the adverse remarks were expunged. His record was not such so as to order his compulsory retirement. Petitioner has submitted that he ought to have been granted Selection Scale and Super Time Scale and promotion on adhoc basis as ADJ (Fast Track) as also on regular basis as ADJ of which he has been illegally deprived-of. 5. Mr. Marudhar Mridul, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.S. Chundawat and Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid petitions, have submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is not sustainable considering the record and the fact that most of the adverse remarks in the ACRs stood expunged. The record was satisfactory and the officer could not have been termed as dead wood so as to be chopped off from the System. There was no reason to deny the benefit of Selection Scale with effect from May, 1996, the date from which Hari Ram Jat was given the benefit of Selection Scale, whereas the benefit was given to the petitioner with effect from 25.1.1997. The petitioner was also entitled for Super Time Scale of which he has been wrongfully deprived of. Beside, he should have been promoted as Fast Track Judge and also on regular basis as A.D.J. 6. Mr. Vineet Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Rajasthan, has supported the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner was also entitled for Super Time Scale of which he has been wrongfully deprived of. Beside, he should have been promoted as Fast Track Judge and also on regular basis as A.D.J. 6. Mr. Vineet Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Rajasthan, has supported the order of compulsory retirement. He has submitted that the Committee had considered the case of Hari Ram Jat as well as that of the petitioner for grant of Selection Scale and found Hari Ram Jat entitled for grant of Selection Scale with effect from May, 1996 and found the petitioner fit as per the guidelines laid down for grant of Selection Scale with effect from January, 1997. Petitioner could not be said to be entitled for grant of Super Time Scale considering his record, nor he could have been promoted as Fast Track Judge or as ADJ on regular basis. His compulsory retirement has been rightly ordered considering his service record. This Court cannot sit in appeal in such a matter of compulsory retirement. The file containing ACR dossier has also been produced for consideration in support of the averments made in the return. 7. First, we come to the question of compulsory retirement, which has been ordered. Before we dilate upon the facts, we deem it appropriate to refer certain decisions, cited by Mr.Vineet Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Rajasthan. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Dist. Medical Officer, Baripada, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 in which it has been laid down that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The principles of natural justice have no place to play. The order of compulsory retirement can be set aside when it is passed mala fide or based on no evidence or is arbitrary. 8. Even, un communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration. In Union of India v. V.P.Seth reported in AIR 1994 (SC) 1261 , it has been laid down that un communicated adverse remarks can be considered and judicial review can be made only when the order of compulsory retirement is mala fide, arbitrary or perverse. 9. 8. Even, un communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration. In Union of India v. V.P.Seth reported in AIR 1994 (SC) 1261 , it has been laid down that un communicated adverse remarks can be considered and judicial review can be made only when the order of compulsory retirement is mala fide, arbitrary or perverse. 9. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 92 , it has been laid down that sting of the adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank, is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in the public interest to retain him in the service. Overall performance has to be taken into consideration as well as un communicated adverse remarks. 10. In State of U.P. v. Lalsa Ram, reported in JT 2001(3) SC 242 , it has been laid down that even un communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration. 11. In State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain reported in JT 2002 (3) SC 76 , it has been laid down that vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out merely because it is relatable to the earlier period of ten years. Even the single entry as to integrity is enough for passing the order of compulsory retirement of a person. 12. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693 , it has been laid down that single adverse entry touching on integrity is enough to impose compulsory retirement. The case of a judicial officer is to be treated different from other wings of Society, as he is serving in the State in a different capacity. Even single entry in remote past as to integrity is sufficient for the purpose of compulsory retirement. Entire service record has to be considered irrespective that adverse entry has not been communicated to him and the officer has been promoted earlier inspite of those adverse entries. Mere promotion on adhoc basis in the Fast Track Court is not enough to say that effect of the adverse entry stands washed off. Moreso, washed-off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of a govt. Mere promotion on adhoc basis in the Fast Track Court is not enough to say that effect of the adverse entry stands washed off. Moreso, washed-off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of a govt. servant for further promotion but not in case where employee is being assessed for retention in service or for compulsory retirement, as suitability is to be assessed taking into consideration his entire service record. The Apex Court also laid down that scope of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement is very limited and is permissible only on the grounds of non-application of mind, malafides or want of material particulars. The power to retire compulsorily a govt. servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. 13. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we come to the facts of the instant case and the service record of the petitioner. We find that compulsory retirement of the petitioner was infact warranted. 14. In the ACR for the year 1986, it was mentioned that he lacked quality of being fair and impartial in dealing with the public and the Bar. The capacity to handle files systematically was found to be poor. The relations with the Bar were not as desired. It was also mentioned that he is a problematic officer, who creates problems with advocates and senior police officers. For the year 1987, the complaint as to integrity was received, which was forwarded to the Registrar (Vig.). He was also not found to be fair and impartial and a complaint was received to that effect also. Capacity to handle files systematically was found to be poor. Control over the office and administrative capacity was also found to be poor and capacity to control the proceedings in court was also found to be poor and again, it was mentioned that he is a problematic officer. He creates problems with the staff, bar and police. Capacity to handle files systematically was found to be poor. Control over the office and administrative capacity was also found to be poor and capacity to control the proceedings in court was also found to be poor and again, it was mentioned that he is a problematic officer. He creates problems with the staff, bar and police. For few years, he was rated as a good officer and thereafter, for the first six months period of the year 1991, he was rated as very good and for the later six months, he was rated as average officer and it was mentioned for the later six months that there were complaints against him against his conduct and behaviour by the members of the Bar. He is not cool minded and his manners are far from pleasing. He was rated to be an average officer and the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge also mentioned his remark that he must improve his behaviour. The representation filed against the adverse remarks, so recorded, was rejected. In the year 1992, he was rated as average officer and his relations with the Bar were generally not good. There were complaints against him as to fair and impartial behaviour. The Inspecting Judge himself agreed with the aforesaid observations. The part with respect to "Relations with Bar generally not good" was expunged. Further in the year 1993 for the period from 5.2.93 to 31.12.93, though he was mentioned to be a good officer but disposal was below average. In the year 1994, it was mentioned that he is an average officer, disposal was found to be 58%, which is very poor. It was also mentioned by the Inspecting Judge that he should improve his performance. His representation with respect to low disposal was rejected. For the period 3.10.94 to 31.12.94, he was rated as a good officer. Further in the year 1995 again he was rated as average officer and his disposal was reported to be below average as per the statement given. His representation against adverse remarks was rejected. In the year January 1996 to 12.4.96, he was rated as average officer and for the period from 17.4.96 to 27.9.1996, he was mentioned to be an average officer only. For the remaining part of 1996, he was rated as average officer. His representation against adverse remarks was rejected. In the year January 1996 to 12.4.96, he was rated as average officer and for the period from 17.4.96 to 27.9.1996, he was mentioned to be an average officer only. For the remaining part of 1996, he was rated as average officer. In the year 1999 for the period ending on 31.5.99, adverse remark was mentioned to the effect that integrity is not above board, his disposal is average and he is an average officer. For the period from 2.6.99 to 15.11.99, he was again reported to be an average officer. Then, he was placed under suspension for misbehaving with Ms Asha Jain in his chamber by stretching her hair and doing obscene act outraging her modesty, which enquiry was not taken to logical conclusion and in the year 2004, while he was still under suspension, after revoking the order of suspension, his compulsory retirement was ordered. 15. Considering the aforesaid service career of the petitioner, we have not an iota of doubt that his compulsory retirement was fully justified and was based on objective criteria. Such a person, who was not having consistent good record, was rightly retired in the public interest. The order of compulsory retirement is not that of punishment, which is settled proposition of law. His disposal for several years was very poor. There were adverse entries against him as to his doubtful integrity and he was definitely irking to the System and could have been termed as a dead wood, required to be chopped off from the System. Expectation from the judges and lawyers is much higher than that of other sections considering the privilege they enjoy in the Society. The overall behaviour of judges, disposal has to be good and integrity has to be sound. These are the basic minimum, which is expected of a judge. The plethora of adverse entries against the petitioner and the nature of entries referred to above, were sufficient for passing the order of compulsory retirement. 16. Coming to the question of grant of Selection Scale, Hari Ram Jat was given the benefit of Selection grade with effect from May, 1996, whereas the petitioner was given the benefit of Selection grade with effect from January, 1997. There was requirement as per the resolution passed by the Full Court to take into consideration the Confidential Reports of the last five years. There was requirement as per the resolution passed by the Full Court to take into consideration the Confidential Reports of the last five years. It was decided by the Full Court on 19.12.1991 that in the matter of grant of Selection grade to the RJS, the record of concerned officers for the past five years be taken into consideration. The Committee resolved the grant of Selection Scale on the basis of merit of the officers, who have earned good/very good ACRs for three or more years preceding the last five years, provided that there is no adverse entry. Thus, the requirement for consideration was preceding five years' ACRs and the officer should have atleast three good or very good ACRs to his credit, with no adverse entry in the ACRs. The Committee has not found him fit in the year 1996. However, the Committee found him fit for the benefit in January, 1997. In case, petitioner's service record is considered of the preceding five years, it is apparent that he was not having three good or very good ACR rankings, which was the benchmark fixed by the Committee. Thus, as mentioned above, in the year 1991 for first six months, he was rated as average officer. In the year 1992, he was rated as average officer. In the year 1993, he was again rated as average officer. In the year 1994 also, he was rated as average officer. Thus, for three and half years, he was mentioned as average officer, whereas entries of "good" or "very good" were required atleast for three years. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of Selection grade pay scale as per the norms fixed by the Committee with effect from 1996, when Hari Ram Jat was given. 17. He has rightly not been found fit for promotion as Fast Track Judge considering his poor disposal as mentioned above. Disposal is one of the criteria for being promoted as Fast Track Judge. The very purpose of Fast Track Judge being appointed is that he must be able to deliver the speedy justice, while maintaining the cool, which is the requirement of the day. Petitioner lacked the aforesaid qualities. Thus, he was rightly adjudged unfit for adhoc promotion as Fast Track Judge. While he was holding the post of Civil Judge (Sr. The very purpose of Fast Track Judge being appointed is that he must be able to deliver the speedy justice, while maintaining the cool, which is the requirement of the day. Petitioner lacked the aforesaid qualities. Thus, he was rightly adjudged unfit for adhoc promotion as Fast Track Judge. While he was holding the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) cum ACJM, he had been suspended for his indecent behaviour and for outraging modesty of the lady steno, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. Whatever that may be, such enquiry was not taken to its logical conclusion. We have found that he was not fit for promotion as Fast Track Judge. Obviously, he could not have been promoted as ADJ on regular basis. 18. He could not be said to be entitled for Super Time Scale, as for grant of Super time Scale, the requirement fixed by the Full Court was that the criteria should be confined to the consideration of seven years' ACRs with five "outstanding" or 14 "very good" or "good" remarks with no adverse entry, as resolved by the Full Court on 14.8.1997. Petitioner was not having any "outstanding" or "very good" or "good" remarks as required under the aforesaid resolution. His service career was extremely poor, he did not qualify the aforesaid parameters for grant of Super Time Scale. Consequently, he was rightly held not entitled for grant of Super Time Scale also. 19. Though, we have examined the case of the petitioner on merits for Selection Scale with effect from 1996 but the fact remains that the order was passed in the year 1999 giving him the benefit of Selection Scale with effect from 1997, which has been challenged in the year 2006 after his compulsory retirement. Whatever that may be, we have found that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit. 20. Both the writ petitions are found to be devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. No costs.Petitions Dismissed. *******