JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of Notification dated 24th February, 2009 issued by opposite party No. 1-Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Law urging various facts and legal contentions. Petitioner's case in nutshell is that he joined in the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II on 27.10.1990 vide Government of Orissa, Law Department Notification No. IJ-98/89-13478/Law dated 14.09.1990 (Munsif) (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1979 and Orissa High Court Notification No. 575(A) dated 21.09.1990 at Kendrapara in Cuttack Judgeship as a temporary Munsif. He has worked at different stations in Orissa as a Subordinate Judicial Officer in different capacities sincerely and honestly as such he has got an unblemished career in Judiciary. The petitioner was substantively appointed and confirmed in the Orissa Judicial Service as Class-II Officer w.e.f. 08.10.1992 vide High Court Notification No. 610/A dated 16.07.1999 thereafter he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar vide Orissa High Court letter No. XX-7/93-539 dated 17.01.1995/18.01.1995 w.e.f. 01.10.1993, he was allowed to get all his normal annual increments and other service benefits and he was also promoted to the cadre of Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I (Jr. Branch) vide Orissa High Court Notification No. 809/A dated 27.11.2001. He has also been granted ACP-I Scale in the cadre of Civil Judge w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and it is reliably learnt that the petitioner has been granted to get ACP-II Scale in the cadre of Civil Judge w.e.f. 07.10.2010. The aforesaid benefits have been given to the petitioner without any hindrance. He was promoted to the Cadre of Senior Civil Judge w.e.f. 28.07.2008 but due to ill luck the petitioner has not been given promotion to the said cadre as yet and it is reliably learnt that the petitioner's promotion has not been considered due to the pendency of departmental proceedings bearing No. D.P. 5/2005, wherein the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 30.04.2006 vide the Office of Commissioner of Endowment, Orissa. Bhubaneswar Letter No. 4898 dated 29.04.2006 in respect of one head of charge only relating to nine numbers of innocuous judicial orders (bail orders). The petitioner submitted its written statement on 10.05.2006 to the aforesaid charge. He participated in the enquiry before the learned Enquiring Officer-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurda. Bhubaneswar Letter No. 4898 dated 29.04.2006 in respect of one head of charge only relating to nine numbers of innocuous judicial orders (bail orders). The petitioner submitted its written statement on 10.05.2006 to the aforesaid charge. He participated in the enquiry before the learned Enquiring Officer-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurda. It is stated that charge made in the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him is vague, baseless and not tenable in the eye of law. Therefore, the petitioner's premature retirement is illegal as the same has been passed as a short-cut way to the department proceedings and is based on collateral grounds and it is not in public interest. Though the disciplinary proceedings was initiated for collateral reasons and not in public interest short cut way to the disciplinary proceedings initiated and the order of said premature compulsory retirement is on collateral grounds illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that the petitioner was communicated with some casual and superficial so called adverse entries in a lot relating to his initial service period from the year 1991 to 1995 vide Confidential D.O. No. 7029 dated 09.09.1999. The communication of the aforesaid C.C.R. vide Annexure-2 is awfully belated and it is absolutely against the law and procedure in general and instruction contained in G.R. & CO. (Civil) Volume-2 Form No. (S-33) in particular. The grievance of the petitioner is that the premature compulsory retirement is against the standing circular of the State Government vide letter No. 30495-2R/1/39/87-G.A. dated 24.11.1987 and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts including this Court. 2. In support of his contention, Mr. A.K. Mohanty(A), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places strong reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Brij Behari Lal Agarwal Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, M.P. State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, and the decision of the Delhi in the case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another, 1981 (3) SLR 778 and submits that entries made in the C.C. Rs., is bad in law and also contrary to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, and the decision of the Delhi in the case of O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and another, 1981 (3) SLR 778 and submits that entries made in the C.C. Rs., is bad in law and also contrary to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the same and further has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to opposite parties to reinstate him in the service in question and give him promotion to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge w.e.f. 28.07.2008 with all consequential service and financial benefits. 3. Counter statement has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties sworn to by Sri Kirti Chandra Bank, working as Special Officer (Administration) in the Office of the Orissa High Court traversing the averments of the petitioner made in the writ petition. 4. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate referring to the said counter-affidavit submits that the averments made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition are not correct. The adverse entries made in his C.C. Rs., under Annexure-2 and the allegations made against the petitioner which culminated in initiation of D.P. bearing No. 5/05 against the petitioner do not support his contention that he has worked in different capacities sincerely and honestly and as such he had got an unblemished career as a judicial officer is factually not correct. In the counter-affidavit in paragraph-8 with reference to the averments made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, it is stated that promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge was taken up by the Standing Committee dated 13.05.2008, wherein it was resolved that since the aforesaid D.P. was pending against the petitioner, the decision with regard to his promotion to the Cadre of Senior Civil Judge was considered and kept in sealed cover. Further, the averments made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition is also denied in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has stated that the Disciplinary Proceeding No. 5/05 is vague, baseless and not tenable in the eye of law, which is not at all correct. Further, the averments made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition is also denied in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has stated that the Disciplinary Proceeding No. 5/05 is vague, baseless and not tenable in the eye of law, which is not at all correct. The charge has been framed on the basis of the allegation made against the petitioner during his incumbency as S.D.J.M., Nilagiri and on the confidential report of the District Judge, Puri during his incumbency as J.M.F.C. Pipili. Both the District Judges in their enquiry reports have stated that the petitioner has acted in a most unusual and abnormal manner, showed unusual inter in dealing with bail applications in connection with Criminal cases and passed ex facie illegal orders in favour of the accused persons and in the manner of dealing with such cases, there are prima facie reasons to believe that he was actuated by extra legal and extraneous consideration for his personal gain. Further, it is stated that during pendency of D.P. No. 5/05 initiated against the petitioner, this Court after reviewing the performance of the petitioner taking into consideration the illegal exercise of powers in releasing the accused persons involved in Offences under Sections 376 and 307 of I.P.C. triable by the Court of Sessions. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the C.C. Rs., entries, the Standing Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not possess the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post which the petitioner holds, thereafter the Standing Committee recommend to Full Court and Full Court after examining all the relevant aspects recommended to the State Government for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Further, denying the averments made in paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner's premature retirement is illegal as the same has been passed as a shortcut way to D.P. No. 5/05 and is based on collateral grounds and it is not in public interest is also denied in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit. Further, the petitioner's averments made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition with regard to the petitioner's promotion to the Cadre of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) w.e.f. 05.12.2001 as S.D.J.M., Nilgiri for which the so called adverse CCRs stand ignored and expunged are not legally and factually correct. Further, the petitioner's averments made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition with regard to the petitioner's promotion to the Cadre of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) w.e.f. 05.12.2001 as S.D.J.M., Nilgiri for which the so called adverse CCRs stand ignored and expunged are not legally and factually correct. The adverse entries relating to the year 1992 are that the petitioner was slow in disposal relating to the year 1993 against the column "Knowledge of law and judicial capacity" remarks is "Needs improvement" and another remark during the same year was that "the petitioner could not cope up with heavy work". The petitioner was slow in disposal of cases and his yardstick always remained short. In the year 1994, the petitioner was also communicated with adverse entries in his CCRs that he requires more promptness in disposal of cases. Therefore, the averments of the petitioner that there is nothing in the said CCRs vide Annexure-2 to deny the promotion of the petitioner and to warrant his premature retirement are not correct and hence, denied. The petitioner has been given premature retirement not only on consideration of CCRs but also basing upon his overall performance during the entire service career including his illegal exercise of discretionary power in releasing the accused persons on bail involved in sessions offences. Therefore, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate placing reliance upon the averments made in the CCRs and overall performance submits that compulsory retirement of the petitioner is legal and valid. In support of his contentions. Mr. Mohapatra, places strong reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others wherein it is held that the single entry regarding integrity is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement. Further relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through L.Rs Vs. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi and Another it is submitted that judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to he beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi and Another it is submitted that judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to he beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. There is no manner of doubt that 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. Hence, doubt of integrity is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement and this Court should not entertain the prayer made in the writ petition in exercise of judicial review power as the Full Court has taken all relevant aspect into consideration and has passed the order of compulsory retirement, which does not warrant any interference of this Court. 5. On the rival, factual and legal contentions advanced by the parties, the following points arise for consideration by this Court: (i) Whether the premature retirement of the petitioner is not in the interest of the public which is required to be interfered with or not ? (ii) What order ? 6. Our answer to the point No. (i) is in negative for the following reasons: The petitioner was communicated with regard to adverse entries in his CCRs for the years 1991 to 1995 under Annexure-2. which reads thus: Confidential D.O. No. 7029/dtd. 9/9/99 Shri P.K. Pati. Addl. Deputy Registrar, (Judicial & Establishment) Orissa High Court. Dear Shri Sen. I am desired to communicate the following extracts from the remarks recorded in your confidential Character Roll for the year 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 & 1995 for your information and guidelines. It reveals that for the year 1993 against the column "Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity" the remarks is that "Needs improvement" and another remark during the said year is that "Could not cope up with heavy work". The fact is that D.P. No. 5/05 has been initiated and the matter was not concluded. It reveals that for the year 1993 against the column "Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity" the remarks is that "Needs improvement" and another remark during the said year is that "Could not cope up with heavy work". The fact is that D.P. No. 5/05 has been initiated and the matter was not concluded. The averments made in the writ petition that his promotion to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge was considered and kept in sealed cover is one of the very circumstances to show that the service record of the petitioner was not kept on behalf of the proceedings were not concluded for the reason that his case was taken up by the Committee either to continue in service or not examined in the backdrop of CCRs. The Standing Committee consists of sitting Judges of this Court and after applying their mind to the CCRs recommended to the Full Court for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in the public interest and further the superior officers under whom he was working submitted their reports regarding arbitrary exercise of discretionary lower in granting the bail orders in favour of the accused persons who were involved in the rape and attempt to murder. Insofar as rape is concerned, it is a heinous offence and attempt to commit murder is a grievous offence are the relevant aspects. The Full Court examined the CCRs accepting the opinion made by the Committee resolved that the petitioner has not served in the interest of public. Therefore, the Full Court recommended the case of the petitioner to the State Government to issue notice for compulsory retirement and the State Government acted accordingly, which is under challenge. The order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner is in conformity with the judgment of the three Judge Bench in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal (supra), wherein the single entry regarding integrity is sufficient for passing an order of compulsory retirement so also Mr. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate also has placed reliance in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. (supra) which also supports the decision taken by the Full Court in recommending the case of the petitioner to the State Government for his compulsory retirement the petitioner as the doubt of integrity is itself sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement. 7. (supra) which also supports the decision taken by the Full Court in recommending the case of the petitioner to the State Government for his compulsory retirement the petitioner as the doubt of integrity is itself sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement. 7. In view of the above, the decisions upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance have no application to the facts situation. On the other hand, the decisions upon which Mr. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate has placed reliance supports the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner. The same must be accepted by us. Apart from the said reasonings, we also consider the view taken by the Committee after careful examination of CCRs of the petitioner and the report of the officers who are superior to the petitioner. The Full Court has passed the order of compulsory retirement accepting the recommendation of the Committee and recommended the Government to pass an order of compulsory retirement as the petitioner has acted in violation to the public interest. The said view of the Full Court cannot be found fault with by this Court as in its wisdom the Judges of this Court have examined the recommendation made by the Committee and come to the conclusion of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. There is no material placed before us to come to the conclusion other than the conclusion arrived at by the Full Court to substitute the finding of the Full Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its judicial review power to interfere with the compulsory retirement order passed by the State Government. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Final Result : Dismissed