JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dated 13.7.2004 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court. 2. The facts culled out from the record are that the petitioner was selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate in the year 1974. Thereafter, he was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in September, 1985 & in June, 1990, he was promoted in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services and posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge and while discharging his duties as RHJS officer, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of Rules, 1996 vide order dated 13.7.2004.3-4. Rule 53(1) gives right to the competent authority to retire an officer who has completed 15 years of qualifying service or has attained age of 50 years whichever is earlier after recording subjective satisfaction of the authority forming opinion that it is in public interest to retire such govt. servant.5. In the instant case, Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 19.9.2003 constituted a Five Judges Committee for recommending the names of such RJS and RHJS offices who are indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties and have lost utility or have proved liability to the judicial service could be considered for compulsory retirement and the committee was to scrutinise the service record of the concerned judicial officers and the Committee so constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice while scrutinising the service record of the concerned judicial officers and overall appraisal of work performance of the officers entailing supersessions, departmental enquiries, punishment, reputation regarding integrity, behaviour with members of Bar and litigants, disposal figures and Annual Confidential Report etc. had recommended the names of judicial officers for compulsory retirement in public interest and in the list of officers whose names were recommended for compulsory retirement, the name of the petitioner find place at sl.no.31. The recommendation of the Committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 2.7.2004 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner along with other officers was placed for consideration before the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting dated 9.7.2004 resolved to accept such recommendations and accordingly the petitioner was compulsory retired by the state govt. The recommendation of the Committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 2.7.2004 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner along with other officers was placed for consideration before the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting dated 9.7.2004 resolved to accept such recommendations and accordingly the petitioner was compulsory retired by the state govt. in public interest vide order dated 13.7.2004.6. Counsel for petitioner submits that impugned decision of the respondent of his compulsory retirement being perse arbitrary, illegal and has not been passed in public interest. Further submits that R.53(1) makes imperative for the appointing authority to record its satisfaction that concerned officer has outlived his utility in the service on account of a) indolence b) doubtful integrity c) incompetence to discharge official duties d) inefficiency in due performance of official duties and for arriving to a conclusion the entire service record of the officer has to be looked into, however, in the instant case, the respondents failed to consider the entire service record of the officer and of course subjective satisfaction of the authority is supposed to be based on objective assessment while opinion is being formed and that suffers from either of four relevant factors envisaged under R.53(1) and that is completely missing in the instant case and action of the respondent in taking decision of the petitioner has outlived its utility is not being supported by service record and decision of the authority in recommending his case for compulsory retirement in public interest is clearly abuse of the power exercised by the authority provided under R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996.7. Counsel further submits that apart from couple of adverse remarks there is nothing adverse against the petitioner which would warrant his pre mature retirement and the integrity or sense of duty seldom was found to be doubtful and a man of ordinary prudence by no stretch of imagination can consider the petitioner to be indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence to discharge official duties, inefficiency in due performance of official duties so loosing in service and such order of compulsory retirement in the facts & circumstances of the instant case is perverse and malafide act of the respondent which requires interference of this Court.8. Reply of the writ petition has been filed and narration has been made that total record of service of the petitioner was looked into by the Committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice and after recording subjective satisfaction based on objective assessment of service record of the petitioner opinion was formed that he has proved liability to the judicial service and public interest warrant compulsory retirement and after recommendation being accepted by the Full court with full unanimity in its meeting held on 9.7.2004, the order was passed by the state govt. for his compulsory retirement in public interest under R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996 vide order dated 13.7.2004. The petition lacs merit and liable to be dismissed.9. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record.10. At the very outset, we would like to quote section 53(1) Rules 1996 under which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and extract of the rule which is relevant for the purpose reads ad-infra. "At any time, after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned Government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest after following the procedure laid down by the Government in Department of Personnel/ Administrative Reforms Department. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension". 11. It would be seen from R.53(1) which gives right to the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant who have completed 15 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years whichever is earlier after recording subjective satisfaction of the authority forming opinion that it is in the public interest to retire such Government servant, it can compulsorily retire him.12. Before adverting to the question whether the compulsorily retirement order suffers from any legal infirmity, we would consider it appropriate to refer to the report of the Committee constituted of five Hon'ble Judges who examined entire service record of the petitioner in its meeting held on 9.7.2004. The report reads ad-infra: "He was born on 02.05.1949. He joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29.08.1974. The report reads ad-infra: "He was born on 02.05.1949. He joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29.08.1974. Presently he is working in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge. In the year 1974 the Hon'ble Administrative Judge remarks that he should improve his disposal and District Judge gave remarks as- "Disposal of work is below average. It is 60%. The remarks were communicated. In the year 1976-I the District Judge gave remarks as under- Temper needs improvement. The capacity to handle files systematically needs improvement quality of judgments needs improvement. Disposal of work is not adequate. Capacity to control the proceedings in Court with firmness and follow the procedure prescribed by law-needs improvement. He could not control the staff and got himself transferred. A weak officer and needs improvement in his all around personality". In the year 1977-II the District Judge gave remarks as under- "Relation with Bar satisfactory but for initial lapse. Working integrity and disposal is satisfactory. Some improvement in judgment writing is required". In the year 1979-I the District Judge gave remarks as under- "Relation with Bar not very cordial. An average officer. There is scope for improvement in him so far as his Court working is concerned". Bar members complained about his unnecessary haste and show of temper. He was advised and showed improvement. In the year 1983-II the District Judge remarked as under- "Sometimes shows temper. An average officer. He has a knack to annoy the members of the Bar. Integrity certificate withheld. The remarks were communicated. In the year 1992 the District Judge gave remarks as under- "Relation with Bar are not cordial. It is said that witnesses are not dealt properly. On account of heavy voice it is said that witnesses are terrorised" The average remarks were communicated to him. His representation was received which was considered and the words underlined have been expunged vide letter dated 2.2.95. Rest of the remarks were maintained. In the year 1993 the District Judge gave remarks as under- Disposal of work is not satisfactory. Relation with Bar not cordial. Rated as average officer. He is not cool-minded and shows temper in Court. Capacity to handle files is not systematic. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge remarked as under- "Disposal below average. An average officer. Tries to attend the number of functions at the same time in the court and that gives a cause of dissatisfaction of clients and advocates. Rated as average officer. He is not cool-minded and shows temper in Court. Capacity to handle files is not systematic. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge remarked as under- "Disposal below average. An average officer. Tries to attend the number of functions at the same time in the court and that gives a cause of dissatisfaction of clients and advocates. They feel he is not attentive to them. Must avoid doing number of things at a time e.g. Recording of evidence and hearing arguments at the same time". The advisory remarks were communicated. In the year 1994-I the District Judge gave remarks as under- "Disposal of work is inadequate. He should improve. Average". The adverse remarks were communicated to him. His representation was received which was considered and remarks have been treated as advisory vide letter dated 5.6.99. In the year 1996 the District Judge observed that the disposal of work was not adequate and the adverse remarks were communicated to him. His representation was received which was considered and the remarks have been expunged vide letter dated 5.6.99. In the year 1998 the Hon'ble Administrative Judge observed" "He has a reputation of being quarrelsome person. His relation with the Bar at every place he is posted have been strained because of unnecessary quarrels he picks up. He is an average officer". The Advisory remarks were communicated. The Departmental Enquiry under Rule 17 of CCA Rules (file No.R/G.VIG/31/1983) was dropped on 26.5.04. The Departmental Enquiry under Rule 17 of CCA Rules (file No.R/G/V/19/2003 is pending with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg. In P.E. Nos.R/Vig/13/1977 in the matter of delay in committing the case of Sessions and on one occasion summoning a witness in his Chamber and in one case granted bail under section 307/326 IPC he was warned. There was no complaint about his integrity. In R/Vig/18/1998 unrecorded warning was given for behaving properly and in P.E. No.R/Vig/3/1993 he was advised for proper behaviour with members of Bar. 36 complaints against the officer were received out of which 33 have been filed but three complaints are pending. His case for grant of Selection Scale of RHJS was considered by the Full Court by way of Circulation Case No.6/2001 and he was not found fit. 36 complaints against the officer were received out of which 33 have been filed but three complaints are pending. His case for grant of Selection Scale of RHJS was considered by the Full Court by way of Circulation Case No.6/2001 and he was not found fit. His case for grant of Selection Scale of RHJS was again considered by the Hon'ble Full Court vide Full Court Circulation Case No.16/2002 but he was not found fit for grant of Selection Scale. The report of the Registrar (Vigilance) regarding the complaint of Sh. Suresh Sharma & ors. was placed before the Committee. The Committee has taken into consideration the report regarding allegations of integrity and misuse of official position against the officer. The special report of the Registrar (Vigilance) dated 6.7.2004 has also been placed before the Committee which has also been considered. 13. On over-all assessment of the petitioner's service record, the Committee was of the view that the petitioner proved to be a liability to the Judicial Service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer immediately and the inquiries, if any, pending against him under rule 17 and 16 of the CCA Rules are also required to be dropped. It further recommends that the officer may be given Bank Draft of the amount equivalent to three months pay and allowance in lieu of notice period, along with the order of the retirement.14. The report of the committee was placed before the Full Court in its meeting dated 9.7.2004 and the Full Court on consideration of the entire service record and ACRs of the petitioner while accepting the report of the committee with unanimity recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner to the Government and pursuant to the recommendation of the High Court, the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the state govt. vide order dated 13.7.2004.15. As regards, scope of compulsory retirement, the Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1020 has laid down certain criteria for the Courts, on which it can interfere in the order of compulsory retirement and that include mala fides, if the order is based on no evidence, or if the order is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, if it is found to be a perverse order. The Court held as under: (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. While the High Court or the 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 and 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 loose 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. 16. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and ors. v. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368 and the Apex Court has observed ad-infra: "There was a very limited scope of judicial review in a case of compulsory retirement and it was permissible only on the grounds of non-application of mind; mala fides; or want of material particulars. Power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of Service Rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest". 17. Power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of Service Rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest". 17. And taking note of latter decision of the Apex Court, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in AIR 2010 SC 3753 in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand And Ors. observed ad-infra. "Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the Statutory Rules". 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgment reported in 2012 (8) SCC 58 : AIR 2012 SC 2962 , R.C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another examined the role of judicial officer and observed that judicial service is not an ordinary govt. service and they are not employees as such and what is being expected from the judicial officer while holding office of public trust has been considered by Apex court in para-29 which reads ad infra- "Judicial service is not an ordinary Government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty". 19. This fact cannot be ruled out that judicial service is not a service in the sense of employment and 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 be 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.20. Compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit.21 It is also settled by the consistent view of the Apex Court that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not have adverse consequence and, therefore, the principles of natural justice has no role to play and uncommunicated ACR on record can be taken into consideration and an order of compulsory retirement cannot be set aside only for the reason that such un-communicated entries was taken into consideration. If that be so, the incumbent has not been afforded an opportunity to represent before the same was taken into consideration for passing the order of compulsory retirement, cannot vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. However, the authority has to take into consideration the entire service record of the officer concerned but more attention to the later 5-10 years of record which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also.22. It has been observed by the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. However, the authority has to take into consideration the entire service record of the officer concerned but more attention to the later 5-10 years of record which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also.22. It has been observed by the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. And Others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) And Others, (2011) 10 SCC 1 : AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 2290 ad-infra: "It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that while considering the case of an officer as to whether he should be continued in service or compulsorily retired, his entire service record up to that date on which consideration is made has to be taken into account. What weight should be attached to earlier entries as compared to recent entries is a matter of evaluation, but there is no manner of doubt that consideration has to be of the entire service record. The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. When the law says that the entire service record has to be taken into consideration, the earlier adverse entry, which forms a part of the service record, would also be relevant irrespective of the fact whether the officer concerned was promoted to higher position or whether he was granted certain benefits like increments etc." 23. Instant case has to be examined in the light of aforesaid decisions.24. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the the ACR which is summarised for the period during which he remained in service and worked as judicial officer ad-infra: 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 * Average I-* II - Satisfactory I-* II-* Average. 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 I-* II-* I-Satisfactory II-good Good Average I-Average II-Average* 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 I-Good II-* I-Good II-Sincere I-Average II-Good I-Average II-Good Satisfactory 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 I-Good II-Seal Average Good Average* Average* 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 I-Average* II-Average Good I-Good II-Good* Average Average* 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Average Average Satisfactory I-* II-* II-Average* III-Average* I-* 25. Thus, few of his ACRs were partly good but from totality of service record of the petitioner he remained average officer in his service carrier and apart from other remarks recorded in his ACR, his integrity was withheld for the year 1983 while there was remark recorded by the Administrative Judge in preceding year 2003 I & II of his retirement that he is not fit to be kept in service and there are complaints against his integrity and it is not the case of the petitioner that adverse entries which have been recorded in the ACR of the petitioner including withholding of integrity has not been communicated to him, however, communication otherwise may not be that relevant in view of what has been held by the Apex Court that uncommunicated ACR can also be taken into consideration for the purpose of making overall assessment of the officer for compulsory retirement and the report of the Committee which considered the entire service record of the petitioner observed that apart from his integrity being doubtful, he is proved to be a liability to judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the petitioner.26. Apart from that there are several complaints against him about his integrity and the law requires the authority to consider the entire service record while assessing the officer whether he can be compulsory retired irrespective of the fact that adverse entry has not been communicated.27. At the same time, integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to compulsorily retire in the case of judicial officer and is certainly required to be examined differently from the other wing of the society as he served the State altogether in different capacity and what is being alleged by counsel for petitioner that order being stigmatic and his entire service record has not been examined is nothing but only a lame excuse, however, the service record of the petitioner placed on record indicates that his total record of service from the date of entry till the last date of retirement i.3. 1974 to 2003 was considered by the Committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice while taking decision regarding compulsory retirement in public interest28. 1974 to 2003 was considered by the Committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice while taking decision regarding compulsory retirement in public interest28. Thus, the decision being taken after due deliberation by the Full Court in its meeting held on 9.7.2004 and there hardly remains chance of allegation of non application of mind and nowhere it has been alleged malafide in the process which was adopted by the High Court in taking decision of compulsory retirement.29. In our considered view, on the material which has come on record, we do not find any error being committed by the respondent in taking decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner which is based on record of service and further more no stigma of any sort has been attached to the order impugned.30. In view of above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the matter and the petition lacs merit and accordingly stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******