JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Notification contained in memo no. 6792 dated 29.05.2012 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the said Notification on the ground that the materials on record do not warrant excercise of power under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The Rule 8(1)(ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 has also been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition and a declaration has been sought to the effect that the recommendation to retire a judicial officer compulsorily from service is required to be made by the Full Court of the High Court rather by its Standing Committee. A further prayer, for quashing communication dated 15.05.2012 whereby the representation of the petitioner for expunction of adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the year 2008-09 has been rejected, has also been made by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that, on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Munsif and by Notification dated 30.11.1995 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, the petitioner was provisionally appointed on the post of Munsif and she was posted at Ara (Bhojpur). Vide Notification no. 1993 dated 24.02.1998 she was regularised in service. After the bifurcation and reorganisation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre and vide Notification dated 21.04.2001, the petitioner was posted as Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi where she joined on 08.05.2001. Subequently, the petitioner was confirmed in service by Notification dated 02.08.2005 and she was granted benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme by Notification dated 30.08.2006 whereby the first A.C.P. was granted w.e.f. 18.12.2000 and second A.C.P. w.e.f. 18.12.2005. The petitioner while serving on transfer as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar was communicated the adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the year 2008-09 issued vide letter no. 30 dated 20.10.2011 under the signature of the District Judge, Deohar. The petitioner while serving on transfer as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur at Deoghar was communicated the adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the year 2008-09 issued vide letter no. 30 dated 20.10.2011 under the signature of the District Judge, Deohar. The petitioner therefore, submitted her representation dated 22.11.2011 for expunction of the said adverse entry in her A.C.R. However, it was kept pending and in the meantime, some judicial officer even junior to the petitioner were promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division vide Notification dated 20.03.2012 and therefore, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 21.03.2012 making a request for placing her representation before the Hon'ble High Court so that her case for promotion in the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division can be considered. However, vide memo dated 15.05.2012 issued under the signature of the Registrar General-cum-Registrar (Vigilance) Incharge, High Court of Jharkhand, the petitioner was informed that her representation seeking expunction of adverse entry in her A.C.R. for the assessment year 2008-09 has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. Immediately thereafter, by Notification contained in memo no. 6792 dated 29.05.2012 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand the petitioner was made to retire from service compulsorily w.e.f. 30.05.2012 under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Challenging the decision to retire her compulsorily from service, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The High Court of Jharkhand appeared and filed counter-affidavit stating that following the guidelines in the letter dated 14.10.2008 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, a list of judicial officers who had attained the required age, was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who had been pleased to refer the matter to the Screening Committee of the High Court. After considering the entire service records, overall performance and the vigilance report of all such judicial officers, the Screening Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 11.04.2012 resolved and recommended that the services of ten judicial officers including the present petitioner are not required to be continued and they were recommended to be compulsorily retired from service under the Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The recommendation of the Screening Committee was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to refer the matter to the Standing Committee of the High Court for its consideration. The Standing Committee of the High Court vide its Minutes dated 09.05.2012 resolved to accept the report of the Screening Committee and accordingly, a recommendation was sent to the State Government. The State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court of Jharkhand and consequently Notification dated 29.05.2012 was issued for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest. It is denied that the matter relating to compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is required to be placed before the Full Court rather, Standing Committee of the High Court enjoys the power to make recommendaton to the State Government for compulsory retirement of a judicial officer in terms of Rule 8 (1) (ix) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. It is further stated that the petitioner failed on more than one occassion to secure satisfactory remarks in her A.C.R. besides, adverse entry for the assessment year, 2008-09. The allegation of bias and other allegations leveled against the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koderma have been denied as baseless. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and purused the documents on records. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service. The learned counsel has submitted that the “extracted copy of remarks of A.C.R. with regard to over all assessment of the petitioner” which was provided to the petitioner on her request though R.T.I. would indicate that the overall performance of the petitioner has been satisfactory and there has been no remark touching upon the integrity of the petitioner and therefore, the recommendation under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 is not supported by the materials on record. It is further submitted that in the absence of the service record of the petitioner for the last three years preceeding the order of compulsory retirement, the subjective satisfaction of the recommending authority lacks objectivity which renders order of compulsory retirement bad in law. 6. Mr. It is further submitted that in the absence of the service record of the petitioner for the last three years preceeding the order of compulsory retirement, the subjective satisfaction of the recommending authority lacks objectivity which renders order of compulsory retirement bad in law. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Jharkhand submitted that the "extracted copy of the remarks of A.C.R." doesnot reflect the complete picture of the petitioner’s ability, efficiency, utility and integrity. It is submitted that serious complaints were received against the petitioner which were inquired into and she was constantly put "under watch" of the concerned District Judge by the order of the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. It is further submitted that, what is to be examined is "overall performance on the basis of entire service record" for coming to the conclusion whether it is in the public interest to retire the employee concerned compulsorily. Since in the present case after considering the materials on record including entire service record of the petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code and the State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court and issued Notification retiring the petitioner in public interest, the matter doesnot require interference by this Court. It is further submitted that in case of a judicial officer the reputation of the officer and impression of the immediate superior officers are of utmost importance. In case of the petitioner, the District Judge as well as Hon'ble Inspecting Judge have recorded adverse remarks and the petitioner was kept "under watch" and therefore, it cannot be contended that the petitioner's integrity was beyond doubt. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 , (2010) 10 SCC 693 , (2013) 10 SCC 551 and (2011) 10 SCC 1 . 7. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Nand Kumar Verma Vs. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 , (2010) 10 SCC 693 , (2013) 10 SCC 551 and (2011) 10 SCC 1 . 7. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others" reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 , the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate that the A.C.R. of the petitioner in comparision to the said Nand Kumar Verma is definetly better and thus contended that, since the order of compulsory retirement of said Nand Kumar Verma has been found faulty by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner also should be judged in the light of the case of Nand Kumar Verma and the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner be quashed. 8. Mr. Anand Sen, the learned counsel for the High Court of Jharkhand has produced the entire service record, vigilance files, proceeding before the Screening Committee as well as the Standing Committee of the High Court and we have carefully perused the same. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on the "extracted copy of remarks of A.C.R." which is setforth below : Extracted copy of remarks of A.C.R. with regard to Overall Assessment of Smt. Radha Bhatnagar, Retired Judicial Officer Assessment Year Overall Assessment (Remarks/Comments) 1996-1997 ------ 20/12/1997 "B" Satisfactory 1997-1998 Satisfactory 1998-1999 Satisfactory 1999-2000 Satisfactory 2000-2001 Average 2001-2002 No Comment 2002-2003 Outstanding ("A") 2003-2004 May be confirmed/Should improve on all fronts 2004-2005 "B+" 2005-2006 "B+" Good 2006-2007 Satisfactory ('B') 2007-2008 Capable of Improvement 2008-2009 Average ('B+')/She needs to change her behavior and attitude to maintain cordiality with her colleagues, standing litigants and members of the bar. 2009-2010 ----------- 2010-2011 ----------- 2011-2012 ----------- Registrar General cum Registrar (Vigilance) I/e Joint Registrar (Admin-1)-cum- State Public Information Officer High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi 10. A perusal of the service records of the petitioner reveals that in the very first year of her service the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge in the confidential remarks dated 20.12.1997 recorded as under : Column 6 Has he maintained judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality - ? Complaints were made but were not substantiated. 11. When the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad and Koderma several complaints were received against her and report was called for from the District Judge, Dhanbad. Complaints were made but were not substantiated. 11. When the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad and Koderma several complaints were received against her and report was called for from the District Judge, Dhanbad. After receiving the report from the District Judge, Dhanbad, the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge vide Minutes dated 19.09.2007 ordered calling for report from the District Judge, Koderma where the petitioner in the meantime had been transferred. It appears that vide Minutes dated 05.12.2007 the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge ordered that, "keeping in view the report submitted by the District Judge, Dhanbad, officer concerned may be kept under watch by the District Judge, Koderma for atleast six months". Six months thereafter, a report was again received from the District and Sessions Judge, Koderma in which he informed that the petitioner was not carrying good reputation due to her short temperament and behaviour with the members of the Bar. The petitioner was ordered to be kept "under watch" for further period of six months. It appears that during this period complaints levelling allegations touching the integrity of the petitioner were also received by the District Judge. It was also reported that the petitioner was not herself recording evidence and even for cross-examination the case was sent to the Pleader Commissioner for recording the cross-examination. Vide Minutes dated 27.02.2009 it was ordered that the "officer concerned may be kept on watch for further six months". The District and Sessions Judge, Koderma again reported that several complaints against the integrity of the petitioner were received. It was further reported that on confidential inquiry the District and Sessions Judge found that the petitioner was carrying a bad reputation. Finally, vide Minutes dated 09.12.2009 the Hon’ble Zonal Judge referred the matter to the Standing Committee for taking proper action against the petitioner and the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 28.03.2011 resolved to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. However, in the meantime the proceeding under Rule 74 (b) (ii) was initiated and therefore, no further step was taken for intiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the “extracted copy of the remarks of A.C.R.” doesnot indicate a single entry touching upon the integrity of the petitioner. The service record of the petitioner reveals otherwise. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the “extracted copy of the remarks of A.C.R.” doesnot indicate a single entry touching upon the integrity of the petitioner. The service record of the petitioner reveals otherwise. As noticed here-in-above several complaints were received regarding the integrity of the petitioner and the petitioner was kept continuously under watch by the order of the High Court. The report submitted by the concerned District Judge also indicates that the reputation of petitioner was not satisfactory. 13. In "Union of India Vs. M.E.Reddy", reported in (1980) 2 SCC 15 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 17..................."It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that he enjoys………..". 14. In "Nawal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another", reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 2. "At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further, the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the same, particularly because the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority". 15. In "State of U.P. Vs. Bihari Lal", reported in 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 593, it has been held that even one adverse entry which has been set-aside in appeal on technical grounds, can also be taken into consideration. 15. In "State of U.P. Vs. Bihari Lal", reported in 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 593, it has been held that even one adverse entry which has been set-aside in appeal on technical grounds, can also be taken into consideration. It has also been held that the adverse remarks with respect to integrity of the officer against which the officer had no opportunity to make representation as the order of compulsory retirement was passed around the same time, would not vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. In "S.D. Singh Vs. Jharkhand High Court", reported in (2005) 13 SCC 737 an order of compulsory retirement was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even though the judicial officer was granted promotion superseding several senior officers and the vigilance proceeding against him was dropped. 16. In "Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi)", reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under " 192. "Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the integrity would be based on formulations of impressions which would be the result of multiple factors simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the perceptions may differ, in the very nature of things there is a difficulty nearing an impossiblity in subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicual review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be nay tangile material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised on the adminsitrative side of the High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest, the writ court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the order". 17. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest, the writ court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the order". 17. When the case of the petitioner is considered in the light of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is noticed that the immediate superior officer of the petitioner, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge reported that the petitioner was carrying bad reputation and several complaints against her integrity were received. The Hon'ble Inspecting Judge accepted the report of the District Judge and on three occasions ordered that the petitioner be put "under watch" for six months. We find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of any adverse entry reflected in the “extracted copy of remarks of A.C.R.” touching upon the integrity of the petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law. 18. We further find that throughout her career, the petitioner remained an average officer and except for assessment year 2002-2003 her performance was average or satisfactory only. Even in the year, 2004 the Hon'ble Chief Justice who was the Inspecting Judge has recorded in the A.C.R. of the petitioner that the officer should improve on all fronts. On overall assessment of the entire service record of the petitioner the Screening Committee recommended that the petitioner be retired compulsorily and the Standing Committee of the High Court further examined the materials on record including the recommendation of the Screening Committee and resolved that the petitioner was required to be retired compulsorily. The recommendation of the High Court was accepted by the State Government and order of compulsory retirement under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 was issued in public interest. It is well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority. In “High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah”, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 211 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, when the High Court takes a view that an order of compulsory retirement should be made against the member of the subordinate judicial service, the adequacy or sufficiency of such materials cannot be questioned, unless the materials are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of compulsory retirement. We find no arbitrariness or illegality in the order dated 29.05.2012 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service. The materials brought on record justify the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 19. Seeking interference by this Court with the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, since the service record of the petitioner is comparatively better than the service record of one Nand Kumar Verma whose compulsory retirement from service has been held not justified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. The facts in the case of Nand Kumar Verma are that, certain adverse remarks were made against the said officer for certain omission and commission in granting bail. He was also issued show-cause notice for using objectionable language against the Inspecting Judge. The Standing Committee of the High Court accepted the unconditional apology offered by the officer and condoned his lapses. The explanation offered by the officer controverting the allegations made for granting bail indiscriminately was also duly accepted by the High Court. Still, Standing Committee of the High Court directed initiation of departmental proceeding against the said officer for misconduct committed by him in granting bail indiscriminately. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges proved against the officer. Based on the report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority took a decision to compulsorily retire the officer from service. The facts in the present case are entirely different. The disciplinary proceeding sought to be initiated against the petitioner remained at the stage of framing a draft Article of Charges and the Memorandum of Charge was not served upon the petitioner. The High Court recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner on a consideration of her past service records. The contention of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Kumar Verma’s case, order of her compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed, merits no acceptance. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that since the performance of the petitioner in the last three years preceding the order of compulsory retirement has not been recorded in her A.C.R. and thus, not considered by the authority, this fact alone is sufficient ground for quashing the order of compulsory retirement. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that since the performance of the petitioner in the last three years preceding the order of compulsory retirement has not been recorded in her A.C.R. and thus, not considered by the authority, this fact alone is sufficient ground for quashing the order of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that it is well settled that if the entire service record of the judicial officer is not taken into consideration, the order of compulsory retirement may not be sustained in law. This contention is also not tenable in view of the facts of the case. Had the A.C.R. of the petitioner for the last three years been available still not considered by the authority, in that case the petitioner could have contended that her entire service record was not taken into consideration by recommending authority and therefore, the order of compulsory retirement is bad in law. Whatever material was available in the service record of the petitioner including A.C.R. have duly been considered by the High Court as well as State Government. What weighted in the mind of the authorities in recommending the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service cannot be gone into by the Writ Court. As noticed here-in-above, the petitioner remained an average officer throughout her career and there had been serious allegations touching upon her integrity as a judicial officer. The District Judge as well the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge have commented adversely against the petitioner. Merely because the A.C.R. of the petitioner for the last three years were not available, the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service cannot be held to be not based on relevant materials. 21. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.