JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as "Judicial Officer") has prayed for quashing the notification bearing Memo No. 2732 dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.3 herein), whereby in exercise of the powers under 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code of 2001 (for short "Service Code of 2001"), he has been compulsorily retired from service with effect from 20.5.2003 (as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application), asserting that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is completely arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and bad in law. 2. The journey of the Judicial Officer till he was compulsorily retired is as under: He joined Bihar Judicial Service as Additional Munsif at Jamshedpur on 09.06.1975, and thereafter transferred to Nalanda as Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the year 1978. Again he was transferred to Hazaribagh, and then Godda as Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gopalganj as Munsif on 02.02.1981. He was granted Junior Selection Grade after crossing the efficiency bar on 09.06.1985 and thereafter promoted on the post of Sub Judge on 12.05.1992 and posted at Patna. It is the second regular promotion and later on, he was posted at Araria as Sub Judge. On 14.08.1996, he was posted as Special Judge, Economic Offences at Purnia and thereafter, transferred to Gumla on 22.6.2000 where he joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was promoted as Additional District Judge on 11.8.2001 and posted at Lohardaga, from where he was compulsorily retired on 20.05.2003. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the Writ Court records. 4. Mr. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Judicial Officer submitted that once he was granted promotion after crossing the efficiency bar, he could not be removed from service in the garb of compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001. He submitted that the Judicial Officer who was granted timely promotions and was posted on important assignments and against whom no departmental proceeding was ever initiated, cannot be retired compulsorily, may be, he was an average officer, as it does not satisfy the conditions under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001. 5. He submitted that the Judicial Officer who was granted timely promotions and was posted on important assignments and against whom no departmental proceeding was ever initiated, cannot be retired compulsorily, may be, he was an average officer, as it does not satisfy the conditions under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the adverse remarks for year 2001-02 in the column for reputation as 'integrity doubtful' and for the year 2002-03 as 'very much doubtful' were never communicated to the petitioner enabling him to tender his explanation for the same, whereas remark in all other columns is average and the net result is 'B' i.e. 'Good', as one finds from the ACRs. He submitted that the grounds taken by the High Court as spelt out in the counter affidavit do not justify compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, more particularly on taking an overall view, to say that retiring him compulsorily was in public interest. 6. In support of his contentions learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court :- (i) Swami Saran Saxena Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1980) 1 SCC 12 (ii) J.D. Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1984) 2 SCC 8 (iii) Ms. Bindra Vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310 (iv) High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chandra Jain reported in (1999) 4 SCC 579 7. Per contra, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693 submitted that a single adverse entry regarding integrity even in the remote past is considered to be sufficient to award compulsory retirement. He submitted that in the said judgment the effect of promotion etc. has also been considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to hold that compulsory retirement of the Government servant could not be ordered. 8. Mr. Sen further submitted that non-availability of the ACRs to the Judicial Officer can also not be considered as a ground for disturbing the order of compulsory retirement which has been passed on the basis of the relevant material available to the authority. 8. Mr. Sen further submitted that non-availability of the ACRs to the Judicial Officer can also not be considered as a ground for disturbing the order of compulsory retirement which has been passed on the basis of the relevant material available to the authority. In this context, he relied upon a decision of this Court in case Radha Bhatnagar Vs. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi reported in 2014 (3) JLJR 420 . Learned counsel submitted that it is apparent on record that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court founded on the basis of the report for compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer does not suffer from any arbitrariness as his entire service record was considered before arriving at a rational decision and the fact that he was granted regular promotion on the post of Additional District Judge would, in any case, not wipe out the effect of adverse remarks on the integrity recorded in A.C.R. He thus, prays for dismissal of the instant writ petition. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, in our view, the following points crop up for the consideration of the Court: - (i) Whether the order of compulsory retirement is so arbitrary or irrational that justifies interference under judicial review? (ii) Whether the object and purpose of compulsorily retiring the petitioner has been achieved in the present case? (iii) Whether the respondents were bound to consider the overall picture of the Officer during the long year of service before passing the order of compulsory retirement? (iv) Whether the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Government suffers from any legal flaw? (v) Whether the principles of natural justice have application in the order of compulsory retirement? (vi) Whether the impugned order is in complete violation of provisions of Constitution of India? 10. Control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India includes premature/compulsory retirement of the Judges of the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts. Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests in the High Court, the control over the subordinate judiciary within the State. It reads as follows:- "235. 10. Control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India includes premature/compulsory retirement of the Judges of the District Courts and the Subordinate Courts. Article 235 of the Constitution of India vests in the High Court, the control over the subordinate judiciary within the State. It reads as follows:- "235. Control over subordinate Courts.- The control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this article shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authorising the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law." 11. In Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831 , a Seven Judges Bench Judgment of Supreme Court, their Lordships considered the ambit and scope of word 'control' and while elaborating the powers vested in the High Court with regard to control over subordinate judiciary within its respective states, interalia, exposited the position that such power included premature or compulsory retirement of Judges of the District Courts and Subordinate Courts. The above position laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh (supra) has been reiterated in Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2003) 6 SCC 545 . 12. It is well settled that compulsory retirement from service is different from dismissal or removal from service as it is not in a form of punishment prescribed by Rules or involves any penal consequence inasmuch as, the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits proportionate to the service period standing to his credit. An order of compulsory retirement being not an order of adverse consequence, principles of natural justice will have no application. Taking note of the earlier decisions in this regard, in Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "143. Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment. Taking note of the earlier decisions in this regard, in Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "143. Compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment. Under the relevant rules, an order of dismissal is a punishment laid on a Government servant when it is found that he has been guilty of misconduct or the like. It is penal in character because it involves loss of pension which under the rules has accrued in respect of the service already put in. An order of removal also stands on the same footing as an order of dismissal and involves the same consequences, the only difference between them being that while a servant who is dismissed is not eligible for them being that while a servant who is dismissed is not eligible for reappointment, one who is removed is. A compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, in that 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 retrial benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit." 13. From the first counter affidavit filed by the respondent-High Court it is apparent that, the petitioner has invited the following remarks in ACRs recorded by the District Judges and Hon'ble Inspecting Judges:- Year Remarks 1976-77 (i) Quality of Judgment - Average (ii) Net Result - Average 1977-78 (i) Quality of Judgment- Average (ii) Net Result - Average 1978-79 Net Result - Average 1980-81 (i) Knowledge- Average (ii) Net Result - Not Satisfactory 1981-82 Knowledge - Average 1982-83 Promptness in Disposal - Not upto mark 1983-84 Promptness in Disposal - Needs to improve. 1984-85 (i) Promptness in disposal - No (ii) Supervision of Business - Lacks control (iii) Net Result - Most Average Officer. Not industrious. Dependent on his office and staffs. Tries to find some excuses to explain his omissions and commissions. 1984-85 (i) Promptness in disposal - No (ii) Supervision of Business - Lacks control (iii) Net Result - Most Average Officer. Not industrious. Dependent on his office and staffs. Tries to find some excuses to explain his omissions and commissions. 1986-87 (i) Knowledge – Average (ii) Efficiency - Average (iii) Net Result – Average 1987-88 (i) Knowledge – Average (ii) Efficiency - Average (iii) Net Result - Average 1992-93 Promptness in Disposal - Needs to improve 1995-96 Knowledge - Average 1996-97 Net Result - Average 1997-98 (i) Knowledge – Average (ii) Promptness in Disposal – Average (iii) Efficiency - Average (iv) Net Result - Average 1998-99 (i) Knowledge – Average (ii) Net Result - Average 2000-01 Efficiency - Average 14. The adverse remarks endorsed by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judges as well as Standing Committee are as follows :- Date/Year Hon'ble Judge Remarks Dec. 1985 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha (i) Knowledge - Average (ii) Promptness in Disposal - Needs improvement (iii) Efficiency - No (iv) Attitude towards colleagues - Quarrelsome (v) Net Result – C 30.5.87 Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.B. Sinha (i) Knowledge - Average (ii) Net Result-B – Average 18.4.88 Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha Net Result-B – Average He should be careful in future in matters of rejection of complaint petition. He is also required to build up his image 17.8.99 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra (i) Knowledge - Poor (ii) Relation with Bar & Public - Unsatisfactory (iii) Net Result – Average 1986 Standing Committee Shri B.Z. Ansari while posted as J.M. at Godda exhibited acts of insubordination and gross negligence in due discharge of his official duty. 2001-2002 Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Sharma (i) Knowledge - Average (ii) Gratuity of Judgment - B-(Average) (iii) Reputation - Integrity doubtful. 15. Respondent-High Court during the pendency of petition filed another Counter Affidavit, after providing copy thereof to the Judicial Officer, stating therein that he was again evaluated for 2002-03 and the report for that year is as follows:- (i) Knowledge - Average (ii) Promptness in Disposal - No (iii) Quality in Judgment - B (iv) Efficiency - Needs Improvement (v) Reputation - Seriously doubtful (vi) Attitude towards Colleagues - Cordial (vii) Relation with Bar and Public - Cordial (viii) Net Result - B 16. Admittedly, there is no material on record to indicate that Judicial Officer was an officer of doubtful integrity till 2001-02 and 2002-03 when the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge considered him as a person of doubtful integrity. Another admitted position before us is that adverse remarks for these two years regarding "integrity doubtful" were never communicated to the petitioner. What is the effect thereof, would be an issue now for our consideration to arrive at the just conclusion. 17. A perusal of the complete track record of the Judicial Officer reflects that he invited adverse remarks such as 'not satisfactory', 'not up to mark', 'lack of control', 'needs to improve', 'most average officer', 'not industrious', 'dependent on his officers and staff', 'quarrelsome', 'knowledge poor', etc. In the year 1986, the Standing Committee of the High Court observed that he, while posted as Judicial Magistrate at Godda, exhibited insubordination and negligence in due discharge of his official duty. It is a matter of record that the Judicial Officer never received grading above average and for two consecutive years, for the year 2001-02 and 2002-03, he invited adverse remarks vis-à-vis his integrity being doubtful. 18. It is well settled that over all profile of a Judicial Officer is a guiding factor, which should be kept in mind by the High Court for retiring him compulsorily or not. In case S.D. Singh Vs. Jharkhand High Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 737 , order of compulsory retirement was upheld though the Judicial Officer was granted promotions superseding several senior officers and that the adverse proceedings against him was also dropped. 19. In R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 58 while examining the challenge to the compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, who was working as District Judge and had received super time scale also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after noticing that he was graded average on quite few occasions: assessed poor; quality of judgments and orders not found satisfactory; and reputation was observed tainted on few occasions; ultimately observed that there was no justification in the Full Court to take contrary view from the view taken by the administrative committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “25. From the above, it is clear that the appellant did not have unblemished service record all along. He has been graded "Average" on quite a few occasions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- “25. From the above, it is clear that the appellant did not have unblemished service record all along. He has been graded "Average" on quite a few occasions. He was assessed "Poor" in 1993 and 1994. His quality of judgments and orders was not found satisfactory on more than one occasion. His reputation was observed to be tainted on few occasions and his integrity was not always found to be above board. In 1988-1989, the remark reads, "never enjoyed clean reputation". In 1993, the remark, "his reputation was not good" and in 1994 the remark "officer does not enjoy good reputation", were recorded. His representations for expunction of these remarks failed. The challenge to these remarks on judicial side was unsuccessful right up to this Court. In 1993, it was also recorded that quality of performance of the appellant was poor and his disposals were below average. In 1994, the remark in the service record states that the performance of the appellant qualitatively and quantitatively has been poor. With this service record, can it be said that there existed no material for an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant from service? We think not. The above material amply shows that the material germane for taking decision by the Full Court whether the appellant could be continued in judicial service or deserved to be retired compulsorily did exist. It is not the scope of judicial review to go into adequacy or sufficiency of such materials.” 20. The contention thus raised on behalf of the Judicial Officer that an Officer of average qualities cannot be retired compulsorily, must be rejected. 21. The other contention raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Judicial Officer that the adverse remarks with regard to his integrity were never communicated to him so as to put forth his stance, also deserves to be rejected. Paragraph 6 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondent-High Court by producing adverse remarks recorded by the District Judges and the Inspecting Judges of the High Court. Paragraph 6 of the writ petition has been replied by the respondent-High Court by producing adverse remarks recorded by the District Judges and the Inspecting Judges of the High Court. We are conscious of the fact that the adverse remarks for year 2002-03 were initially not indicated in the first counter affidavit filed by the High Court and subsequently the second counter affidavit was filed in this regard, but that, in our considered view, would not make any difference as it all is a matter of record and cannot be said to be any improvement in the pleadings. It is widely accepted that the District Judges would have opportunity to watch the functioning of other Judicial Officers and that is the reason, at times, greater importance is given to the remarks of the superior officers. In this context, the opinion formed by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judges assumed greater significance. The Judicial Officer in the instant case has earned adverse remarks of doubtful integrity in two successive ACRs. The assessment in the opinion of other Hon'ble Inspecting Judges also disclose poor and unsatisfactory performance of the Judicial Officer. In case Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 , 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 impossibility in subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicial review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible 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 administrative 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 such a constitutional function is exercised on the administrative 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.” 22. In State of U.P. Vs. Bihari Lal reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 59 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that adverse remarks with respect to the 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. 23. In the counter-affidavit, the High Court has taken a stand that series of complaints were received against the Judicial Officer. Few instances of the complaints against the Judicial Officer have been narrated by the High Court to plead that the Judicial Officer was not an above-the-board officer. In the case on hand, District Judge, Lohardaga sent a report that the Judicial Officer disposed of Sessions Trial No.529/94 under Section 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) and 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and finally the trial was vitiated on the ground that the Judicial Officer was not empowered to try cases under SC/ST Act. There was allegation against the Judicial Officer of receiving illegal gratification of Rs.30,000 – Rs.40,000/-. Record of G.R. Case No.570/2000 arising out of Bishunpur P.S. Case No.39/2000 was called for and propriety of bail order dated 25.08.2002 passed by the Judicial Officer as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla was examined by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. We cannot lose sight of a fact that the same Inspecting Judge had given benefit of doubt to the Judicial Officer in the previous year when serious allegation of improper acquittal on extraneous consideration was levelled against him. 24. The High Court, after considering the overall profile of the Judicial Officer, ultimately, came to a conclusion that the Judicial Officer has no potential for being continued any further, therefore, the decision was taken of compulsorily retiring him with a view to weed out the dead-wood. 24. The High Court, after considering the overall profile of the Judicial Officer, ultimately, came to a conclusion that the Judicial Officer has no potential for being continued any further, therefore, the decision was taken of compulsorily retiring him with a view to weed out the dead-wood. Crossing of efficiency bar or promotion granted to him at any stage would not establish that the Judicial Officer was fit to continue in service. The Judicial Officer has not been able to indicate that the impugned order of compulsorily retiring him is not based on objective examination of entire service record, therefore, the present case does not turn out to be an extra ordinary case, where the Court is convinced that some monstrous thing which ought not have taken place has really happened. 25. Under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001, for maintaining efficiency and initiative in the service, service of an employee is dispensed with when it is found that his continuance in service is not in public interest. The object behind Rule 74(b)(ii) is to weed out dead-wood from the service and also to remove the persons with doubtful integrity so as, to preserve purity in judicial administration. Considering the nature of order passed under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code 2001, the same can be challenged on a limited ground that subjective satisfaction of the authority was not based on objective analysis of the material placed before it. 26. In Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 592 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. …………….Neither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High Court concerned, to make an independent reassessment of the same, as if sitting on an appeal…………In the very nature of things it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some monstrous thing which ought not to have taken place has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/ Full Court………” 27. It needs to be mentioned here that another Judicial Officer of the State of Jharkhand, namely, Pyare Mohan Lal, who was also retired compulsorily along with the present Judicial Officer, had also challenged the said order almost on similar grounds in this Court, which was dismissed by the High Court, aggrieved thereof, he moved before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 382 of 2003, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by upholding the order of the High Court [Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (2010) 10 SCC 693 ]. 28. The judgments cited by Mr. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel for the Judicial Officer, do not put the case of the Judicial Officer to any advantageous position so as, to hold that the impugned notification dated 20.05.2003 retiring him compulsorily, is bad in law. 29. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.