JUDGMENT : DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. This writ application is assailed against the order of compulsory retirement passed by the opposite parties against the petitioner while the petitioner attained the age of 50 years. FACTS 2. The adumbrated facts of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as an Assistant in this Court from 21.4.1969 and while continuing as such he was selected for appointment as Munsif on probation in Class-II of the Orissa Judicial Service (hereinafter called “O.J.S.”) on 21.8.1976. 3. While the petitioner was continuing as S.D.J.M., Chatrapur, the District Judge, Ganjam by his confidential letter communicated adverse remarks against the petitioner for the year 1980-1981 and the petitioner made representation to expunge the adverse remarks vide Annexure-3. Be it stated that the petitioner was promoted to Orissa Judicial Service, Class-I by the then Recruitment Rule as erstwhile Subordinate Judge, Deogarh in the undivided judgeship of Sambalpur vide order dated 28.2.1987. While serving in O.J.S., Class-I he had also served as Special Officer in the office of the Director, Public Prosecution and thereafter he was also appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge at Bhanjanagar having been conferred with such power by this Court. 4. Be it stated that after the posting at Bhanjanagar the petitioner was again transferred as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Registrar, Civil Courts, Keonjhar and while continuing as such in Keonjhar, he did not get a fair deal from the then learned District Judge, Keonjhar because the petitioner allegedly did not accede to his illegal and untenable demands. 5. It is stated that the petitioner was shortly thereafter transferred as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Registrar, Civil Courts, Sambalpur with effect from 10.7.1995. There was no incapacity or inefficiency or any doubtful integrity on the part of the petitioner while he has served but suddenly on 19.8.1995 the petitioner was prematurely retired under purported exercise of power conferred under Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called “the Code”) at the instance of opposite party No.1. The petitioner made representation against such illegal action of the opposite party No.1 but no action was taken on the representation. Be it stated that the reasons or grounds in exercise of power under Rule 71 (a) of the Code are not available against the petitioner because the order of compulsory retirement has conspicuously absence of with any reasons. The petitioner made representation against such illegal action of the opposite party No.1 but no action was taken on the representation. Be it stated that the reasons or grounds in exercise of power under Rule 71 (a) of the Code are not available against the petitioner because the order of compulsory retirement has conspicuously absence of with any reasons. Except the adverse entry communicated in 1980-81, no other entry has been communicated to the petitioner and since he has been promoted from Class-II to Class-I service, there is reason to believe that the action taken against the petitioner is biased, arbitrary and unreasonable. So, the petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-6. 6. Opposite party No.2 filed the counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the adverse entry against the petitioner in 1980-1981 has not been expunged. The performance of the petitioner was not at all commendable because he required a lot of improvement in the judicial side as well as in the administrative side as observed by this Court from time to time. The overall performance of the petitioner during his entire service period was not up to satisfaction for which the observations of this Court were communicated to him. 7. It is further stated that merely because the petitioner was given promotion to the next higher grade, it did not mean that all the adverse remarks in his C.C.Rs were wiped out. The criteria for promotion is not depending on the criteria while considering the person for review of his service as it is settled in law that the deadwood should be removed for the interest of the institution by giving them compulsory retirement. It is the subjective satisfaction of the employer to allow the employee to continue in service subject to his performances put in the entire years of service he rendered. So, taking into consideration of his entire career and the ability of the petitioner with regard to his knowledge in law, integrity and responsibility, the Court decided to recommend for his compulsory retirement and His Excellency, the Governor after considering the materials accepted the recommendation for which the impugned order of premature retirement passed against the petitioner was legal and proper. It is stated that the ratio of the case law cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. SUBMISSIONS 8. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statutory Rule 71 (a) of the Code has not been followed in the present case by the opposite parties while awarding compulsory retirement to the petitioner. He submitted that the G.A. Department notification dated 24.11.1987 regarding procedure for premature retirement as prescribed in pursuance of Rule 71 (a) of the Code has been seriously departed for which it cannot be said the compulsory retirement to the petitioner has been awarded in public interest. 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while considering the case for premature retirement although it is desirable to make an overall assessment of the petitioner’s entire service record, more value should be attached to the period immediately preceding the date of consideration of premature retirement. He submitted so by relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 111 and AIR 1998 SC 948 . In the case of the petitioner there is no evidence of doubtful integrity. Although the O.Ps. have taken a baseless solitary remark from the C.C.R. about the doubtful integrity, he submitted that the opposite parties should not have ignored the reputation the petitioner has occupied till the date of his compulsory retirement. 10. Mr. Choudhury further contended that for the adverse remark made in 1980 and 1981 the petitioner has made representation but same has not been disposed of till date but on the other hand he has been promoted to the post of Class-I in spite of such adverse remark for which it is presumed that such adverse remark has been expunged. Apart from this, the adverse entry used by opposite parties against the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner for which same cannot be used against him while awarding premature retirement. On the other hand, the principle of natural justice has been seriously violated in the case of the petitioner by not giving him an opportunity of hearing. Apart from this, the adverse entry used by opposite parties against the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner for which same cannot be used against him while awarding premature retirement. On the other hand, the principle of natural justice has been seriously violated in the case of the petitioner by not giving him an opportunity of hearing. So, he submitted to set aside the order of compulsory retirement and since the petitioner has already retired in the meantime, it is presumed that the petitioner is deemed to have been continued in service and the entire service benefits including the retiral benefits be accrued to the petitioner. 11. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Court considered the entire service period of the petitioner as it is settled in law that while considering an employee for compulsory retirement, his entire service period should be considered. He further submitted that the service record of the petitioner is not good and he has been awarded adverse entries which are also taken into consideration while reviewing his service career. According to him, Rule 71 (a) has been properly followed in this case because the petitioner has been awarded three months salary advance in lieu of three months notice and awarded compulsory retirement. Moreover, the promotion of the petitioner from O.J.S. Class-II to O.J.S. Class-I cannot be a criteria to expunge the adverse remarks and moreover, the representation of the petitioner to expunge the adverse remarks has been rejected. According to him, the washed-off theory may be applicable for the sake of promotion but same would not be applicable while reviewing the service of a person at the age of 50, 55 or 58 as it has already been well settled by catena of decisions. After going through the entire service record, the Court felt that the entire service career of the petitioner was not up to satisfaction and it being well settled in law that the dead-wood should be removed, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest. 12. Mr. After going through the entire service record, the Court felt that the entire service career of the petitioner was not up to satisfaction and it being well settled in law that the dead-wood should be removed, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired in public interest. 12. Mr. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the performance of the petitioner was not commendable requiring lot of improvement in judicial side as well as in administrative side as observed by the Court from time to time and mere promotion is not enough to wash-off his adverse entry more particularly with regard to the remark of adverse integrity he has got in his service career. So, he supports the order of compulsory retirement. 13. Mr. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the compulsory retirement under first proviso to Rule 71 (a) of the Code is neither punitive nor stigmatic but it is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution of India and since the action has been taken against the petitioner without any bias, mala fideness and arbitrariness, same suffer from no infirmity. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed. 14. Main point for consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner is liable to be compulsorily retired from service? DISCUSSION 15. Before going to the fact of the case, it is necessary to discuss on the points of law involved in this case. Hence, the writ petition should be dismissed. 14. Main point for consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner is liable to be compulsorily retired from service? DISCUSSION 15. Before going to the fact of the case, it is necessary to discuss on the points of law involved in this case. This is a case of compulsory retirement not awarded basing on any departmental enquiry as per Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules but it is a case where action has been taken under Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code which is produced below for reference:- “71.(a) Except as otherwise provided in the other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, except a ministerial servant who was in Government service on the 31st March 1939 and Class IV Government servant, is the date on which he or she attains the age of 58 years subject to the condition that a review shall be conducted in respect of the Government servant in the 55th year of age in order to determine whether he/she should be allowed to remain in service up to the date of the completion of the age of 58 years or retired on completing the age of 55 years in public interest : Provided that a Government servant may retire from service any time after completing thirty years’ qualifying service or on attaining the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or by giving the said notice to the said authority before such shorter period as Government may allow in any case. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under this rule, if he is under suspension or if enquiries against him are in progress. The appropriate authority may also require any officer to retire in public interest any time after he has completed thirty years’ qualifying service or attained the age of fifty years, by giving a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire or by giving three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice”. The aforesaid provision made it clear that a Government servant can be compulsorily retired for public interest although public interest has not been defined but same is discernible from Clause 7 of the notification issued by the State Government in General Admn. Deptt. No.30495-G.A., dated the 24th November, 1987 which is also reproduced below:-“7. It will not be in public interest to retain an employee in service if – (a) he is clearly lacking in integrity, or (b) although his integrity is not in doubt, his physical or mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for further service, or (c) even though his work in a lower grade was satisfactory, he clearly lacks in the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post he presently holds”. 16. In the instant case, the Court has to consider whether the petitioner has been awarded premature retirement by complying all the above legal provisions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed under erstwhile Orissa Judicial Service Rules and same has been replaced by present Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule 44 of the present Rule depicts that the service of a person would be reviewed at the age of 50, 55 and 58 but there is no bar to review the service of officer at any time after he attains the age of 50 years so as to weed out dead wood who are not necessary for the interest of the organization. As there is no similar provision in earlier Rule governing the condition of service of the Judicial Officers at that time, Rule 71 (a) was being pressed into service while reviewing the service of officers at the age of 50, 55 and 58. 17. Both the parties have placed catena of decisions to enlighten the Court as to under what circumstances the authority can take a decision for awarding premature retirement to a Government employee while he attains the above ages. 18. In the decision reported in Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others; AIR 1981 SC 70 where Their Lordships when considering the case of compulsory retirement have observed at Para-8 in the following manner: “8.This takes us to the meat of the matter, viz., whether the appellant was retired because and only because it was necessary in the public interest so to do. It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary. Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service. The Administration, to be competent, must have servants who are not plagued by uncertainty about tomorrow. At the age of 50 when you have family responsibility and the sombre problems of one's own life's evening!, your experience, accomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the Administration, if and only if you are not harried or worried by 'what will happen to me and my family?' 'Where will I go if cashiered?' How will I survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be superannuated?' These considerations become all the more important in departments where functional independence, fearless scrutiny, and freedom to expose evil or error in high places is the task. And the Ombudsmanic tasks of the office or audit vested in the C. & AG. and the entire army of monitors and minions under him are too strategic for the nation's financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats and oblique overawing is very much in public interest. So it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of 'public interest' if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. To constitutionalise the rule, we must so read it as to free it from the potential for the mischief’s we have just projected. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and the only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether the order has been made in public interest. When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest the State must disclose the material so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of 'public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review well-settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. The limitations on judicial power in this area are well-known and we are confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. 19. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer; (1992) 2 SCC 299 , where Their Lordships in para-8 observed as follows: “8. It is evident that the latter half of the proviso which empowers the government to retire a government servant in public interest after he completes 30 years of qualifying service or after attaining the age of 50 years is in pari materia with the Fundamental Rule 56 (j). xxx xxx xxx 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (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 this 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. 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 lose 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 un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.” 20. In S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa; 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 424 where Their Lordships at para-9 observed as follows: “9. ………… The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particular the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. Therefore before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service”. 21. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand; (2010) 10 SCC 693 where Their Lordships expounded the theory of compulsory retirement in a very lucid manner. Their Lordships have taken note of most of the decisions including the decision of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) and observed about the washed-off theory. In paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the above judgment Their Lordships observed as follows:- “19. In State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that adverse entries regarding the dishonesty and inefficiency of the government employee in his ACRs have to be ignored if, subsequent to recording of the same, he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar, as it would mean that while permitting him to cross the efficiency bar such entries had been considered and were not found of serious nature for the purpose of crossing the efficiency bar. 20. Similarly, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. 20. Similarly, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1989 SC 2218 , had taken a similar view on the issue observing that adverse entries awarded to the employee in the remote past lost significance in view of the fact that he had subsequently been promoted to the higher post, for the reason that while considering the case for promotion he had been found to possess eligibility and suitability and if such entry did not reflect deficiency in his work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it would be difficult to comprehend how such an adverse entry could be pressed into service for retiring him compulsorily. When a government servant is promoted to higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and remain on record as part of past history. This view has been adopted by this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das, (1992) 2 SCC 299 . 21. However, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Orissa V. Ram Chandra Das; (1996) 5 SCC 331 had taken a different view as it had been held therein that such entries still remain part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. Therefore, such entries do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under:(SCC pp.333-34, para-7) "7. ……..Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension." (emphasis added) This judgment has been approved and followed by this court in State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 , emphasising that the "entire record" of the government servant is to be examined.” “22. In Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 , this Court held that the vigour or sting of an entry does not get wiped out, particularly, while considering the case of employee for giving him compulsory retirement, as it requires the examination of the entire service records, including character rolls and confidential reports. `Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out' merely it relates to the remote past. There may be a single adverse entry of integrity which may be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant. 24. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of this court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed. More so, the washed off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of government servant for further promotion but not in a case where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration his "entire service record". 22. The aforesaid decision is well followed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir; (2013) 10 SCC 551 , where Their Lordships observed at para-24 in the following manner: “24. …….. 22. The aforesaid decision is well followed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir; (2013) 10 SCC 551 , where Their Lordships observed at para-24 in the following manner: “24. …….. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a deadwood and it is in public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.” 23. With due regard to the aforesaid decisions, it is trite in law that the adverse entries for promotion if not considered and promotion has been already made overcoming such adverse entry, that previous adverse entry is said to be washed-off for further promotion. But such washed-off theory will have no universal application when a person is considered to continue in service or not for the public interest. In that case the entire service record has to be taken into consideration whether past or recent have no any relevance. But such washed-off theory will have no universal application when a person is considered to continue in service or not for the public interest. In that case the entire service record has to be taken into consideration whether past or recent have no any relevance. Even if the old adverse entry has been ignored while giving promotion, the same can be considered or assessed while the service of a Government servant is considered for compulsory retirement under Rule 71 (a) but due regard must have to be given in all respect particularly with respect to integrity without which allowing a public servant to continue in service is dangerous or menace to the society as well as hurdle for reposing confidence on the organization. It is needless to say that judiciary being the third column of the Constitution is the bedrock of development of the country and it should carry on tremendous faith of people at large at any cost. The integrity and the competency are both sides of a coin that every Judicial officer has to possess for continuance in service. At no stretch of imagination integrity or competency of a Judicial Officer can be compromised at any event. So, whole career has to be considered with subjective satisfaction by the Review Committee or the Full Court and by the Government. 24. Now adverting to the fact of the case, first of all it must be made clear that there is no disciplinary proceeding ever started against the petitioner. The allegation file is also gone through. While the petitioner was J.M.F.C., Koraput during the year 1981, there was an allegation against him about taking bribe but after enquiry same is found to be false and baseless, the matter was closed. Similarly another allegation from the Koraput Bar during 1983 was made against the petitioner and it was sent for confidential enquiry and on enquiry, the concerned District Judge reported that there was no basis to the allegation made against the petitioner. Hence, these allegations were closed having not being found any truth in it. 25. Now the ACRs of the petitioner should be considered to find out whether it is a fit case where rightly decision has been taken by the opposite parties to award him compulsory retirement. Year-1977 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? 25. Now the ACRs of the petitioner should be considered to find out whether it is a fit case where rightly decision has been taken by the opposite parties to award him compulsory retirement. Year-1977 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases Prompt 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the subordinate courts and his administrative ability Good 9. Remarks about reputation of against his integrity & impartiality Nothing was heard integrity and impartiality 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Considered by Court) Year-1978 (By District Judge, Reviewing Officer) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Quite prompt 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing was heard against his honesty & integrity. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Considered by Court) Year-1979 (By District Judge, Reviewing Officer) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious and Coped effectually with heavy work. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Considered By Court) Year-1980 (Part-I) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious and Coped effectually with heavy work. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1980 (Part-II) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1980 (Part-II) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? He does not appear to be industrious nor copes up with heavy work. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He is not prompt in disposal cases. Mainly old cases on his file are lying undisposed of. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Lacks control over his subordinates. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing much has been heard against his reputation, integrity and impartiality. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (Adverse entry communicated to the Officer after being considered by the Court). Year-1980 (For the whole year by the district judge) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious and Coped effectually with heavy 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Average 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Satisfactory 10. Behavior towards members of the Bar and the public. Does not appear to be cordial 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (It is also considered and adverse at Sl. No.10 was communicated to the Officer by the Court). Year-1981 (Entire year) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Has become industrious and coped effectually with heavy work. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He has become prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. He should exercise better control over his subordinates. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing adverse has been heard. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Court considered & communicated adverse remarks at Sl. No.7 to the Officer) Year-1982 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing adverse has been heard. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Court considered & communicated adverse remarks at Sl. No.7 to the Officer) Year-1982 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. His disposal was above the yard stick. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. He exercised effective control over his office. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing adverse has been heard. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Considered by Court) Year-1983 (From 1.1.1983 to 10.6.1983) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Average 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes and he has coped up. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Good 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Need further improvement. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1983 (From 20.6.1983 to 31.12.1983) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious Coped with heavy work effectually. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Average – (He should improve in administrative ability). (Ignored by Court) 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Very Good (Considered by Court) Year-1984 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious Coped with heavy work effectually. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Industrious Coped with heavy work effectually. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Considered by Court) Year-1985 (From 1.1.1985 to 7.6.1985) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Poor knowledge of law. Takes cognizance u/s.190(1)© Cr.P.C. without exercising judl. discretion and without giving opportunity to the accd. of being heard. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Industrious. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Average 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Not effective 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Doubtful 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (Court considered as “Poor”) Year-1985 (From 10.6.1985 to 31.12.1985) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Satisfactory 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Good 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Satisfactory 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good (Reviewing Officer observed he is sincere and honest) 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (considered by Court) Year-1986 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Satisfactory 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He is prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Satisfactory 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing is heard against his reputation and integrity. He is impartial. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (No ACR received for 1987) (Considered by Court) Year-1988 and 1989 (From 7.3.1988 to 27.3.1989) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Sound in his knowledge of law on criminal side but needs improvement on the civil side. His judicial capacity is quite good. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Sound in his knowledge of law on criminal side but needs improvement on the civil side. His judicial capacity is quite good. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Moderately industrious because his out-turn on criminal side for 1st and 2nd quarters, 1988 was below the prescribed yard stick. However, improvement was marked in his outturn during 3rd and 4th quarters. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Moderately prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Administrative ability was good. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Unquestionable 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) An average officer. (Considered by Court) Year-1988 (From 10.4.1989 to 31.12.1989) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity On Civil side poor. Criminal side not up the mark. On to 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Not up to the mark. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Not up to the mark. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Ineffective 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Nothing adverse heard 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) An average officer. (Court considered same) Year-1990 (From 1.1.1990 to 16.8.1990) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Need improvement 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Fair 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Fair 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. A major section of the Bar has lost faith-unexpected result in some cases noticed. 11. General reputation Not good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (Considered by Court) Year-1990 (From 22.8.1990 to 31.12.1990) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Need improvement 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He has not entrusted with any case work. 7. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (Considered by Court) Year-1990 (From 22.8.1990 to 31.12.1990) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Need improvement 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He has not entrusted with any case work. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Average 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average (Considered by Court) Year-1991 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity He has not given any judicial work. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He has not given any judicial work. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Average Year-1992 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity He is well conversant with rules and regulations as Registrar. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Does not arise. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Very Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Very Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Very Good Year-1993 Year-1993 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity He is well conversant with rules and regulations as Registrar. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. Does not arise. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Good 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1993 (Part-II) Year-1993 (Part-II) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He is prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1993 (Part-II) Year-1993 (Part-II) 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity Good 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? Yes 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He is prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. His control of office and subordinates is good. 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. He is impartial. 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good Year-1994 Year-1994 4. Knowledge of law and Judicial capacity He has good knowledge in law. 5. Is he industrious and has he coped effectually with heavy work? He is a hard worker and coped with heavy work suitably. 6. Remarks about his promptness in the disposal of cases. He is very prompt in disposal of cases. 7. Remarks about supervision of the distribution of business among and his control over the Subordinate Courts and his administrative ability. Behaves properly with all 9. Remarks about reputation of integrity and impartiality. Good 12. Net Result.(Outstanding, Very good, Good, Average, Poor) Good (Court has not considered the ACR from 1991 to 1994) 26. From the conspectus of the facts relating to the CCRs of the aforesaid years, it appears that the petitioner has got adverse ACR in the second part of 1980 as given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as Reporting Officer. But for whole of the year the District Judge who is the Reviewing Officer did not agree with the opinion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and rated the Officer as average Officer. Similarly in 1981 for entire year he was considered as good officer except the remark that he should exercise control over subordinates. That apart, in the first part of the year 1985 though the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the District Judge gave him ACR as average Officer but against Column No.9 they made adverse remarks about his reputation and integrity as ‘doubtful’ and the Court also rated the Officer as ‘Poor’. At the same time, in the second part of 1985, the Officer’s reputation, integrity and impartiality became good as given by both Reporting and Reviewing Officer. Also the Reviewing Officer has opined that the Officer is “sincere and honest”. At the same time, in the second part of 1985, the Officer’s reputation, integrity and impartiality became good as given by both Reporting and Reviewing Officer. Also the Reviewing Officer has opined that the Officer is “sincere and honest”. Same view has also been accepted by the High Court being considered. When in the second part he has got integrity good and net remarks also good, the first part without having material supporting the opinion as “integrity doubtful” cannot be accepted. There is instruction issued by the High Court in G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.II that when an Officer would be given adverse remark as to his integrity and impartiality, the concerned Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer must explain the materials supporting such remark. Moreover, the Reporting or Reviewing Officer must call for explanation from such officer and explain whether it has got any basis. In this case no such material appears to have been communicated to the petitioner asking for his explanation so that adverse remark could be recorded. However, due to ‘Good’ remark against this reputation, integrity in the second part of 1985, the remark in the first part is not given due importance. 27. Now it appears in 1989, the petitioner got CCR recorded for the period from 10.4.1989 to 31.12.1989 where he has got adverse remarks in knowledge of law, Judicial capacity, his industriousness and promptness in disposal of cases, his control over the subordinate courts and his administrative ability. But so far reputation of integrity and impartiality is concerned, same has been certified by the Reporting and Reviewing authority. But at the same time for the period from 1.1.1990 to 16.8.1990, the petitioner has improved except the fact that he needs further improvement in the knowledge of law and judicial capacity. He has got overall rating as Average Officer. In the same year he has got reputation of integrity with very speculative remark from the Reviewing Officer that a major section of the Bar had lost faith because of unexpected result in some cases. The Reporting Officer has not annexed any document showing the number of cases where the bar members have alleged about unexpected result. In the same year he has got reputation of integrity with very speculative remark from the Reviewing Officer that a major section of the Bar had lost faith because of unexpected result in some cases. The Reporting Officer has not annexed any document showing the number of cases where the bar members have alleged about unexpected result. Moreover, the unexpected result in the cases cannot be taken as any adverse remark as to integrity of the Officer without dealing on the issue as to whether the Officer has got an extraneous motive behind it or any extraneous obligation to pass such judgments. Therefore, such remark is not considered to be the adverse except an observation about his reputation. However, after going through the ACR from 22.8.1990 to 31.12.1990 it appears that he has good reputation, integrity and impartiality. Due to such good remark about his reputation and integrity in the second part of 1990, the first part adverse entry is considered leniently against the Officer. Not only this but also in the second part of 1990, there is no adverse remark except recording that his knowledge in law and judicial capacity needs further improvement. For the second half year of 1990 and for the year 1991 the petitioner was working as Registrar, Civil Court, Ganjam, which involves purely administrative work and the ACR indicated that petitioner was not entrusted judicial work. Hence, comment by the Reporting Officer that petitioner needs improvement in knowledge of law and judicial capacity was uncalled for, and for the same only to note him overall “Average”, appears to be result of non-application of mind by the authorities, while in other respects he has been rated ‘good’. Such type of ‘average’ remark when further improvement is required, assuming the same to be justified, cannot be considered as adverse so as to disqualify him for continuance in service. It may be noted here that the remark “Needs improvement” as given in ACR is a diabolical remark because the Reporting Officer while recording ACR should either give the remark ‘Poor’ or ‘Average’ or ‘Good’ etc. From the year 1992 to 1994, the Officer is found having no adverse remark. Rather he has been rated as Good Officer. The Review Committee considered the Officer in 1995. From the year 1992 to 1994, the Officer is found having no adverse remark. Rather he has been rated as Good Officer. The Review Committee considered the Officer in 1995. The last four years of ACR from 1991 to 1994 appears to have not been put up before the Court for consideration before 1995. ACR of petitioner from 1991 to 1993 was put up on 18.1.1996 before the Standing Committee of the Court and same have been accepted but ACR for 1994 of petitioner has not been considered as yet. After calling upon record from the Registry the said facts became known to us. However, for last four years before review there is improvement of the Officer and same have not been considered by the Standing Committee of the Court before review was held as appears from record. 28. The extract of the Review Committee is reproduced below for reference:- “6. Shri Indramani Sahu has earned adverse comment with regard to his knowledge of law and judicial capacity in the year 1991 from the District Judge, Kalahandi. For the year 1990, the District Judge, Ganjam, made an adverse entry not only with regard to his knowledge of law and judicial capacity, but also about his reputation of integrity and impartiality even though he was rated as an average officer. For the year 1989 his knowledge of law and judicial capacity was rated as poor on civil side and not up to the mark on criminal side. He was found not to be industrious and about his promptness in disposal of cases it was rated that he is not up to the mark. In the year 1989, he had received the comment from the District Judge that he needs lot of improvement on the civil side. Taking an overall view of the performances of this officer, the Committee is of the opinion that he should be required to retire in public interest prematurely.” 29. After going through same, it appears that the Review Committee has taken into consideration the report of 1991 with regard to knowledge of law and judicial capacity of petitioner but as noted above, the Officer has no such adverse remark in 1991. After going through same, it appears that the Review Committee has taken into consideration the report of 1991 with regard to knowledge of law and judicial capacity of petitioner but as noted above, the Officer has no such adverse remark in 1991. For the year 1989 the observation of the Review Committee that the knowledge of law and judicial capacity of the Officer on Civil side and Criminal side and promptness in disposal of cases are related to the second part of 1989 although he has got no adverse remark in these areas in the first part of 1989. Similarly in 1990 although the Review Committee has observed that the Officer has got bad reputation but again same relates to 1st part of 1990 but in the second part of 1990 he has got good reputation of integrity and impartiality. It appears that the Review Committee has not considered the ACR of the petitioner for whole of the year 1989 and 1990. As per procedural law, the ACR of an employee is to be read for the whole of the year but not in piecemeal. Apart from this, in view of decisions in Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) and Pyare Mohan Lal (supra) the Review Committee ought to have taken the ACR of the entire years of service when the petitioner has got improvement in the last four years and he has got no adverse integrity except the first part of 1985 and first part of 1990, which are not based on any documents to support the same as per procedural norms issued by the Court. It is reiterated that the Review Committee has not considered the entire years of service record of the petitioner but took the decision basing on some adverse remark for fraction of some years. Of course, it is for the Registry to place the material before the Review Committee so as to come to a conclusion. Apart from this, there is no disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Also there was no allegation pending on the date of Review Committee meeting to doubt the integrity or the capability of the petitioner. Of course, it is for the Registry to place the material before the Review Committee so as to come to a conclusion. Apart from this, there is no disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Also there was no allegation pending on the date of Review Committee meeting to doubt the integrity or the capability of the petitioner. In view of our observation above, we are of the view that the recommendation of the High Court for compulsory retirement of the Officer is not based on proper material and as such the decision of the State Government retiring the petitioner compulsorily is unlawful and arbitrary. The point is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 30. In the writ petition it has been prayed to quash the order of compulsory retirement as issued vide Annexure-6 with consequential benefits. As the order of the Opposite Party No.1 in retiring the petitioner compulsorily at the age of 50 years is unlawful and arbitrary, same should be quashed and the Court do so. In the meantime since the Officer has already attained the age of superannuation, the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge (Sub-Judge) till the age of superannuation as per the Rule applicable to him and accordingly we direct the opposite parties to extend the consequential service benefit including financial benefit and retiral benefits to petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.