JUDGMENT : G.K. VYAS, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mohammed Saleem Malik, Officer of Higher Judicial Services, challenging the order dated 31.03.2010 (Annex.9), by which the State Government while exercising powers under Rule 53 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (pension) Rules, 1996, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’) on the recommendation of the Rajasthan High Court, compulsorily retired the officer in public interest on the date of receipt of said order by payment to him of three months’ pay and allowance in lieu of three months’ previous notice. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Munsif and Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 21.01.1992 after due selection in accordance with Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1951. After completion of probation period, he was confirmed on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 11.11.1994 and further he was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 06.12.2000. 3. The petitioner was further promoted as Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 13.12.2004 and thereafter an order was passed on 31.03.2010, whereby on the basis of recommendations of the High Court, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the services while giving salary of three months of Rs.1,61,982/-. 4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement, so also, a prayer has been made in the petitioner to quash the Circular dated 20.07.2007 (Annex.8) so also, Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, but during the course of arguments the prayers to quash the Circular dated 20.07.2007 and challenge to Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 were not pressed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that right from entering into the services, the petitioner was granted promotion from time to time on the basis of his satisfactory service right from his initial appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, to the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, on ad-hoc basis, till 13.12.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that right from entering into the services, the petitioner was granted promotion from time to time on the basis of his satisfactory service right from his initial appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, to the post of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, on ad-hoc basis, till 13.12.2004. According to petitioner, the last promotion on the post of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) was made in pursuance of policy laid down by the Union of India to appoint meritorious judges against fast track posts of Additional District Judge so as to reduce the pendency of the cases and in order to give speedy trial and speedy justice to the public. The case of the petitioner was considered under the said policy due to his meritorious satisfactory services on the post of ADJ (FT) with effect from 31.12.2004. As per petitioner, in his entire service tenure not a single memorandum or charge sheet was ever served upon him, so also, no adverse entries in his ACR was communicated and his services remained absolutely unblemished. It is also pointed out that in last preceding ten years from the date of compulsory retirement, the disposal percentage of the petitioner was very high and to prove the said fact details are incorporated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that work of the petitioner was appreciated by all inspecting Judges of High Court where he was posted in his service tenure, and no adverse remark was ever made or communicated to him and as per petitioner’s knowledge most of the judgments rendered by him, were affirmed by the High Court. In none of the judgments, any adverse comments or structure were passed against the petitioner by any of the Hon’ble Judges or by the District Judges of the respective districts, where the petitioner discharged his duties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 there is provision for compulsory retirement. The said rule provides that at any point of time, after Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the power can be exercised to retire an employee in public interest. 6. The said rule provides that at any point of time, after Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the power can be exercised to retire an employee in public interest. 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner there is no doubt that under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, there is power left with the State Government or with the High Court to compulsory retire an employee compulsorily, further under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 53 there is provision that at the time of compulsory retirement, the appointing authority shall give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in public interest or three months’ pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. In this case, when the order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner in lieu of three months’ notice, pay and allowances were paid which was withdrawn by the petitioner under protest. 7. While inviting our attention towards service record, it is submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any punishment in his entire service tenure, so also, no enquiry has ever been held against him, nor any adverse APAR was communicated to him, therefore, it can be said conveniently that service record of the petitioner was unblemished. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is not based upon consideration germane to the matter and exercise of powers conferred by Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. More so, powers to give compulsory retirement have been exercised in arbitrary manner, and it appears that decision has not been taken after objective consideration of above facts therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as per reply of the respondents, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee and on the basis of recommendations of the screening committee, action has been taken. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as per reply of the respondents, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee and on the basis of recommendations of the screening committee, action has been taken. Of course, the screening committee is not required to hear the petitioner, but at the same time, it was the duty of the screening committee to consider the entire service record in right prospect objectively but ignoring the aforesaid facts the screening committee recommended the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement and those recommendations were placed before the full court and after approval of full court, the order of compulsory retirement dated 31.03.2010 was passed by the State Government. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid order was quite shocking, punitive because it has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and without there being any material to form an opinion that the petitioner has become deadwood or is no more required to be retained in service as he has lost utility or he has become inefficient or for any other valid reason, he is required to be compulsorily retired. Against the said order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 25.06.2010 (Annex.10) and informed that he is getting the cheque encashed under protest. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per information given to the petitioner by the respondent No.2, all the complaints received against the petitioner were filed under the orders of the competent authority, therefore, there is nothing on record to show that integrity of the petitioner is doubtful or he was incompetent to discharge the official duties or he was inefficient in due performance of his duties. It is also submitted that Government servant enjoys all protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and if any order passed against him with an element of stigma attracts Article 311 of the Constitution of India and in this case although order has been passed purporting to be an order of compulsory retirement but in substance and in fact it is a major punishment, therefore not sustainable in law. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as recording of remarks is concerned, it is always done with an object to enable the Government servant to improve upon his service and to overcome the deficiency in the performance of duties and it is not recorded with a view to punish a Government servant and to guide and to enable him to improve efficiency. The said remark is required to be communicated to him so as to provide an opportunity to prefer representation for expunging the same. In the case of the petitioner, no such adverse remarks were communicated to him, so also, no punishment is inflicted upon him, nor any enquiry is instituted nor any explanation with regard to adverse remarks was called for, therefore, it is obvious that the screening committee formed its opinion without any material to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner. It is further argued that dispensation of justice is honorous job. In every lis, one party is always dissatisfied, therefore, judicial officers incurs displeasure of litigants which at times results into lodging of complaints and there are social factors since the society consists of all types of persons and someone is jealous and out of personal vengeance, complaints are made, which in fact are totally devoid of any merit. Therefore, such complaints unless enquired into, cannot be even looked into against the employee and if such complaints are permitted to be looked into, it will be causing enormous irreparable loss to a Judicial Officer because the complaints, which contain all kinds of allegations, which are not established, yet they are considered as such on their face value, as such the consideration of complaints without having been enquired into so as to form opinion for compulsory retirement is per se illegal and any recommendation of a committee on the basis of filed complaints, vitiates the entire recommendations. Consequently, approval of the recommendations by the Full Court is also illegal, therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement became untenable and deserves to be quashed. 12. It is further argued that if the committee or the High Court intends to act upon any complaint, then natural justice comes into play and at least petitioner was required to be called upon to explain the allegations and they are required to be investigated in a proper manner. 12. It is further argued that if the committee or the High Court intends to act upon any complaint, then natural justice comes into play and at least petitioner was required to be called upon to explain the allegations and they are required to be investigated in a proper manner. On the contrary, in the present case, most of the complaints were devoid of any merit, and accordingly, filed; and if any complaint was pending, then that too cannot be looked into without assessing the veracity of the allegations mentioned therein. Therefore, if the committee has based its recommendation only on account of pendency of complaints, it vitiates the order of compulsory retirement. The crux of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without any adverse material on record, the screening committee recommended his case for compulsory retirement and it has been approved mechanically by the full court without considering the fact that recommendations are not based upon any adverse material available on record, therefore, order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention towards following judgments: 1. Ishwar Chand jain Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Anr. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1395 . 2. Punjab and Haryana High Court through R.G. Vs. Ishwar chand Jain, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1677 . 3. Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580 . 4. Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & ors. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 221 . 5. Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1018 . 6. R.P. Malhotra Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 2055 . 7. Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1987 SC 948 . 8. Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 247 . 9. Dr. Sant Ram Kapoor Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & ors. CWP No.1744 of 2004 10. Registrar High Court of Madras Vs. Rajiash and K. Rajeshwaran, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 211 . 11. Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 84 . 12. Baikunth Nath Das Vs. 9. Dr. Sant Ram Kapoor Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & ors. CWP No.1744 of 2004 10. Registrar High Court of Madras Vs. Rajiash and K. Rajeshwaran, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 211 . 11. Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 SC 84 . 12. Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 . 13. Preetam Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in (2005) 9 SCC 748 . 14. Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 758 . 15. Sri Bapuji Vs.The State of Karnataka & Ors. Writ Petition No.30016 of 2009. 16. M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 3058 . 17. Bhanwar Lal Lamror Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.783/2011 18. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 . 19. S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 . 20. State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 529 . 21. H.C. Gargi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1987 SC 65 . 22. Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 23. Baldev Raj Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 321 . 24. R.S. Sood Vs. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 493 . 25. Kalyan Singh @ K.S. Goswami Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Anr. (DB Civil Writ Petition No.267/2005 and Ved Priya Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1993/2005). 13. In this petition, a reply has been filed by the respondent No.2 Rajasthan High Court, in which it is pleaded that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is based to impose punishment for a proved misconduct as prescribed in the statutory rules. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1993/2005). 13. In this petition, a reply has been filed by the respondent No.2 Rajasthan High Court, in which it is pleaded that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is based to impose punishment for a proved misconduct as prescribed in the statutory rules. In the reply, facts with regard to appointment of the petitioner and promotions have not been disputed by the respondent No.2, however, it is submitted that for the purpose of retiring a Government employee compulsorily under Rule 53, it is not necessary that a person has suffered any punishment in his entire service period, and the only consideration is whether such officer has become a liability and his retention in the service is considered to be undesirable and is not in public interest. In the case of the petitioner, his entire profile was examined minutely by the committee of Hon’ble Judges and based on the same, an opinion was formed to retire the petitioner compulsorily under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 14. It is also submitted that merely because the petitioner has not been punished, it cannot be said that the respondent cannot invoke Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 when the said powers are very wide power of the employer under which a Government employee could be retired compulsorily if after going through the entire record, it is found that Government servant has lost his efficiency or has become a liability for the Government. In the instant matter, the case of the petitioner was considered by the committee of Hon’ble Justices constituted by the Chief Justice and that committee examined the entire service record including service book, personal and other material and come the conclusion that continuance of service of the petitioner is not in public interest because petitioner proved himself to be a liability upon judicial service. The report of the committee dated 02.03.2010 was accepted by the full court in its meeting held on 20.03.2010 unanimously and, therefore, on the recommendation of the High Court, the State Government passed an order for compulsory retirement dated 31.03.2010, in which there is no illegality. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the committee applied its mind towards entire service record and considered all aspect of the matter. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the committee applied its mind towards entire service record and considered all aspect of the matter. The petitioner filed an application on 13.04.2010 for seeking information regarding complaints against him and requisite information regarding complaints were supplied to him vide order dated 03.05.2010. It is further submitted that original confidential record and minutes could not be supplied in view of Rule 882 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, but original record and minutes will be kept ready for perusal of the court. It is submitted that merely because the complaints received against the petitioner were filed, without any adverse entry made in his service record, would not mean that his overall reputation was that of an efficient officer of the judicial service. The judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges discharge their functions exercising the sovereign judicial powers of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt and it should be reflected in their overall reputation. In the case of the petitioner evaluation of the service record reflected that he has proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service because number of complaints were received but no action was taken and as such the screening committee made recommendation for compulsory retirement, after recording subjective satisfaction, which was further approved by the full court. The screening committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is liable to be compulsorily retired because the allegations of complaints which is not enquired in proper manner, reflected that the petitioner outlived his utility, therefore, it is desirable to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner. It is true that complaints were filed and no action was taken on four complaints, but it does not create any right in favour of petitioner because the screening committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 13.11.2009 has taken into consideration all the pros and cons of the entire service career of the petitioner and after subjective satisfaction recommended his case for compulsory retirement, which is subsequently approved by full court. 15. 15. With regard to submission of the petitioner for applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the said provision do not apply to an order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 because it cannot be passed by way of punishment for misconduct, so also, the order is not stigmatic in nature. The Government servant bears no civil or evil consequences as he is entitled to all retiral benefits, therefore, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent High Court submitted that in the entire judicial career of the petitioner there were several complaints regarding favoritism, misbehaviour, misuse of powers, taking bribes and removing order sheets from the record etc. After examining the service record and personal files of the petitioner, the committee constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice formed an opinion that the petitioner is a liability on the judicial service. Therefore, in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naval Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 , the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him in this writ petition. In the case of Naval Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial powers of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further, it held that nature of the judicial service is such that it can not 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, which is affirmed subsequently, it cannot be said that no order of compulsory retirement can be passed. The entire service record is required to be seen which has been done in this case. In the reply it is not disputed that any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under the disciplinary rules, nor it is refuted by the respondent that adverse remarks were communicated to him. The entire service record is required to be seen which has been done in this case. In the reply it is not disputed that any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under the disciplinary rules, nor it is refuted by the respondent that adverse remarks were communicated to him. The only argument is that there were several complaints against the petitioner though those complaints were filed, but at the time of assessing the service record by the screening committee, the entire service record was seen and finally the committee opined that petitioner has lost his utility to perform the duties as judicial officer. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no force in this writ petition and, hence same deserves to be dismissed. 17. The respondent No.2 also placed before us the entire service record of the petitioner including, minutes, consideration of his case by the screening committee, in which case of the petitioner was recommended for compulsory retirement. The respondent No.2 invited our attention towards following judgments: 1. Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 2. State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Das reported in AIR 1996 SC 2436 . 3. Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. reported in AIr 2010 SC 3753 . 4. Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. And Others Vs. (11 of 12) [CW-12392/2011] Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) And Others reported in (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 5. Registrar General, Patna High Court Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2319 . 6. R.C. Chandel Vs. High Court of M.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2962 . 7. O.P. Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.668/2002, decided on 06.12.2013) 8. Yashpal Singh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12093/2010, decided on 19.08.2013). 9. Siddarth Kumar Jain Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1997/2001, decided on 18.04.2014). 10. Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No.782/2011, decided on 28.07.2016) 11. Barkatullah Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBCWP No.12392/2011, decided on 30.03.2017) 18. Relying upon recent judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1997/2001, decided on 18.04.2014). 10. Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No.782/2011, decided on 28.07.2016) 11. Barkatullah Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBCWP No.12392/2011, decided on 30.03.2017) 18. Relying upon recent judgments of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No.782/2011, decided on 28.07.2016), and Division Bench judgment in the case of Barkatullah Khan Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBCWP No.12392/2011, decided on 30.03.2017), learned counsel for the respondent submits that no case is made out for interference in view of aforesaid judgment. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, first of all we have perused the minutes of the committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 02.03.2010, in which the case of the petitioner was considered and recommended for compulsory retirement. The minutes of the committee are as follows: - “MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 02.03.2010 AT COMMON ROOM, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR TO CONSIDER THE CASES OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER RULE 53 (1) OF THE RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1996 PRESENT HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.C. TATIA HON’BLE Mr. DALIP SINGH, HON’BLE Mr. J.R. GOYAL Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Registrar (Admn.), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur is also present to assist the Committee. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 as amended vide Notification No.F.15 (3) FD (Rules)/1999 dated 08.06.2004, provides for compulsory retirement of Government servants on completion of 15 years of qualifying service or attaining age of 50 years whichever is earlier Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996, vide order dated 30.11.2009 constituted a committee comprising of Hon’ble Judges: (1) Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Rathore- Chairman (2) Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Tatia- Member (3) Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.R. Panwar- Member (4) Hon’ble Mr. Dalip Singh- Member (5) Hon’ble Mr. J.R. Goyal- Member xxxx (20) Shri Mohd. Salim Malik He was born on 15.02.1962 and entered in the service on 27.01.1992 in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services. File No.R/Vig/197/97 Anonymous complaint of misuse of power and office and of corruption was lodged when the Officer was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Osian but it was not signed and supported by affidavit, therefore, was filed. Salim Malik He was born on 15.02.1962 and entered in the service on 27.01.1992 in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services. File No.R/Vig/197/97 Anonymous complaint of misuse of power and office and of corruption was lodged when the Officer was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Osian but it was not signed and supported by affidavit, therefore, was filed. File No.R/Vig/210/97 A complaint was lodged by 4 Advocates on 08.09.1997 that Shri Mohd. Salim Malik had not written the order-sheet in C.O. No.99/96 and C. Misc. No.87/96 and in his Court several case files are lying without recording any order sheets. Since Officer was posted at jodhpur, therefore, Registrar (Vigilance) immediately on the same day went to the above officer’s Court and seized total 12 case files, wherein order sheets were not written. These files were of different dates but in all those files order sheets were not drawn and, therefore, were not signed by the Officer. Hon’ble Senior Judge of this Court examined the matter and found that enquiry under Rule 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 be initiated against the Officer. Inspite of said recommendation made by the Hon’ble Judge of this Court Hon’ble Shri V.S. Kokje, J, it was ordered on 05.12.1997 that nothing further is to be done. File No.R/Vig/273/98 It appears that in the C.O. No.39/98 and C.M. No.36/98, CO No.38/98 and CM No.35/98, CO No.239/98 and CM No.256/98, CO No.215/98 and CM No.194/98 and in CO No.265/98 and CM No.233/98, some orders were passed by the above officer Shri Mohd. Salim Malik from which Jt. Registrar General (Vigilance) after examining the above files, held as under: - “On the basis of above facts, prima facie it reveals that contradictory orders have been passed and pre-matters require to be decided earlier kept pending and in few cases application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was held premature, whereas the same should have been decided on the basis of the facts pleaded in the plaints. In the cases mentioned at S. No.1 and 2, huge amount was involved but temporary injunction was passed.” On this report, it was ordered that matter be placed before the Administrative Committee in which general transfer are to be considered. File No.R/Vig/24/99 Signed complaint received against the Officer for passing order on the basis of caste. In the cases mentioned at S. No.1 and 2, huge amount was involved but temporary injunction was passed.” On this report, it was ordered that matter be placed before the Administrative Committee in which general transfer are to be considered. File No.R/Vig/24/99 Signed complaint received against the Officer for passing order on the basis of caste. The said complaint was filed in view of the fact that one more complaint was submitted which has already been filed. File No.R/Vig/84/2002 The complaint received from Bikaner that after hearing arguments the judgment was not pronounced up to 18.03.2002 and complaint placed on record and order sheets from 03.10.2001 to 18.03.2002. The complaint was filed on 16.08.2002. File No.R/Vig/123/202 It was complaint of corruption but was not supported by affidavit and, therefore, it was filed. File No.R/Vig/634/2003 Complaint was about giving threat to the complainant to vacate the house of the landlord otherwise officer will direct ASI to submit challan against complainant under Section 454, 380 IPC. this complaint was filed on 10.02.2004. File No.R/Vig/160/2004 A postcard received that in EC Act cases the officer is receiving bribe of Rs.one lac for acquittal. In this file there is a reference of earlier similar complaint which has already been filed. In view of the above, this complaint too was filed. File No.R/Vig/217/2004 A signed complaint supported by affidavit alleged that the order sheets from the case file of the complainant were removed and he has wrongly been fined with Rs.400/-. this complaint was filed on 21.05.2004. File No.R/Vig/420/2004 As per the note in the file, serious allegations of corrupt practices were levelled against the Officer Shri Salim Malik with allegation that Officer had friendship with Shri Pusraj Soni, Anita Soni and Loknath Soni. A short date was given for appearance in a case after taking bail and case was fixed at Bikaner and mother of the complainant was not in position to reach there in short time and the Officer asked the complainant to meet in Chamber where Rs.10,000/- were demanded from him. In another case Nos.97/2001 and 45/1998 also bribe was demanded. These number of complaints and those were filed on 10.11.2004 and 13.06.2005. File No.R/Vig/173/2005 Anonymous complaint about his behaviour and not writing judgment in time was submitted which was filed on 22.07.2005. File No.R/Vig/128/2006 A complaint of not deciding cases under M.V. Act and keeping pending the refund applications etc. In another case Nos.97/2001 and 45/1998 also bribe was demanded. These number of complaints and those were filed on 10.11.2004 and 13.06.2005. File No.R/Vig/173/2005 Anonymous complaint about his behaviour and not writing judgment in time was submitted which was filed on 22.07.2005. File No.R/Vig/128/2006 A complaint of not deciding cases under M.V. Act and keeping pending the refund applications etc. was enquired into and that application was filed as per dated 06.01.2007 after enquiry. File No.R/Vig/97/2006 A detailed complaint with copies of award passed in claim cases was filed but after preliminary enquiry no action was proposed and complaint was filed. File No.R/Vig/202/2008 One telegraphic complaint received from Beawar alleging that the Officer is adamant to convict him and that complaint was filed by order dated 11.12.2008. File No.R/Vig/389/2008 This complaint was of general allegation and filed on 29.05.2009. File No.R/Vig/149/2009 The above complaint came by post but said complaint is not signed by anybody and no order yet has been passed on the said complaint. File No.R/Vig/456/2009 Unsigned typed complaint of bad character of the Officer received by post on which no order yet has been passed. File No.R/Vig/465/2009 This detailed complaint has been submitted along with photo-stat copy of the sale deeds alleging that Officer was of poor financial condition before he came in service and by this time he has purchased several plots/properties in the name of his family members and close relations, whose names have been mentioned in the complaint. This complaint is pending. File No.R/Vig/506/2009 The Beawar Bar Association through President sent a complaint with copies of several orders and other documents with allegation that Officer is under influence of one Additional Public Prosecutor and he threatened the advocates to convict their clients if they do not dance to his tune and further there are allegations of harassment. The complaint has been filed. The Office provided record of several complaints regarding favoritism, misbehaviour, misuse of power and taking bribe and removing order sheets from the record. Presently there are four complaints pending which includes acquisition of assets of huge amount and using unparliamentary language etc. The Officer’s complaints have been received from the Advocates Association wherein it has been alleged that Officer’s behaviour with the Advocates is derogative. He is involved in favourtism and abused the Advocates. Presently there are four complaints pending which includes acquisition of assets of huge amount and using unparliamentary language etc. The Officer’s complaints have been received from the Advocates Association wherein it has been alleged that Officer’s behaviour with the Advocates is derogative. He is involved in favourtism and abused the Advocates. The Advocates Association sent a resolution taken by them against the Officer and also placed on record several documents in support of their complaint. In view of overall assessment of the service record including personal and other files of Shri Mohd. Salim Malik, he has proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service and, therefore, in the public interest such judicial officer may be compulsorily retired immediately. It is further recommended that enquiry, if any, pending against him under Rules 16 and 17 of the CCA Rules, may be dropped. It is further recommended that the Officer may be given a Bank Draft of the amount equivalent to three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice period along with order of retirement.” It is true that in the entire service record, no enquiry or charge sheet was given to the petitioner either under Rule 17 or 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958. It is also admitted position of the case that except four complaints, number of complaints were received against the petitioner since 1997, were filed without taking any action, which is apparent from the details considered by the committee. 20. The complaint No.1 (File No.R/Vig./197/97) which is said to be filed regarding misuse of power and office and of corruption was unsigned and not supported by affidavit, therefore, it was filed. The complaint No.2 (File No.R/Vig./210/97) was lodged by four advocates on 08.09.1997 in which it is stated that petitioner had not written order sheet in Case No.99/1996 and Misc. Case No.87/1996, and in several case files were lying without drawing any order sheet. For enquiry of aforesaid complaint, the Registrar (Vigilance) immediately made search and seized total 12 case files of different dates, in none of those files even order sheets were not drawn. The Hon’ble Senior Judge of this Court examined the matter and found that enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 be initiated against the officer but it is very strange that no action was taken and that complaint was filed without any reason. The Hon’ble Senior Judge of this Court examined the matter and found that enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958 be initiated against the officer but it is very strange that no action was taken and that complaint was filed without any reason. In view of above fact, it is established that there was element of inefficiency of the petitioner, who was working as judicial officer and inspite of recommendation for disciplinary enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, in the administrative side, the complaint was filed inspite of the fact that in preliminary enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance), misconduct was found. 21. In complaint No.3 (File No.R/Vig./273/98) the screening committee considered the fact that order passed in some of the cases were examined by the Registrar, Vigilance, and after examination of files, it was found that contradictory orders were passed and some matters were not decided in accordance with rules. Inspite of above observation the only action was taken to transfer the petitioner. 22. The complaint No.4 (File No.R/Vig./24/99) was also filed without enquiry, but it is nowhere observed that facts stated in the complaint are false. The complaint No.5 (File No.R/Vig./84/2002) was received when the petitioner was posted at Bikaner, in which an allegation was that after hearing arguments judgment was pronounced after five months but no action was taken upon said complaint, nor any reason was disclosed to file the complaint. 23. With regard to complaint No.6 (File No.R/Vig./123/2002), the committee observed that in the complaint allegations for corruption were made but it was not supported by affidavit, therefore, it was filed. 24. For complaint No.7 (File No.R/Vig./634/2003), the committee observed that allegations levelled against the officer for giving threat to the complainant to vacate the house of the landlord, otherwise it was threatened that ASI will be directed to submit Challan against the complainant under Section 454 and 380 IPC. The said complaint was filed without recording any reason and enquiry. 25. It is discussed by the committed that complaint No.8 (File No.R/Vig./160/2004) was received on a postcard in relation to Essential Commodities cases in which the officer received bribe of rupee one lac for acquittal. The said complaint was filed for the reason that earlier such complaint was received, and was filed. Meaning thereby, no enquiry was conducted upon the said complaint also. 26. The said complaint was filed for the reason that earlier such complaint was received, and was filed. Meaning thereby, no enquiry was conducted upon the said complaint also. 26. As per consideration of the committee, signed complaint No.8 (File No.R/Vig./217/2004) supported by affidavit, was received, in which it was stated that order sheets from case file of complainant were removed and complainant was wrongly saddled with fine of Rs.400/- but without enquiry the said complaint was also filed. 27. The committee while considering the complaint No.9 (File No.R/Vig./420/2004) observed that serious allegations of corrupt practice were levelled against the petitioner with regard to friendship with one Pusraj Soni, Anita Soni and Loknath Soni. A short date was given for appearance in the case after taking bail and the case was fixed at Bikaner where mother of the complainant was not in a position to reach there in short time and officer asked the complainant to meet in the chamber, where Rs.10,000/- were demanded from him. But as per official record, no enquiry was conducted and the complaint was filed. 28. With regard to complaint No.10 (File No.R/Vig./176/2005), it is observed by the committee that said complaint was anonymous complaint about his behaviour and not writing judgment in time but said complaint was also filed without enquiry. 29. With regard to complaint No.11 (File No.R/Vig./128/2006), it is alleged that officer did not decide the case under M.V. Act and keep cases pending with regard to refund application etc. The said complaint was enquired into and was filed after enquiry. 30. The complaint No.12 (File No.R/Vig./97/2006) was along with copies of award passed in claim cases but after preliminary enquiry no action was proposed and complaint was filed. 31. The complaint No.13 (File No.R/Vig./202/2008) was received on telephone from Beawar levelling allegation against the officer that officer was adamant to convict him but said complaint was also filed without any enquiry. 32. The complaint No.14 (File No.R/Vig./389/2008) was received for general allegations but filed without any enquiry. 33. The unsigned complaint No.15 (File No.R/Vig./149/2009) was received by post, was pending on the date of consideration by the committee. 34. The complaint No.16 (File No.R/Vig./456/2009) was an unsigned typed complaint for bad character of the officer received by post. On this complaint, no order was passed till the decision was taken for compulsory retirement. 35. 33. The unsigned complaint No.15 (File No.R/Vig./149/2009) was received by post, was pending on the date of consideration by the committee. 34. The complaint No.16 (File No.R/Vig./456/2009) was an unsigned typed complaint for bad character of the officer received by post. On this complaint, no order was passed till the decision was taken for compulsory retirement. 35. The complaint No.17 (File No.R/Vig./465/2009) was a detailed complaint submitted along with photostat copy of the sale-deeds alleging that officer was of poor financial condition before he came in Judicial service and by this time he purchased several plots/properties in the name of his family members and close relatives, whose names were mentioned in the complaint. The said complaint was pending on the date of consideration by the committee Another complaint No.18 (File No.R/Vig./ 506/2009) was received from Bar Association through President along with copies of several orders and documents with the allegations that officer was under influence of one Addl. Public Prosecutor and gave threatening to the advocates to convict their clients if they do not dance to his tune and further there are allegations of harassment but said complaint was filed without any reason. 36. On aforesaid details of the complaints, the screening committee formed the opinion that service record including personal and other files of the officer Mr. Mohammed Saleem Malik established that he had proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service because in most of the complaints serious allegations were levelled but without any reason or enquiry, those complaints were filed, therefore, the screening committee made recommendation for his compulsory retirement. 37. On assessment of the details of the complaints, it is obvious that although complaints were not enquired into and no adverse remarks were recorded in the service record, but it is established that number of complaints were received against the petitioner in between the year 1997 to 2009. In some of the complaints although allegations were found to be correct but no action was taken and complaints were filed without any reason, some of the complaints were filed for the reason that complaints were not signed, therefore, no action was taken against him inspite of findings of the Registrar, Vigilance, and by the High Court. In some of the complaints although allegations were found to be correct but no action was taken and complaints were filed without any reason, some of the complaints were filed for the reason that complaints were not signed, therefore, no action was taken against him inspite of findings of the Registrar, Vigilance, and by the High Court. In view of above facts it is established from the record that petitioner’s service record was under the clouds, therefore, the recommendations of the screening committee for compulsory retirement based upon entire service record of the petitioner cannot be termed baseless. 38. As per settled principle of administration, for any misconduct committed by the employee, action is required to be taken under Rule 17 or 16 of the CCA Rules as per seriousness of misconduct committed by the officer, but here in this case, although number of complaints were received and in some cases opinion was formed after inspection that there is element of misconduct, inspite of that those complaints were filed with a view that officer will improve his work performance but as per assessment of the screening committee, objective satisfaction was recorded before making recommendations for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It appears from the record made available before us for perusal and reply that the opinion formed by the screening committee on the basis of overall assessment of service record including personal and other files of the officer that the petitioner has proved himself to be a liability for judicial service and, therefore, in public interest cannot be permitted to work as judicial officer. 39. It is settled law that order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma, nor any suggestion of misbehaviour, and is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority and this principle has been consistently followed by the Apex Court in number of judgments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of judgments that competent authority is under obligation to consider the entire service record before taking action for compulsory retirement, of course attaching more importance of service record of later 5-10 years but at the same time, as far as honesty and integrity of officer is concerned, even a solitary instance could be considered to be sufficient and there cannot be any compromise with regard to honesty and integrity of a judicial officer. In the case of Bainkuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. reported in FIR 1992 SC 1020, certain guiding principles are laid down for courts, on which order of compulsory retirement can be interfered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or the Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material: in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter- of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks loose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 40. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and Ors. V. C.S.N. Murthy reported in AIR 1992 SC 1368 and in the case of Naval Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 and in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and Ors. V. C.S.N. Murthy reported in AIR 1992 SC 1368 and in the case of Naval Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 117 and in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3753 and in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. And Others Vs. (11 of 12) [CW- 12392/2011] Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) And Others reported in (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1. 41. In all these cases, it has been held that while considering the case of the officer as to whether he should be continued in service or compulsorily retired, his entire service record up to that date, on which consideration is made, has to be taken into account. It is also held that the officer after an earlier adverse entry was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse record an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse record. When the law says that the entire service record has to be taken into consideration, the earlier adverse entry, which forms a part of the service record, would also be relevant irrespective of the fact whether the officer concerned was promoted to higher position or whether he was granted certain benefits like increments etc. 42. We have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the judgments, cited by the petitioner, loudly speaks that authorities discharging public functions must act fairly and should not take into consideration irrelevant or extraneous matter, which is not germane for the purpose sought to be achieved. The screening committee should consider the entire material in right prospect before forming an opinion that employee had become deadwood, inefficient or corrupt and has abused its powers. There is no doubt with regard to principle that subjective satisfaction should be recorded by the screening committee before forming opinion. In this case there is no doubt that in entire service period, any departmental enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner for committing misconduct. There is no doubt with regard to principle that subjective satisfaction should be recorded by the screening committee before forming opinion. In this case there is no doubt that in entire service period, any departmental enquiry was not initiated against the petitioner for committing misconduct. It also emerges from the facts that no adverse remark was communicated to the petitioner and promotions were accorded to him as per rules but we cannot lose sight of the fact that number of complaints were lodged against the petitioner since the year 1997 to 2009. In some of the complaints, after preliminary enquiry it was recommended for taking action under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, inspite of that complaint was filed, in some of the complaints without making any enquiry it was filed, in one complaint, the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court made an enquiry and seized total 12 case files, wherein orders were not written, and those files were of different dates. Some complaints were filed because those complaints were not signed or supported by affidavit. Some of the complaints were pending on the date of consideration. 43. Upon assessment of entire grounds taken by the petitioner in the writ petition as well as reply and record of the case, the question arose whether the decision taken by the screening committee is based upon subjective satisfaction or not because as per settled principle of the law the decision of compulsory retirement must be based upon subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. It is true that at the time of judicial scrutiny the court can certainly consider the fact whether valid material existed or not, or whether order of compulsory retirement is based upon trustworthy material or not but sufficiency of material cannot be ground for setting aside the order of compulsory retirement because order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. In the present case, although no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for punishment for any misconduct, nor any adverse remark was communicated to him in entire service period, but the committee formed opinion on the basis of decision taken by the administration upon number of complaints lodged against the petitioner, in which inspite of serious allegations no action was taken for conducting enquiry. 44. 44. We have also perused the reasons for filing the complaints, inspite of recommendation for taking action, in our opinion, a judicial officer cannot claim benefit of decision, whereby inspite of serious allegations, complaints were filed without taking any action against him, his performance is required to be assessed minutely, therefore, the screening committee inspite of the fact that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in his entire service record and no adverse remark is recorded or communicated to him, forming opinion to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner for the reason that although number of complaints for serious misconduct were received but in administrative side no action was taken, inspite of fact that allegations in the complaints were found to be correct. Receiving of number of serious complaints for number of years from the places, where the petitioner was posted as judicial officer itself is sufficient for taking a decision for compulsory retirement because compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the incumbent remain entitled for all service benefits for the services rendered by him. 45. We have also considered the complete record placed before us and assessed the same in the light of decisions taken upon those complaints in the administrative side. In our opinion, no illegality has been committed by the screening committee, so as to recommend the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement because the committee, while examining overall service record of the petitioner, formed an opinion that officer has proved himself to be a liability upon judicial service and becoming a deadwood, therefore, in public interest, such officer deserves to be retired compulsorily. The recommendation of the screening committee was placed before the full court and in full court, unanimous decision was taken after due deliberation to approve the recommendation of the screening committee, therefore, it cannot be said that the order has been passed without application of mind. More so, a right procedure has been taken by the Court in taking decision with regard to compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 46. In view of above discussion, we do not find any error being committed by the respondents in taking the impugned decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2010 (Annex.9), therefore, the instant writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.