JUDGMENT Ajay Rastogi, J. - By the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who was a member of Rajasthan Judicial Service has impugned the order of his compulsory retirement passed by the State of Rajasthan dated 31.03.2010 in exercise of powers conferred u/R.53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (in short ''the Rules, 1996''). 2. The brief facts of the case which may be culled out for the present purpose are that the petitioner after his regular selection was appointed in the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 24.07.1985 and on completion of the period of probation he was confirmed vide order dated 21.01.1987 and was further promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 13.06.1999 and posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16.09.2002. He was further promoted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 17.04.2003. 3. While the petitioner was working as the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Hon''ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.11.2009 constituted a committee of five Judges of this Court for recommending the names of such of the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or have lost their utility for compulsory retirement obviously who has qualified preconditions, as envisages u/R.53(1) of Rules, 1996 in public interest. 4. Since one of the Hon''ble Judge stood retired, Hon''ble the Chief Justice re-constituted the Committee of the remaining four Hon''ble Judges and the committee under orders of Hon''ble the Chief Justice, considered the cases of good number of Judicial Officers including the petitioner and after examining overall appraisal of work performance of all the Officers, their service record, department enquiries, punishment, reputation, integrity, behavior with members of Bar & litigants, disposal figures and ACRs, etc. in its meeting held on 02.03.2010, arrived to a conclusion that the petitioner along with other Officers became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the petitioner & accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation, discussions & perusal of the overall service record/ACRs, it was resolved by the Full Court to accept the report of the Committee in its meeting held on 20.03.2010 and recommended petitioner''s compulsory retirement and consequently, vide Government Order dated 31.03.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996 in public interest. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no tangible material against the petitioner in the form of adverse material inasmuch as such of the adverse ACRs/remarks have been considered to be sufficient for his compulsory retirement exercising R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. 6. Counsel further submits that order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is a nonspeaking order & it does not disclose the reasons and being in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. Counsel further submits that the order impugned dated 31.03.2010 has been passed as a measure of penalty and is not in public interest & based on no tangible material on the basis of which even a person with ordinary prudence could arrive to a conclusion in holding the petitioner to be a deadwood and be compulsorily retired in public interest in fulfillment of the object of R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. 8. Counsel submits that the petitioner was never informed regarding downgrading of entry which certainly has caused great prejudice to the him while the decision has been taken for his compulsory retirement and such downgrading of remarks causing prejudice to the petitioner could not have been taken note of by the respondents in taking its decision for his compulsory retirement and such action of the respondents being in violation of the principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Counsel further submits that there are certain enquiries which were dropped on the decision being taken of compulsory retirement and which indeed have reached to the final stage and this appears to be a surreptitious route adopted in passing the order of compulsory retirement without waiting for the final outcome of the pending enquiries against him and this being a punitive action taken against the petitioner is certainly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and needs to be interfered by this court. 10. 10. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents and the material looked into by the Committee has been referred to in the preliminary submissions in detail including the details of ACRs, complaints, Departmental Enquiries, etc., of which reference has been made, which was considered by the Full Court in its meeting held on 20.03.2010 & it was resolved to accept the recommendations of the Committee dated 02.03.2010 regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest and the State Government acting on the recommendations of the respondents passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest dated 31.03.2010. 11. Mr.N.K.Maloo, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order impugned submitted that from the overall assessment of service record including personal and other files of the Officer, he has proved himself to be a liability upon judicial service and, therefore, in the public interest he was recommended for compulsory retirement. The recommendations of the Committee dated 02.03.2010 for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting dated 20.03.2010 after scrutinizing the entire service record and other files of the Officer unanimously in its view observed that recommendations of the Committee deserve acceptance and it will be in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner and consequently vide Government order dated 31.03.2010, the petitioner stood compulsorily retired u/R.53(1) of Rules 1996. 12. Counsel further pointed out that the total record of service has been looked into and considered by the Committee in its report indicates that in the major part of his service he has been rated as ''Average'' and in the year 1990 he was rated as ''Bad Officer'' and his integrity certificate for the year 1990 was withheld. 12. Counsel further pointed out that the total record of service has been looked into and considered by the Committee in its report indicates that in the major part of his service he has been rated as ''Average'' and in the year 1990 he was rated as ''Bad Officer'' and his integrity certificate for the year 1990 was withheld. Remarks which were recorded for the year 1991, in respect of his judicial function and not maintaining time schedule and in the year 1993 one of his judgment was rated as ''below standard'' and similar remarks were recorded in the year 1999 Part-II and that has been considered by the Committee and on overall appraisal, it revealed that he has lost his utility and recommended the petitioner for compulsory retirement, being deadwood, in public interest, which was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting dated 20.03.2010 and accordingly, he was compulsorily retired under order passed by the State of Rajasthan dated 31.03.2010 in public interest. 13. We have heard counsel for the parties & with their assistance examined the material on record. 14. At the outset, we would like to quote R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996 under which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and extract of the Rule which is relevant for the purpose reads ad infra:- "At any time, after a government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest after following the procedure laid down by the Government in Department of Personnel/Administrative Reforms Department. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension". 15. It would be seen from R.53(1) which gives right to the competent authority to retire any government servant who has completed 15 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years whichever is earlier after recording subjective satisfaction of the authority forming opinion that it is in the public interest to pre mature retire government servant from service. 16. 16. Before adverting to the question whether the compulsorily retirement order suffers from any legal infirmity, we would consider it appropriate to refer to the report of the Committee constituted of four Hon''ble Judges who examined overall service record of the petitioner in its meeting held on 02.03.2010. The report reads ad-infra: "(17) Shri Lal Chand Songara He was born on 15.4.1953 and presently posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar. He entered in the service in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Services in the year 1985. Since beginning his work has been rated as only average most of the time and there are few instances of satisfactory or good work. His work was rated average in the year 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003 to 2007. In the year 1989, Hon''ble the Inspecting Judge put remark that he is an average Officer and needs improvement and should work hard. In II part of 1989, again it was recorded that the disposal of work was not adequate and his work in civil cases was almost nil. His control over the Court proceedings is not good. In spite of the fact that he had less number of files he could not achieved prescribed standard of disposal and he should take more interest in knowing law. In the year 1900, there were certain complaints about his integrity and he was found not taking interest in disposal of civil work and his general reputation for honesty was not good. His integrity certificate for the year 1990 was withheld and the Hon''ble Inspecting Judge rated him as below average Officer with lack of sincerity and devotion to work. He was found to be bad Officer by the Hon''ble Chief Justice. His representation was considered and that was rejected. In the year 1991, there is remark that he is not punctual in attending the Court and did not carry out his duty properly in the matter of granting remand and his relation with Bar was not very cordial. He was rated as below average Officer. The adverse entries were communicated, against which he submitted representation which was considered and rejected. He was rated as below average Officer. The adverse entries were communicated, against which he submitted representation which was considered and rejected. The Officer was punished with penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect, against which appeal was also dismissed in a case where the Officer did not go to hospital for giving police remand of the accused who was getting treatment there and the Officer did not pass any positive order either remanding the accused or refusing his remand for custody and the Officer also flouted the directions of his superior. In one case File No. R/Vig''19/91, direction was issued to the Officer that if he do not attend the Court punctually action would be taken against him. In another complaint File No. R/Vig/204/88 during sudden inspection the Officer was found setting in the Chamber and tried to give wrong explanation, upon which direction was issued to the Officer for observing punctuality during Court hours. In the year 2006, in view of the observations made by the Hon''ble Inspecting Judge in sudden inspection report against the Officer his transfer was proposed and in complaint File No. R/Vig./512/06 again the Officer was advised to seek necessary correction in the appearance column of the judgment. Further, in complaint File No. R/Vig./358/07, the Officer was directed to expedite the cases at the earliest as per law. There are two complaints pending consideration and come or more number of complaints have been brought by the Office which are in relation to allegation of bribery, corruption and misbehaviour etc. In view of overall assessment of the service record including personal and other files of Shri Lal Chand Songara, 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. 17. 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. 17. It is indeed 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 their authoritative pronouncements that the authority is under obligation to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision of compulsory retirement of course attaching more importance of service record of later 5-10 years but at the same time, as regards honesty and integrity of Officer is concerned, even a solitary instance could be considered to be sufficient and there cannot be any compromise as regards honesty and integrity of a Judicial Officer. The principle which emerges and laid down for consideration to test the validity of order of compulsory retirement have been considered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr. reported in 1992(2) S.C.T. 92 : AIR 1992 SC 1020 has laid down certain guiding principles for the Courts, on which it can interfere in the order of compulsory retirement and that includes mala fides, if the order is based on no evidence, or if the order is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person with ordinary prudence would form the requisite opinion on the given material, if it is found to be a perverse order. The Court held as under: "(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of 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. 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." 18. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and Ors. vs. C.S.N. Murthy reported in 1992(2) S.C.T 325 : AIR 1992 SC 1368 and the above settled principles as regards judicial service came to be examined by the Apex Court in Nawal Singh vs. State of U.P. And Anr. reported in 2003(4) S.C.T. 413 : (2003) 8 SCC 117 . 19. Taking note of later decision of the Apex Court, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2010(4) S.C.T. 663 : (2010) 10 SCC 693 observed at para-18 of the judgment ad-infra:- "18. reported in 2003(4) S.C.T. 413 : (2003) 8 SCC 117 . 19. Taking note of later decision of the Apex Court, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2010(4) S.C.T. 663 : (2010) 10 SCC 693 observed at para-18 of the judgment ad-infra:- "18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarized to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory rules. 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." 20. This fact cannot be ruled out that judicial service is not a service in the sense of employment and as is commonly understood, Judges are discharging their functions exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. There is no manner of doubt that the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. 21. Compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit. 22. 21. Compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit. 22. It is also settled by the consistent view of the Apex Court that the order of compulsory retirement does not have adverse consequence and, therefore, the principles of natural justice has no role to play and uncommunicated ACR on record can be taken into consideration and an order of compulsory retirement cannot be set aside for the reason that such un-communicated entries was taken into consideration. The incumbent has not been afforded an opportunity to represent before the same was taken into consideration for passing the order of compulsory retirement, will vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. However, the authority has to take into consideration the entire service record of the officer concerned but more attention to the later 5-10 years of record which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also. 23. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. And Others vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) And Others reported in 2012(1) S.C.T. 483 : (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 which reads ad-infra: "It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that while considering the case of an officer as to whether he should be continued in service or compulsorily retired, his entire service record up to that date on which consideration is made has to be taken into account. What weight should be attached to earlier entries as compared to recent entries is a matter of evaluation, but there is no manner of doubt that consideration has to be of the entire service record. The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. When the law says that the entire service record has to be taken into consideration, the earlier adverse entry, which forms a part of the service record, would also be relevant irrespective of the fact whether the officer concerned was promoted to higher position or whether he was granted certain benefits like increments etc. 24. Similar view has been further taken by the Apex Court in R.C. Chandel vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in 2012(4) S.C.T. 399 : (2012) 8 SCC 58 where at para-29 of the judgment the Apex Court observed ad infra:- "29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an office of public trust. A Judge must be a person on impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the standards in the society has fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a Judge. A Judge, like Caesar''s wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty." 25. It is also settled that formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty." 25. It is also settled that formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The Courts can certainly look whether valid material exists or not, or whether the order of compulsory retirement is based on some material or not but sufficiency of material cannot be ground for setting aside the order of compulsory retirement. 26. In the instant case, the respondents have placed on record the complete record of service of the Officer which he rendered as Judicial Officer and was considered by the Committee constituted by Hon''ble the Chief Justice in the meeting held on 02.03.2010 and while examining overall record of service and after evaluation arrived to the conclusion that the Officer has proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service and, therefore, in the public interest such Judicial Officer deserves to be compulsorily retired. 27. Report of the Committee was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court unanimously took decision after due deliberation and there hardly remains any chance of allegation of non-application of mind and no-where it has been alleged malafide in the process which was adopted by the High Court in taking decision in regard to compulsory retirement of the Officer. 28. 28. The submission of counsel for the writ petitioner regarding pendency of Departmental Enquiries and so also the fact that reasons are not assigned while passing the order impugned dated 31.03.2010 and opportunity of hearing has not been afforded before passing the order impugned are wholly without substance for the reason that the Committee made its recommendation based on the record of service of the petitioner and arrived to the conclusion that he has become a liability upon the Judicial Service and deserves to be compulsorily retired in public interest, considered it appropriate to recommend to drop the Departmental Enquiries without waiting for the final fate of the pending enquiries and we too are of the view that if there was sufficient material available on record and the Committee on due appreciation of service record of the Officer, while rendering his services as a Judicial Officer arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner has proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service and deserves to be compulsorily retired in public interest. There was no justification available to continue with the Departmental Enquiries and we find no error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents in taking the decision to drop the Departmental Enquiries. 29. As regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 31.03.2010 is a non-speaking order and there was a violation of principles of natural justice are concerned, both the submissions are wholly without substance for the reason that no reasons are required to be communicated in the matter of compulsory retirement while exercising the power u/R.53(1) of Rules, 1996, but at the same time when the matter comes for judicial review, the respondents are under obligation to justify, based on the assessment of service record, ACRs, etc., for arriving to the conclusion that the employee has become deadwood and compulsory retirement is in public interest. 30. So far as the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the principle has no application in the matter of compulsory retirement as a deadwood losing its utility in public interest and there is no requirement under the law that opportunity of hearing has to be afforded while exercising powers u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. 30. So far as the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the principle has no application in the matter of compulsory retirement as a deadwood losing its utility in public interest and there is no requirement under the law that opportunity of hearing has to be afforded while exercising powers u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. At the same time, after the law being settled by the Apex Court, no opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded and the principles of natural justice has no role to play in the matter of compulsory retirement passed in public interest, as envisaged u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. 31. On perusal of overall record, which has been looked into by the Committee in its meeting dated 02.03.2010 and accepted by the Full Court in its meeting dated 20.03.2010, it clearly reveals that in the majority period of his service, the petitioner was rated as ''Average Officer'' and even there are remarks of ''Bad Officer'' & of doubtful integrity in the year 1990 and in the year 1991 his integrity certificate was withheld and he was rated as ''Below average'' and after the adverse remarks being communicated to him, his representation was considered & rejected by the competent authority and in our considered view there was sufficiency of material on record while holding that the petitioner has become deadwood and it will be in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. 32. Consequently, in our view, on the basis of the material which has come on record, we do not find any error being committed by the respondents in taking impugned decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2010 which is based on record of service and further no stigma is attached to the order impugned. 33. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the matter and the petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No cost.