ORDER : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raigarh vide notification dated 26.03.2011 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. The power has been exercised under sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The said Rule reads as under :- “13. Superannuation age.–(1) * * * (2) A member of the service may, in the public interest, be retired at any time after he has completed 20 years qualifying service, or he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason.” 3. Service history of the Petitioner is that he joined the judicial service in the year 1988 on the post of Civil Judge, Class-II in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. On the reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh and creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, he came to be allocated the State of Chhattisgarh in 2002. He was promoted on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 2002 itself and it is his assertion that he worked diligently and honestly all through his service career and no case for compulsory retirement was made out. 4. The High Court in their return have justified the decision by tracing the entire judicial history of the Petitioner right from the year 1988 till the year 2010. The same is the justification for the impugned decision and has been annexed as Annexure R-1/B to their return. It is reproduced hereinbelow:- “INFORMATION REGARDING JUDICIAL OFFICER 1. Name of Judicial Officer Shri Tularam Churendra 2. Date of entry in Judicial Service 30-04-1988 3. The same is the justification for the impugned decision and has been annexed as Annexure R-1/B to their return. It is reproduced hereinbelow:- “INFORMATION REGARDING JUDICIAL OFFICER 1. Name of Judicial Officer Shri Tularam Churendra 2. Date of entry in Judicial Service 30-04-1988 3. Entries in the Confidential Reports : Year 1988-1989 Grade “Not recorded” Year 1989-1990 Grade “Not recorded” Year 1990-1991 Grade “C” Year 1991-1992 Grade “C” Adverse remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1992-1993 Grade “C” ('Good') Year 1993-1994 Grade “C” Adverse remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1994-1995 Grade “D” Adverse remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1995-1996 Grade “D” ('Average') Year 1996-1997 Grade “C” Adverse/Advisory remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1997-1998 Grade “C” Adverse/Advisory remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1998-1999 Grade “E” Adverse/Advisory remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 1999-2000 Grade “C” Year 2000-2001 Grade “C” Year 2001-2002 Grade “D” Year 2002-2003 Grade “D” Year 2003-2004 Grade “C” Period 01-04-04 to 30-10-04 “D” Year 2005-2006 Grade “D” Adverse remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 2006-2007 Grade “D” Adverse remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 2007-2008 Grade “D” Remarks as per Annexure 'A' Year 2008-2009 Grade “C” Year 2009-2010 Grade “C” 4. Punishments, Warning etc. given by the High Court. Nil Annexure A INFORMATION ABOUT ADVERSE/ADVERSORY REMARKS IN A.C.R. OF SHRI TULARAM CHURENDRA. For the year 1991-92 By the District Judge - (IN HINDI) “...........Study and efforts are required for qualitative improvements.” For the year 1993-94 ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dh fooj.kkRed fjiksVZ 1& os dqN vkSj esgur djsaA xxx xxx xxx mlesa lq/kkj dh vko';drk gSA xxx xxx xxx fu.kZ; ys[ku &'kSyh esa vkSj lq/kkj dh vko';drk gS xxx xxx xxx 3& mUgsa iqjkus yafcr O;ogkj ,oa nakfMd oknksa ds fujkdj.k esa vf/kd /;ku nsus ds fy;s funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gSA blh rjg vU; iqjkus yafcr izdj.k esa Hkh fo'ks"k /;ku nsus dk funsZ'k] esjs }kjk mUgsa fn;k x;k gSA xxx xxx xxx For the year 1994-95 By the District Judge - 6. Remarks about his promptness in the Disposal of cases. : Lacks promptness 13. General Remarks : Requires concerted efforts in disposal of old pending civil cases. 14. 'D' Average. For the year 1996-97 By the District Judge- …... He must take more interest in disposal of old civil cases. Remarks about his promptness in the Disposal of cases. : Lacks promptness 13. General Remarks : Requires concerted efforts in disposal of old pending civil cases. 14. 'D' Average. For the year 1996-97 By the District Judge- …... He must take more interest in disposal of old civil cases. For the year 1997-98 By the District Judge- …...He should pay more attention to disposal of old cases which were under Pilot Project...he did not effectively supervise the different sections particularly Malkhana.... A trouble shooter always with his behaviour towards his colleague and the Class III & IV employees which was always a matter of criticism. He created lots of barriers in the smooth working at Pendra Road with his conflict creating behaviour. He did not pay much attention to disposal of very large number of old cases pending in his court. For the year 1998-99 (BY SHRI D.R. DESHMUKH : D.J., BILASPUR) Knowledge of Law and judicial capacity: Poor....Tremendous judicial laxity in civil as well as criminal cases was reflected which was the root cause for delay in his court....Remarks about promptness...:Poor. He has the habit of adjourning civil cases at the stage of judgment for months by raising some technical objection himself.....He did not pay any attention to disposal of old properties lying in Malkhana and did not affectively supervise the other sections under him. Remarks about his attitude....Colleagues : LEFT MUCH ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. Behaviour towards members of the Bar & Public : Average General Reputation : Average. Grade “E” Poor. Remarks about his attitude....Colleagues : LEFT MUCH ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. Behaviour towards members of the Bar & Public : Average General Reputation : Average. Grade “E” Poor. okf"kZd fufj{k.k Vhi dk lkjka'k %& ¼15½ Jh Vh-vkj- pqjsUnz dk U;kf;d dk;Z dk Lrj o 'kSyh fuEu dksfV dh gSA os nh?kZdkfyd yfEcr O;ogkj o vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa ds izfr iw.kZr% mnklhu gSA nh?kZdkfyd yafcr O;ogkj izdj.kksa ds fu.kZ; dh LVst ij vkrs gh fu.kZ; iznku u dj dksbZ rduhdh fcUnq Lor% gh mBkdj ,sls izdj.kksa dks eghuksa yafcr dj nsus dh izo`fRr rFkk O;ogkj o vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa ds fopkj.k esa ?kksj U;kf;d f'kfFkyrk okf"kZd fufj{k.k gsrq Hksts x;s ikap pqfuank O;ogkj izdj.kksa esa Hkh nf'kZr gqbZ] ftlls muds U;k;ky;hu dk;Z ds fuEu Lrj rFkk xq.koRrk ds vHkko dk vkHkkl feyrk gSA O;ogkj izdj.kksa es vUroZrhZ vkosnu i=ksa ds Rofjr fujkdj.k dk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k rFkk lk{; dh LVst ij vuko';d LFkxu iznku fd;s tkus ds dkj.k gh muds U;k;ky; esa dk;Zdky ds rhu o"kksZa esa nh?kZdkfyd O;ogkj rFkk vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa dk vackj yx x;k gSA e0iz0 O;ogkj U;k;ky; fu;e ,oa vkns'k ds fu;e 118 ls 121 rFkk vkns'k 17 fu;e 1 ¼2½ O;0iz0l0 ds ijarqd dk vuqikyu muds }kjk ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa Hkh lk{; dk dzec) foU;kl fu.kZ;ksa esa ifjyf{kr ugha gqvkA ,sls nh?kZdkfyd yafcr izdj.k muds }kjk LFkkukarj.k dh lwph esa 'kkfey dj fn;s x;s Fks] tks muds U;k;ky; esa iqu% gLrkUrfjr gksus ds ckn ls mu izdj.kksa ds Rofjr fujkdj.k ds izfr ?kksj mis{kk cjrh tk jgh gSA 2- eky[kkus esa nh?kZdkfyd yafcr vkijkf/kd lEifRr;ksa ds fujkdj.k gsrq dbZ ckj is.Mªk izokl ij funsZf'kr fd;s tkus ij Hkh muds }kjk bl laca/k es iw.kZ mnklhurk fn[kkbZ tk jgh gS] tks vkifRrtud gSA lkekU; izd`fr ds vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa es Hkh fu.kZ; dk Lrj fuEu dksfV dk gS rFkk xaHkhj =qfV;ka fu"d"kZ fudkyus esa dh xbZ gSA Jh pqjsUnz }kjk vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa ikfjr n.Mkns'k vijk/k dh izd`fr ds vuqdwy ugha gksrs gSaA 3- Jh pqjsUnz dh dk;Z{kerk Hkh fuEu Lrj dh gSA os o"kZ 1998&99 esa dqy 195 fnol vodk'k ij jgs gSaA rFkk muds U;k;ky; dk dk;Z izfrdwyr% izHkkfor gqvk gSA ----10 o"kksZa ls fuokl LFkku ds fudVLFk inLFkkiuk rFkk inksUufr Hkh gks tkus ds ckotwn Hkh muds dk;Z ,oa vkpj.k esa lq/kkj ifjyf{kr ugha gqvk gSA (By Hon'ble the C.J.) …...Poor “E”. For the year 2005-06 By District Judge- Nature and Quality of work- …..The over all work/disposal of the Officer is poor. Leadership Qualities – Poor. General assessment- His knowledge of substantive and procedural law is not of desired Standard, therefore he is not able to deliver good results quantitatively and qualitatively. By Hon'ble Portfolio Judge - Lacks in clarity of thought and reasoning. Knowledge of Law and Procedure poor. For the year 2006-07 By District Judge- Nature and quality of work - …....His disposal in terms of number of cases is also low. Quality of output - …...his quality of performance is very poor. He is not able to understand nature of evidence, his knowledge of related law is also not of desired. Knowledge of sphere of wok - As reflected by work his level of knowledge, in all respect is superficial. He is not aware of vital instructions, therefore failing to apply them. Leadership Qualities - Not capable to achieve any target. Initiative and planning ability- Not able to initiate and plan any task. Decision making ability - Not of expected standard. General assessment - He requires to acquire more knowledge so as to achieve desired level. For the year 2007-08 By District Judge - Quality of Output - Quality of work needs improvement. He should sincerely make efforts to make judgments/orders more clear, compact and to the point. Leadership Qualities- He failed to achieve the target of disposal of cases …. Management Qualities - He is required to improve management skills in order to give all round better performance. General Assessment - He has to prove himself a hard working Judicial Officer as for Judicial work is concerned. By Hon'ble Portfolio Judge - The officer need improvement with respect to disposal and quality of Judicial work.” 5. From the materials and evidence culled out from the service record of the Petitioner, it is the stand of the learned Advocate General, representing the High Court of Chhattisgarh that the overall opinion with regard to this officer by the superior authorities, while making evaluation or recording his ACRs have been that he has consistently been below par, if not sub-par and that he lacked basic judicial acumen and legal principles, for which comments have been recorded by the inspecting Judges from time to time. It also emerges that he had been shirking taking responsibility of deciding cases especially of old kind and he used to defer deciding cases for months together by raising objection of his own volition for reasons best known to him, which obviously sent a wrong message to the litigants and the members of the Bar. 6. As per the stand of the learned Advocate General that the totality of the service record of this officer was taken into consideration by the Review Committee and despite cajoling by the superior authorities to improve over a period of time, there was no corresponding reflection of the same which would be evident from the subsequent entires made in his ACRs. 7. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Advocate General on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through Lrs and Others Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT OF DELHI) and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 where the Hon'ble Apex Court taking queue from previous decisions from such issues culled out what was laid down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 . Paragraph-161 of the said decision is of significance and since it has been relied upon the same, it has been reproduced hereinbelow :- “161. In Baikuntha Nath Das case (supra), after referring to decision of this Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 188 , where a three Judge Bench of this Court has specifically affirmed the decision rendered in Union of India Vs. M.E. Reddy (1980) 2 SCC 15 , this Court has laid down following firm proposition of law stated in para 34 of the reported decision : "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. 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. 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 uncommunicated 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 Principle (iii) above." 8. Keeping the parameters and the scope of such judicial review, we have gone through original records as well as the evidence which have been reproduced by the High Court in their return especially Annexure R-1/B which has also been reproduced in the earlier part of the order for ready reference. A dispassionate reading would show that the officer for a long period of time have been given enough leeway and encouragement coupled with advise to improve his work, delivery and judicial acumen. When no improvement was shown, portfolio Judges have given remarks that his overall work and disposal is poor. That he lacks clarity of thought on reasoning, knowledge of law and procedure is poor or that his quality of performance is very poor, he is not able to understand the nature of evidence. When no improvement was shown, portfolio Judges have given remarks that his overall work and disposal is poor. That he lacks clarity of thought on reasoning, knowledge of law and procedure is poor or that his quality of performance is very poor, he is not able to understand the nature of evidence. His knowledge of related law is also not as desired. In fact, there is also an entry to show that the knowledge of the officer is superficial. 9. If an overall evaluation and the consistent opinion of the inspecting Judges, reflected from the entires made in the ACRs is a pointer to the fact that the officer had no capability to improve, which in turn was adversely affecting the delivery of justice, then the decision to treat him as a deadwood by the Committee and thereafter by the Full Court cannot be said to be erroneous conclusion to arrive at. For after all how long can the system tolerate and wait for a judicial officer to rise to the occasion and the standards, which are required for delivery of justice. 10. In totality after having examined the service record and the entires thereto, we are satisfied the decision to compulsorily retire the Petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous, which requires judicial review. 11. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.