JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.05.2016 of compulsory retirement. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner entered in judicial service in the year 1990. He was given promotions from time-to-time.' The first promotion was given by the order dated 06.02.2004 and subsequent promotion was by the order dated 08.09.2010 in the cadre of ADJ. Ignoring the two promotions, adverse remarks for the year 1997-98 has been made basis for compulsory retirement. Once the petitioner was given promotion to the higher post subsequent to the adverse remarks, the respondent should have applied "theory of wash off" to ignore the adverse remarks for compulsory retirement. It is in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 : ( AIR 1992 SC 1020 ). Referring to para 34(iv), emphasis has been laid on the finding of the theory of wash off in case one is given promotion subsequent to the adverse remarks or adversity in service record. 3. In view of the judgment aforesaid, the order impugned herein deserves to be set aside. 4. It is also on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement is passed based on a single adverse entry and that too of remote past because compulsory retirement was given in the year 2016 whereas adverse remarks is of the year 1997-98. Placing reliance of the judgment of the Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das case (supra), it is submits that credence should be given to the service record of past five years from the date of compulsory retirement. The petitioner was having no adverse remarks in past five years from the date of compulsory retirement, rather his service record is unblemish through out other than one adverse entry in the year 1997-98. He was found to be meritorious candidate for the promotion to cadre of ADJ. The promotion to the said cadre was based on merit-cum-seniority. 5. Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid, no justification is attached to the order of compulsory retirement. An entry of remote past should not have been basis for compulsory retirement. The prayer is, accordingly, to set aside the impugned order with consequential benefit. 6. Writ petition is seriously opposed by counsel appearing for the High Court. 5. Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid, no justification is attached to the order of compulsory retirement. An entry of remote past should not have been basis for compulsory retirement. The prayer is, accordingly, to set aside the impugned order with consequential benefit. 6. Writ petition is seriously opposed by counsel appearing for the High Court. It is submitted that a reference of single adverse entry for the year 1997-98 has been given ignoring the remarks therein. The petitioner was conveyed adverse remark of "positively lacking in integrity". Such a remark is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement. It is more so, aforesaid is to a Judicial Officer. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has made reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 (10) SCC 693 : ( AIR 2010 SC 3753 ). In the said judgment, not only theory of Wash-off has been examined by the Apex Court but law has been lay down for the consideration of the entire record for compulsory retirement. The judgment also rule on the issue as to whether an order of compulsory retirement can be passed based on single adverse entry. It has been held that even one adverse entry may be sufficient to pass order of compulsory retirement and that too even if it is of remote past. All the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner have been answered by the Apex Court in case of Pyare Mohan Lal (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has further made a reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State RTC v. Babu Lal, reported in 2013 (10) SCC 551 : ( AIR 2014 SC 142 ). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Punjab State Power Corp. v. Hari Kishan, reported in 2015 (13) SCC 156 : ( AIR 2015 SC 2426 ). 9. In those judgments, the theory of Wash-. off in the matter of compulsory retirement has not been accepted. It has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pyare Mohan Lai (supra). 10. v. Hari Kishan, reported in 2015 (13) SCC 156 : ( AIR 2015 SC 2426 ). 9. In those judgments, the theory of Wash-. off in the matter of compulsory retirement has not been accepted. It has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pyare Mohan Lai (supra). 10. In view of the above and as now it is a settled proposition of law that in the matter of compulsory retirement, theory of "Wash-Off of the adverse remark would not apply though it may be applicable in the matter of promotion. It is also that for consideration of the case of an officer, the Screening Committee should look into entire service record. 11. It is also stated that apart from the judgment of the Apex Court, the facts of the case are also relevant. The petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks about his integrity in the year 1997-98. A challenge was made to the adverse remarks by a writ petition. The writ petition therein was dismissed, thus the adverse remarks became final against the petitioner. It is also stated that considering the adverse remarks, petitioner was denied promotion in the year 1999. It is when the said adverse entry was relevant for consideration for promotion. The counsel for the respondent thus referring the facts as well as the judgment on the issue, press for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 13. Facts on record shows that after appointment of the petitioner in the judicial service in the year 1990, he was conveyed adverse remarks for the year 1997-98. The adverse remark was about the integrity. It was "positively lacking in the integrity". The petitioner challenged the adverse remarks when his representation was not accepted. It is not in dispute that the writ petition therein was dismissed by the Court. The adverse remarks thus attained finality. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the said adverse remarks lost its sanctity after promotion in the year 2004 followed by another promotion to ADJ cadre in the year 2010 and that too based on merit. The theory of Wash-off has been applied for the aforesaid. The argument is also that based on single adverse entry, compulsory retirement could not have been given. It is more so when the entry was of remote past. The theory of Wash-off has been applied for the aforesaid. The argument is also that based on single adverse entry, compulsory retirement could not have been given. It is more so when the entry was of remote past. We may refer para 34 of the judgment in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das ( AIR 1992 SC 1020 ) (supra) relied by the counsel for the petitioner. It is quoted herein for ready reference: "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 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 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 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, moreso, 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 interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above." 15. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above." 15. Petitioner has made more emphasis on Para 34(iv) where issue in regard to doctrine of Wash-Off was considered. It is also that reliance should be attached to the service record of recent past years. 16. As against the aforesaid, counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal ( AIR 2010 SC 3753 ) (supra). He has made reference of para 24 of the said judgment and is relevant thus quoted herein for ready reference: "24. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to state that in case there is a conflict between two or more judgments of this court, the judgment of the larger Bench is to be followed. Moreso, the washed off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of Government servant for further promotion but not in a case where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration his "entire service record". 17. A further reference has been made to para 29. Thus the said para is also quoted herein for ready reference: 29. The law requires the Authority to consider the "entire service record" of the employee while assessing whether he can be given compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries. Moreso, a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement. The case of a Judicial Officer is required to be examined, treating him to be differently from other wings of the society, as he is serving the State in a different capacity. The case of a Judicial Officer is considered by a Committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and then the report of the Committee is placed before' the Full Court. The case of a Judicial Officer is considered by a Committee of Judges of the High Court duly constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and then the report of the Committee is placed before' the Full Court. A decision is taken by the Full Court after due deliberation on the matter. Therefore, there is hardly any chance to make the allegations of non-application of mind or mala fide." 18. Paras 24 and 29 of the judgment quoted above answers the issues raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It has been held that theory of Washed-Off would not apply in the case of compulsory retirement though it can be applied to the cases of promotion. It has also been held that even single entry can be basis for compulsory retirement and that too even if it is of remote past. It is on the ground that entire service record of the Officer has to be considered for compulsory retirement. The subsequent judgment of Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ( AIR 2014 SC 142 ) (supra) so also the judgment in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation ( AIR 2015 SC 2426 ) (supra) support the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent. There also theory of Washed-Off in the matter of Compulsory Retirement was not applied. 19. Counsel for the respondent has also. relied judgment rendered by this High Court in Writ Petition No. 16040 (S/B) of 2016 (Re-ported in (2018) 7 ADJ 217 )-Ram Murti Yadav v. State of U.P. and another. Relevant paras of 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment are quoted herein for ready reference: "60. In State of U.P. v. Vrjay Kumar Jain ( AIR 2002 SC 1345 ) (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that vigour or sting of an entry does not get wiped out, particularly, while considering the case of employee for giving him compulsory retirement, as it requires examination of the entire service records, including character rolls and confidential reports. Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not Wiped out merely it relates to the remote past. There may be a single adverse entry of integrity which may be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the washed-off theory does not have universal application. Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not Wiped out merely it relates to the remote past. There may be a single adverse entry of integrity which may be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the washed-off theory does not have universal application. It may have relevance while considering the case of government servant for further promotion but not in a case where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing Authority to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement, as the Committee is to assess his suitability taking into consideration his entire service record. 61. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir (supra), in which the Apex Court clarified and spelled out the circumstances in which the earlier adverse entries/record would be wiped of and the circumstances in which the said record, even of remote past would not lose its significance. 62. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand (supra) it was observed that washed-off theory will have no application when the case of an employee is being assessed to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement. The rationale given is that since such an assessment is based on entire service record, there is no question of not taking into consideration the earlier old adverse entries or record of the old period. It was further reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court that there can be no iota of doubt that the entire record can be scrutinized by the employer to adjudge the justification of continuance of the employee after reaching a particular age as contemplated in the Regulations." 20. In the case of Pyare Mohan Lal ( AIR 2010 SC 3753 ) (supra), judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nam Das ( AIR 1992 SC 1020 ) (supra) was considered. The composition of Bench in both the cases was of three Judges. 21. In view of the above and also that now constant view of the Apex Court is that theory of Washed-Off would not be applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement. The composition of Bench in both the cases was of three Judges. 21. In view of the above and also that now constant view of the Apex Court is that theory of Washed-Off would not be applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement. Thus, we are unable to accept the first arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner for causing interference in the order of compulsory retirement in reference to the promotion of the petitioner in the year 2004 and 2010. It is, otherwise a fact that when the adverse remark was having relevancy in reference to the currency year for promotion, it was denied. The adverse entry does not loose sanctity only for the reasons that subsequently, an officer was promoted to the higher post. 22. The issue now remains as to whether an order of compulsory retirement can be based on a single adverse entry in the service record that too of remote past. The issue aforesaid, has also been answered by Apex Court in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal (supra) and for it, para 29 of the judgment has been quoted above. It has been held that for compulsory retirement, entire service record has to be taken into consideration and for that the single entry and that of remote past can be taken for recommendation for compulsory retirement. 23. In view of the above findings, we are unable to accept even the other arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. We are rather cautious of the fact that the single entry may have significance for compulsory retirement in the given case or may have no significance, depends on the nature of entry for that. The adverse entry conveyed to the petitioner is about his integrity as a Judicial Officer. The said entry cannot be ignored by us while adjudicating the issue of compulsory retirement. 24. In view of the above, we find no reason to cause interference in the order of compulsory retirement even if it is based on a single adverse remarks and that too of the year 1997-98. It is looking to the nature of the remarks. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.