JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner Anupati Ram Yadav, after serving Indian Air Force for 15 years from 10.8.76 till 31.8.1991 was appointed on 19.3.1996 on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the State of U.P. on the basis of selection in the competitive examination. 2. In the year 2007-08 when he was posted as C.J.M. Ambedakar Nagar, the District Judge recorded certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The petitioner's representation dated 9.7.08/14.7.2008 against the said adverse remarks was rejected as communicated to him vide letter dated 24.3.2009 by the High Court. In the same year his integrity was withheld by the Administrative Judge and his judgments were held to be very poor. Accordingly, he was assessed as a poor officer. The petitioner represented on 6.3.2009 for expunging the above remarks of the Administrative Judge but the representation was rejected vide order dated 17.1.2013 by the High Court as communicated to him. 3. On the basis of his past service record specially the above entries, the High Court recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the Chief Secretary State of U.P. by the office order dated 1.3.2013 directed for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner in the above circumstances has preferred this writ petition challenging not only the order of compulsory retirement but also the rejection of his representation against the adverse entry given by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and has prayed that he may be allowed to discharge his duties as Additional District and Sessions Judge the post which he was holding at the time of compulsory retirement and to pay him salary and all arrears accordingly. 5. The parties having exchanged pleadings agreed for the final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. 6. Sri Anupati Ram Yadav, who appeared in person, submitted that the then District Judge and the Administrative Judge were annoyed with him and as such they have awarded adverse entry so as to ruin his career. 7. The Administrative Judge was not competent to withhold his integrity for the relevant year as the District Judge had certified it. The withholding of the integrity by the Administrative Judge amounts to down grading his entry which could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice. 7. The Administrative Judge was not competent to withhold his integrity for the relevant year as the District Judge had certified it. The withholding of the integrity by the Administrative Judge amounts to down grading his entry which could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice. The term of the then Administrative Judge had expired on 31.3.2008 and as such he could have awarded entry to him within six months thereof i.e. by the end of September, 2008 whereas his integrity was withheld vide order dated 3.2.2009 which was illegal. 8. The adverse entry for the year 2007-08 was on the basis of the inspection report of 5.7.2008 which could have been relevant only for the year 2008-09. 9. The petitioner had represented against the aforesaid withholding of integrity immediately on 6.3.2009 by filing a representation and the same was decided after about four years though under the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Report and Allied Matters) Rules, 1995, such a representation ought to have been decided within four months or 120 days. 10. Lastly, he submits that his entire service record which was otherwise unblemished was not taken into consideration before retiring him compulsorily. 11. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Allahabad High Court in response to the above arguments submitted that in view of Article 235 and Rule 4 of Chapter III of the High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to the High Court Rules) the Administrative Judge has independent power to record entries in the character roles of the officers of the subordinate judiciary. Thus, there is no question of down grading of the entry of the petitioner and to follow the principles of natural justice in that regard. 12. The award of entry by the Administrative Judge after the expiry of his term though a little late would not invalidate the entry so awarded. The representation of the petitioner against the said adverse entry was dealt with in all promptness and the reasons for the delay have been suitably explained and as such there is no willful or deliberate delay in deciding the same. Moreover, the representation stood decided prior to the decision taken for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 13. The representation of the petitioner against the said adverse entry was dealt with in all promptness and the reasons for the delay have been suitably explained and as such there is no willful or deliberate delay in deciding the same. Moreover, the representation stood decided prior to the decision taken for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 13. The entire past service record of the petitioner was duly considered and in the light of the entries recorded for the year 2007-08 and 2011-12, a conscious decision to retire him compulsorily was taken. There is no arbitrariness or malafidely in taking the said decision. It is thus beyond the judicial review. 14. In order to deal with the aforesaid submissions advanced by the parties it would be appropriate to highlight some additional basic facts leading to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 15. The petitioner joined as Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division on 19.3.1996. He was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15.12.2008. He was compulsorily retired vide order dated 1.3.2013. 16. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement is said to have been passed on the basis of the entry awarded to him for the year 2007-08 by the District Judge and the Administrative Judge as well as in view of the entry for the year 2010-11. 17. The annual confidential remarks recorded by the District Judge for the said year when the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedakar Nagar reveals that according to him the integrity of the petitioner was beyond doubt. His disposal of cases was reported to be poor with the remark that he needs improvement in disposal of old cases and cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C. In overall assessment the petitioner was assessed as a good officer by him. 18. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 9.7.2008 through the District Judge against the aforesaid remarks which was forwarded to the High Court on 14.7.2008. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the High Court and was rejected. This was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.3.2009 of the Registrar (Confidential). 19. The annual remarks so recorded by the District Judge for the said year as such attained finality as no further action was taken by the petitioner thereafter. 20. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the High Court and was rejected. This was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.3.2009 of the Registrar (Confidential). 19. The annual remarks so recorded by the District Judge for the said year as such attained finality as no further action was taken by the petitioner thereafter. 20. Simultaneously, the Administrative Judge, Ambedakar Nagar while reviewing the work of the petitioner for the aforesaid year assessed the petitioner as a poor officer. His judgments were reported to be very poor and his integrity was withheld till it is cleared after due enquiry. 21. The Administrative Judge further recorded that according to the report of the District Judge a surprise inspection of the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate i.e. the petitioner was made on 5.7.2008 and it was found that paper books of 90 cases were kept in his Almirah but with' incomplete records as either the order sheets were not signed or were not written. In many cases statements of the accused were not recorded and dates were fixed without recording the proceedings. An explanation was called from the petitioner but he declined to submit any. He was further given time to submit his explanation but he failed to obey the repeated directions in that regard even that of the High Court on the administrative side. Thus, the Administrative Judge records that his conduct reflects insubordination in performing duty which amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Rule, 1956. 22. The petitioner represented on 6.3.2009 against the aforesaid entry made by the Administrative Judge. The said representation was placed before the appropriate Committee and was considered in the meeting held on 31.7.2009. Since the integrity of the petitioner was withheld till he is cleared in the enquiry, the Committee directed to call for a report from the District Judge as to the out come of the enquiry and to put up the representation again after receiving the report. 23. The representation of the petitioner was again placed before the relevant Committee alongwith the letter dated 8.2.2010 of the District Judge and the note of the Registrar Lucknow Bench Lucknow. 23. The representation of the petitioner was again placed before the relevant Committee alongwith the letter dated 8.2.2010 of the District Judge and the note of the Registrar Lucknow Bench Lucknow. The Committee resolved that as no formal enquiry is pending against the officer and since the officer has not given any explanation called for by the District/Administrative Judge, the matter be deferred and be placed again after the submission of the explanation by the petitioner or the decision of the Administrative Judge. 24. The matter again came up before the said Committee in its meeting held on 3.1.2013 and it was found that the officer had by then submitted his explanation. The Committee on consideration of the entire material on record held that the integrity of the officer for the year 2.7.2008 stands withheld for cogent reasons and there are no good reasons to expunge the remarks and thus recommended for rejecting the representation. 25. The aforesaid resolution of the Committee was considered and approved by the Administrative Committee vide its resolution dated 11.1.2013. Accordingly, the representation was rejected and the petitioner was informed of the rejection vide communication dated 17.1.2013. 26. The second representation made by the petitioner in this regard dated 25.1.2013 was also rejected and due information of it was given to him vide letter dated 10.5.2013. 27. In the year 2011-12 adverse remarks were recorded against the petitioner by the District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in the annual confidential report of the petitioner but the same were expunged on the representation of the petitioner. However, the Administrative Judge for the same year in assessing the petitioner rated him simply as an average officer. 28. In short, it transpires from the above facts and circumstances that the integrity of the petitioner stood withheld by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and he was rated to be a poor officer. In the year 2011-12, he was rated as an average officer by the Administrative Judge. At the same time, it was also observed by the Administrative Judge in recording entry of the year 2007-08 that he was not maintaining proper records and is guilty of insubordination. The aforesaid said entries primarily forms the basis for retiring the petitioner compulsorily. 29. A screening Committee was constituted on 17.12.2012 for the purposes of picking officers for compulsory retirement. The aforesaid said entries primarily forms the basis for retiring the petitioner compulsorily. 29. A screening Committee was constituted on 17.12.2012 for the purposes of picking officers for compulsory retirement. The petitioner was also included in the list of officers placed for consideration. The Committee held its meeting on 22.1.2013. The said Committee in regard to the petitioner observed that he has been adjudged as an average officer in the year 2011-12 whereas in the year 2007-08 he was assessed as a poor officer. His integrity also stands withheld for that year. The quality of his judgments was also very poor. The representation submitted by him against the said adverse remarks stands rejected on 11.1.2013. Thus, on his overall service record, it was recommended that the petitioner be retired compulsorily. 30. The aforesaid minutes of the screening Committee were considered by the full Court in its meeting on 2.2.2013 and it was resolved to retire the petitioner compulsorily alongwith some other officers. 31. It is on the basis of the aforesaid full Court decision that the impugned office order has been issued retiring the petitioner compulsory. 32. The aforesaid facts clearly reflect that a complete procedure as provided under law was followed in considering the case of the petitioner both with regard to expunging the adverse remarks and retiring him compulsorily. 33. It is trite to mention that compulsory retirement from service is not considered to be a punishment. It is neither a dismissal nor a removal. It is. not a form of punishment prescribed and involves no panel consequences inasmuch as despite such retirement the person is entitled to pension and other retiral dues as well as right to employment elsewhere. It does not have any adverse consequence. 34. Thus, once the appropriate authority forms a bona fide opinion that the compulsory retirement of an officer specially the Judicial Officer is in the interest of the department/judiciary and is in public interest, the scope of judicial review is very narrow. It is confined and permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, mala fides or want of material particulars. 35. It is confined and permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, mala fides or want of material particulars. 35. In Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 , the Supreme Court laid down certain principles for the purposes of compulsory retirement which inter alia are as under: (i) an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment or a penalty. It implies no stigma and has no adverse consequences; (ii) the order of compulsory retirement has to be passed in public interest on the subjective satisfaction of the employer; (iii) principles of natural justice have no place in context of an order of compulsory retirement though judicial scrutiny is not altogether excluded and may be permissible if the order is passed malafidely and in an arbitrary manner in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; (iv) the opinion should be based on consideration of the entire service record which includes entries in the confidential records/character rolls and if the Government servant is promoted to the higher post, the adverse entries recorded earlier would lose their sting; and (v) the order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the Court only for the reason that it is based upon uncommunicated adverse remarks. 36. In State of Punjab v. Gurudas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92 , one of the principles that the adverse remark recorded loses its effect if the employee/officer is subsequently promoted was overturned and it was held any adverse entry prior to earning promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up for higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee so as to form opinion if it is in public interest to retain him in service. The whole record of service of the employee will include uncommunicated adverse entries as well. 37. It is to be remembered that judicial service is not a service in the strict sense of employment as is commonly understood as judges discharge sovereign judicial power of the State where integrity is expected to be beyond doubt which has to be reflected in their overall reputation. 38. In such a situation, judiciary cannot afford to continue in service persons with doubtful integrity or persons with baggage. 38. In such a situation, judiciary cannot afford to continue in service persons with doubtful integrity or persons with baggage. Persons with unnecessary baggage have to be left behind in the march ahead of the judiciary. Therefore, in the case of a judiciary, there is a constant necessity to keep vigil on the officer of the subordinate judiciary with the view to pick out the black-sheep or to weed out the dead wood. 39. In regard to judicial officers power of compulsory retirement can be exercised at any time by invoking Article 235 of the Constitution of India which in no manner is circumscribed by any Rule or Order. The said Article enables the High Court to assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time by scrutinizing his service record to keep the stream of justice unpolluted. 40. In this factual background and the legal position, we consider it proper to first deal with the adverse entry or the withholding of the integrity of the petitioner by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and the award of adverse remarks of the year 2010-11 of the Administrative Judge. 41. The Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 assessed the petitioner as a poor officer and has withheld his entry till it is cleared after due enquiry. The integrity was withheld though it was certified by the District Judge. The Administrative Judge has further remarked adversely against the petitioner with regard to incomplete records and insubordination amounting to misconduct. The representation of the petitioner against the above entries recorded by the Administrative Judge was rejected and the rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.1.2013. 42. One of the submissions of the petitioner is that when the District Judge had certified his integrity for the year 2007-08 it was not open for the Administrative Judge to withhold the same. 43. The argument is completely misconceived as the power to report on the working of. the petitioner is vested independently both in the District Judge and the High Court. Even otherwise the entry or remark made by the District Judge merges with that of the Administrative Judge. Thus, the entries or remarks made by the Administrative Judge prevails over that of the District Judge. 44. the petitioner is vested independently both in the District Judge and the High Court. Even otherwise the entry or remark made by the District Judge merges with that of the Administrative Judge. Thus, the entries or remarks made by the Administrative Judge prevails over that of the District Judge. 44. Article 235 of the Constitution of India specifically provides that the High Court is vested with the power to control District Court and subordinate Court in the matters of posting, promotion and grant of leave to persons of the judicial service. The said power vested in the High Court has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRS. and others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2011) 10 SCC 1 and it has been held that the control over the subordinate judiciary vested in the High Court by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution of India is exclusive and comprehensive and apart from the other things includes disciplinary jurisdiction, suspension from service with the view to hold disciplinary enquiry, transfer, promotion and confirmation, deputation award of selection grade and pre-mature or compulsorily retirement. 45. Thus, High Court alone is the sole authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the subordinate judicial officers or to impose various punishments and passing of order of compulsory retirement and that the Governor of the State has to act on the basis of the recommendation so made by the High Court. 46. Chapter III Rule 4 of the High Court Rules provides for the matters which are to be dealt with by the Administrative Judge which include review of judicial work of subordinate Courts and their officers so as to record entries in the character rolls of the officers. The said power of the Administrative Judge in the light of Article 235 is independent and can be exercised any time. Therefore, withholding of the integrity of the petitioner by the Administrative Judge and rating him as the poor officer for the year 2007-08 is independent of the entry/remarks given by the District Judge. 47. The certification of integrity of the petitioner by the District Judge and withholding of the same by the Administrative Judge does not amounts to down grading the entry of the petitioner. The entry of the Administrative Judge is independent of the District Judge. 47. The certification of integrity of the petitioner by the District Judge and withholding of the same by the Administrative Judge does not amounts to down grading the entry of the petitioner. The entry of the Administrative Judge is independent of the District Judge. He has assigned specific reasons for withholding the entry till the petitioner is cleared in the enquiry. Subsequently, it was informed that no enquiry was pending against the petitioner and therefore, there was no question of his being cleared in the enquiry. Accordingly, the integrity of the petitioner stood withheld for the year 2007-08. 48. It may be reminded that in the context of awarding annual entries either by the District Judge or the Administrative Judge the principles of natural justice have no place at all. 49. The petitioner next submitted that the term of the Administrative Judge had expired on 31.3.2008 and as such he could not have recorded any entry for the year 2007-08 after more than 6 months of the expiry of his term. 50. The object of writing confidential report and awarding annual entries is to give opportunity to the officer to improve upon his working and is primarily and essentially an administrative job where opportunity of hearing is not necessary even if some adverse remarks are being recorded as such remarks do not constitute a punishment or a penalty. 51. The delay in recording annual entry by the Administrative Judge as stated earlier is merely an administrative work and would not vitiate the entry by itself. It at best is a mere irregularity which ought to be avoided. 52. In Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) (Supra) a note of caution was sounded that ordinarily ACRs of several years should not be recorded at one point of time and that entry should be made within a specified time soon following the end of the period in question generally within three months and that recording of entries after more than a year should be avoided but at the same time merely for the reason ACRs were recorded otherwise would not wipe off the effect of those entries specially for the purpose of compulsory retirement. 53. 53. In view of the above, only for the reason that the Administrative Judge recorded the entry after about six months of the expiry of his term does not have any adverse effect on the said entry specially for the purpose of compulsory retirement. 54. The next submission of the petitioner is that there was a huge delay in deciding his representation made against the adverse remarks recorded by the Administrative Judge. This delay vitiates the order. 55. The reason for the delay has been suitably explained in the narration of the facts and from it we find that the said representation was initially considered by the appropriate Committee in its meeting on 31.7.2009 and ultimately was recommended to be rejected in the meeting held on 3.1.2013 which resolution was duly approved on 11.1.2013 by the Administrative Committee. 56. The delay in taking action or deciding the said representation of the petitioner would have no adverse impact upon the order of his compulsory retirement inasmuch as it was decided prior to the meeting of the screening Committee that considered the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. The information of its rejection was on record before the screening committee. 57. The submission that under the U.P. Government Service Rules, 1995, the representation ought to have been decided within 120 days is completely misconceived inasmuch as the said Rules are applicable only upon the Government servants and not upon the judicial officers. The High Court has not adopted the said Rules in its applicability to the judicial officers under its control and superannuation. Thus, the submission is bereft of any merit. 58. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the challenge made by the petitioner to withholding of his integrity by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and in assessing him as a poor officer as well as in the rejection of his representation thereof. 59. Thus, the submission is bereft of any merit. 58. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the challenge made by the petitioner to withholding of his integrity by the Administrative Judge for the year 2007-08 and in assessing him as a poor officer as well as in the rejection of his representation thereof. 59. It may also be relevant to mention that the submission that the petitioner has earned wrath of the District Judge and the Administrative Judge as he had espoused the cause of some Class III/Class-IV of the Court and as such they have acted malafidely against him is of no consequence as the comparison of the entries and the remarks recorded by the District Judge and the Administrative Judge would reveal that the District Judge had certified the integrity of the petitioner whereas it was only the Administrative Judge who had withheld the same for the reasons recorded. The District Judge would not have certified his integrity if he was annoyed with the petitioner. 60. The representation of the petitioner against the entry of Administrative Judge was considered by larger committee of three High Court Judges and then by the Administrative Committee and all those persons comprising the Committee and the Administrative Committee have unanimously rejected the same approving of the remarks of the Administrative Judge. All these persons would not have acted with any bias or mala fide intention against the petitioner. There is no allegation to that effect also. 61. The contention of the petitioner that the Administrative Judge in awarding entry of the year 2007-08 has relied upon the inspection note of the District Judge dated 5.7.2008. The said inspection note was not relevant for the entry of 2007-08 rather it would have been material for the entry of the year 2008-09. 62. The above submission is bereft of merit as shifting of the said entry from one particular year to another would not wipe off its vigour or sting so long as it remains to be in the zone of the consideration for the purposes of compulsory retirement. 63. 62. The above submission is bereft of merit as shifting of the said entry from one particular year to another would not wipe off its vigour or sting so long as it remains to be in the zone of the consideration for the purposes of compulsory retirement. 63. In State of U.P. and others v. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 , it has been held that shifting of the entry awarded to a different period of service or beyond 10 years of passing the order of retirement does not mean that its effect stand wiped off and that the said entry by itself is not sufficient to retire the officer compulsory. 64. In Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2010) 10 SCC 693 , a single entry touching to the integrity of the officer was held to be enough to retire him compulsory. 65. Now, we turn to examine the validity of the order of the compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner. 66. In this connection, the submission is that the entire service record of the petitioner was not taken into account which would have otherwise revealed that the petitioner had an unblemished career and therefore, retiring him prematurely is not legally tenable. 67. First of all, there is no material on record to establish that the entire service record of the petitioner was not examined by the screening Committee in recommending for his compulsory retirement. The screening Committee constituted for pin pointing the officers for compulsory retirement considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 22.1.2013. The said Committee in view of the fact that his integrity stood withheld for the year 2007-08 and his representation against the same had been rejected coupled with the fact that he was assessed as a poor officer in the said year and as an average officer in. the year 2011-12 on the basis of his overall service record opined to retire him compulsory. 68. The aforesaid recommendations of the screening Committee were placed before the full Court of the High Court in its meeting dated 2.2.2013 and upon deliberation, it was finally resolved to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Accordingly, recommendations were made leading to the impugned office order dated 1.3.2013 issued by the Chief Secretary State of U.P. 69. 68. The aforesaid recommendations of the screening Committee were placed before the full Court of the High Court in its meeting dated 2.2.2013 and upon deliberation, it was finally resolved to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Accordingly, recommendations were made leading to the impugned office order dated 1.3.2013 issued by the Chief Secretary State of U.P. 69. In Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) (Supra) the Apex Court observed that where before passing the orders of compulsory retirement, the whole service record of the officer is taken into consideration by the screening Committee and that the matter is deliberated by the full Court on the basis of the record of the work, conduct, general reputation of the officer and since the order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature, the evaluation made by the Screening Committee/Full Court can neither be termed as arbitrary or capricious nor can be said to be so irrational so as to shock the conscious of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. 70. In the view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where any arbitrary or irrationally decision has been taken by the High Court on the administrative side in recommending for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and in retiring him so. 71. The Writ Petition as a whole lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.