JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 30.05.2012 vide impugned Memo No. 6/Rst./A.Se.Ni.-11/20212 ka-6788 Ranchi dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure-10). Being aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court with a further prayer to quash the entries in his Confidential Service Records pertaining to the years 2005-06 and 2006-07; he seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Petitioner had also prayed for quashing of Rule 8(1)(iii)(ix) of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand Rules,, 2001 as being ultra vires. However, this challenge has not been pressed at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 3. Brief facts of the petitioner’s case are as under: Petitioner was appointed as Temporary Munsif vide Notification No. 7/A1-505/82/Ka-13355 dated 28.10.1986 on the basis of 21st Competitive Judicial Service Examination and was posted as such on 17.11.1986 at Giridih. It is submitted that the petitioner was conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and Additional Munsif vide Notification No. 309 dated 28.07.1990 by this Court. Thereafter, his service was confirmed vide Notification dated 23.06.1990. Upon completion of 10 years of successful service, petitioner was promoted to Junior Selection Grade vide notification dated 29.05.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of S.D.J.M and was posted at Godda vide Notification dated 28.09.2001 issued by the High Court. Petitioner was subsequently promoted as Sub-Ordinate Judge, Godda vide Notification dated 13.02.2002. It is submitted that petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and posted at Sahebganj vide Notification dated 29.08.2002, Petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P with effect from 01.01.1996 and 26.11.1996 vide Notification dated 30.08.2006. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Pakur vide Notification dated 01.04.2005 and from Pakur to Giridih vide Notification dated 02.05.2006 and remained there till 15.05.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2008, this Hon’ble Court received letter of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India with regard to evaluation of Judicial Officers on the basis of their service records, quality of judgment and also in the matter of retirement of those officers who were found unfit, ineffective, incompetent or have doubtful integrity on attaining the age of 50, 55-58 years, as per statement made at para-8 of the counter affidavit. In the chronology of events, it is further stated that the petitioner was transferred from Giridih to Seraikella where he remained as Chief Judicial Magistrate till 30.05.2012. Petitioner contends that photocopy of ACRs obtained through RTI vide Annexure-9 dated 18.08.2012 shows that adverse entries made in the confidential report for the year 2005-06 was neither communicated, nor any information regarding the same was given to the petitioner to enable him to explain. Petitioner was informed about his compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b) of Jharkhand Service Code with effect from 31.05.2012 (afternoon) or the date on which order is served, whichever is earlier. 5. According to the petitioner, photocopy of ACRs for the year 2005-06 shows adverse remarks which remain uncommunicated. Similarly, for the year 2006-07, there were certain remarks regarding his integrity without any concrete material which were communicated to the petitioner by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Giridih vide letter no. 30 dated 29.10.2009. Petitioner has made representation vide letter dated 27.11.2009 explaining his unblemished service career for the last 23 years and that no complaint regarding his integrity was ever made. Expression used in the ACR is also ‘whisper’ which shows that there was no source and substance of allegation. The previous years ACR also shows that there were no entries regarding any complaint about him. However, his representation was rejected vide letter no. 927 dated 07.04.2011. Petitioner contends that the Hon’ble Screening Committee purportedly considered the entire service records, overall performance as also vigilance report and vide its Minutes dated 11.04.2012, recommended that the services of ten Judicial Officers including the petitioner are not required to be continued. Petitioner was not communicated about any vigilance report or any adverse remarks, as per statement made at para-10 of the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 5. 6. It is submitted that on 09.05.2012, decision was taken by the Hon’ble Standing Committee to recommend to the State Government for compulsory retirement of ten Judicial Officers including the petitioner under Rule 74(b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code. On the basis of such recommendation, impugned Notification dated 29.05.2012 has been issued informing that the petitioner shall be compulsorily retired in public interest with effect from 31.05.2012. Thereafter, petitioner has applied for obtaining the Annual Confidential Remarks through RTI and also Minutes of the meeting in which retirement decision was taken. On the basis of such recommendation, impugned Notification dated 29.05.2012 has been issued informing that the petitioner shall be compulsorily retired in public interest with effect from 31.05.2012. Thereafter, petitioner has applied for obtaining the Annual Confidential Remarks through RTI and also Minutes of the meeting in which retirement decision was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Annual Confidential Reports enclosed as Annexure-9 and submitted that the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2005-06 and 2006-2007 were not communicated to the petitioner. However, if the overall grading is seen, petitioner was given B+ in the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 and satisfactory in the year 2007-08. Remarks regarding his integrity for the year 2006-07 clearly shows that nobody has come forward with specific complaint against him, but there was whisper against his integrity in the Bar. Petitioner has submitted that remarks regarding his attitude and behaviour in the year 2005-06 for the year 2005-06 and non-cooperation in matters relating to legal services and having not participated in a single legal awareness or literacy camp and also remaining a habitual absconder from Headquarter on each Sunday and holidays without permission in violation of Hon’ble Court’s direction, is not correct. Petitioner from time to time, taken permission for leaving the Headquarter and for grant of leave which was duly granted to him. Petitioner as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has duly participated in Jail Lok Adalat at Pakur, as per information furnished by the PIO on 07.09.2012 (Annexure-14). Petitioner as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has also participated in Legal Literacy / Awareness Camp and legal awareness camp held in Divisional Jail, Pakur by D.L.S.A., Pakur on 08.10.2005 and 29.01.2006, as would be clear from the Entry Register at Divisional Jail, Pakur (Annexure-13). Therefore, the above remarks appears to be erroneous, illegal and unjustified. It is also contended that the entries made in the confidential record of the service, though were not signed by the then District and Sessions Judge, Giridih is not based on any evidence. The remarks regarding his integrity are also without any materials or evidence. The entire records of the service of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration at the time of taking decision as the entire remarks of ACR of the petitioner were not available before the Screening Committee / Standing Committee for the year 2009-12. The remarks regarding his integrity are also without any materials or evidence. The entire records of the service of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration at the time of taking decision as the entire remarks of ACR of the petitioner were not available before the Screening Committee / Standing Committee for the year 2009-12. Therefore, the entries relating to the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 were based on no evidence and have no legs to stand in the eye of law. Therefore, decision of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee is arbitrary and perverse. No public interest was involved in compulsorily retiring the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the Review Committee / Screening Committee / Standing Committee should consider the entire service record of the petitioner before taking the decision of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court arising from the State of Jharkhand itself in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Versus State of Jharkhand and others [ (2012) 3 SCC 580 , Para-34 and 36]. Based on these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned notification is in teeth of the settled principles as far as invoking of power under Rule 74(b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code is concerned for compulsorily retiring an employee in public interest. He submitted that uncommunicated adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration for taking such a decision. Petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 28.02.2020. However, if the impugned notification is set aside, the consequential benefits and revision of pensionary benefits may be also accorded to him. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent State has filed a formal affidavit supporting the impugned notification. He has relied upon the recommendation of the High Court as contained in letter no. 6860 dated 14.05.2012, whereby the High Court after considering the service records, dossier and ACRs of the officers who had crossed the age of 50 years, has been pleased to recommend in public interest to retire ten Judicial Officers including the petitioner from service with immediate effect on tendering them three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice in writing (Annexure-A). In accordance with the said recommendation, the State Government has decided to retire the petitioner along with nine other Judicial Officers compulsorily under Rule 74(b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code vide impugned notification dated 29.05.2012. He also submitted that under Article 233 and 235 of the Constitution of India, High Court is the controlling body regarding the service matters of Judicial Officers. The order and recommendation given by the High Court in this regard are to be held in high esteem and acted upon by the State Government. 8. Respondent No. 5-High Court has also filed an affidavit inter-alia stating that there is no illegality in the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. As such, there is no scope for interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It has also made reference to the letter of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India dated 14.10.2008 in the matter of evaluation of the Judicial Officers on the basis of their service records, quality of judgement and also in the matter of retirement of those officers, who are found unfit, ineffective, incompetent or have doubtful integrity on attaining the age of 50, 55-58 years. He submitted that Screening Committee of the High Court having scrutinized the entire service records of the petitioner, his overall performance as also vigilance report, had resolved vide Minutes dated 11.04.2012 that the services of the petitioner and nine others Judicial Officers were not required to be continued. They may be compulsorily retired under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code. The recommendation was placed before the Standing Committee for consideration which vide its Minutes dated 09.05.2012, resolved to accept the report. Accordingly, recommendation was made to the State Government for their compulsory retirement, pursuant whereto impugned notification dated 29.05.2012 has been issued. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned notification or the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5-High Court submitted that the entire service record of the employee has to be taken into consideration and even uncommunicated adverse entries can be taken into consideration for that purpose. His ACRs would show that overall performance of the petitioner was either average or satisfactory during different years. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5-High Court submitted that the entire service record of the employee has to be taken into consideration and even uncommunicated adverse entries can be taken into consideration for that purpose. His ACRs would show that overall performance of the petitioner was either average or satisfactory during different years. The power to compulsorily retire an employee under Rule 74(b) (ii) of Jharkhand Service Code is conferred to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standards of efficiency and honesty and to keep judicial service unpolluted. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken into note the relevant material pleadings from the record. A perusal of the service record of the petitioner in his service career starting from 1988-89 till 2007-08 would show that he was assessed as ‘satisfactory’ in the year 1988-89 and 1989-90 ; ‘good officer’ in 1990-91; ‘very good officer’ in 1992-1993; ‘fair in 1994-95; ‘good officer’ in 1995-96; ‘good’ in 1996-97; ‘Good Officer sober in nature’ in 1997-98; ‘good officer’ in 1998-99; ‘good officer having average merit’ in 1999-2000. On 04.03.2000 he was assessed as ‘satisfactory’; ‘average’ in the year 2000-01; ‘good’ in the year 2002-03; ‘B+ (Good)’ in 2003-04; ‘B+ Good Officer’ in 2004-05 and ‘satisfactory’ in the year 2007-08. Petitioner has in particular referred to the remarks made in the year 2004-05 and 2006-07 which would show that he had absconded from the Headquarter on each and every Sunday and holiday even without permission in violation of the Court’s direction. It was also indicated that he does not deserve any responsible post. However, notes indicates that Part-III was without approval / recording of Hon’ble Zonal Judge. In 2006-07, remark was made by the Reporting Officer regarding his reputation so far his integrity is concerned, though nobody has come forward with the specific complaint, but there is whisper against his integrity in Bar. The overall ACRs of the petitioner, as obtained by him under RTI, would show that the petitioner was assessed as ‘satisfactory’ on four occasions and also as ‘average in the year 2000-01. In the year 2003-04 also, it was reported that there was complaint against his integrity, honesty and impartiality which could not be established after enquiry. In the year 2005-06, remark was made regarding his reputation as doubtful. In the year 2003-04 also, it was reported that there was complaint against his integrity, honesty and impartiality which could not be established after enquiry. In the year 2005-06, remark was made regarding his reputation as doubtful. There were average and satisfactory remarks, so far as knowledge is concerned, in the earlier part of his service in 1995-96, 1996-97, 1999-2000, 04.03.2000, 2000-01 and in the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 also, remarks on his knowledge were average, satisfactory and satisfactory respectively. Similar remarks were made on the quality of his judgment in these three years i.e. average; satisfactory; and satisfactory. It therefore appears that the Screening Committee recommended his case for compulsory retirement on overall appraisal of his service performance, ACRs and dossier which were placed before the Standing Committee of the High Court. Standing Committee had concurred with the opinion of the Screening Committee and recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner and nine other Judicial Officers. Rule 74(b) of Jharkhand Service code reads as under : “74. [(b) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government:] [Provided further that in case of the officers and servants of the Patna High Court (including those of Circuit Bench at Ranchi) under the rule making authority of the Chief Justice, no such officer and servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the Chief Justice. [(ii) The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. [(iii) A Government servant who retires voluntarily is required to retire in public interest under this rule on attaining the age of 50 years, or completing qualifying service of 30 years, shall be entitled to retiring pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity.” 10. It is by now well settled that the power to compulsorily retire an officer is with an object to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standards of efficiency and honesty and to keep judicial service unpolluted. Though, there is limited scope of judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement, but the court has the right to examine whether some grounds and materials germane to the issue exist. However, sufficiency of material upon which such order rests, cannot be gone into since it is the subjective satisfaction of authority concerned. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Nand Kumar Verma (Supra) in particular paragraph-34 and 36 of the judgment. The Apex Court in the said case had come to a conclusion that the High Court had taken decision of compulsory retirement of the appellant Nand Kumar Verma on the basis of selective service record ignoring the totality of relevant material and therefore, it was not based on sufficient or relevant material. Service record of the appellant was not unsatisfactory. The Apex Court observed that greater importance should be given to opinion or remarks made by the immediate superior officer as to the functioning of Judicial Officer concerned for the purpose of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was interfered with. The Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Versus Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another [ (1992) 2 SCC 299 ] has enumerated the principles regarding the order of compulsory retirement, which are also relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma (Supra) and are profitably quoted hereunder : “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. (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 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 (iii) above.” 11. The opinion of the Apex Court in the matter of compulsory retirement at sub-para (v) clearly shows that the order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed merely on the showing that while passing it, uncommunicated remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the ground mentioned in sub-para (iii) above. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that past adverse remarks in the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 remain uncommunicated and could not have been taken into consideration for taking a decision of his compulsory retirement, does not hold good. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the ground mentioned in sub-para (iii) above. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that past adverse remarks in the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 remain uncommunicated and could not have been taken into consideration for taking a decision of his compulsory retirement, does not hold good. It further appears from perusal of the ACRs of the petitioner that subjective satisfaction of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee cannot be questioned in exercise of judicial review as it is not a case that where the learned Committee has selectively taken into consideration the service records for certain years only for taking a decision. In the case of Nand Kumar Verma (Supra), the Apex Court found at Para-34 that ACRs obtained by the appellant from the High Court under RTI and a comparison of ACRs taken into consideration by the High Court would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. As such, the Apex Court interfered in the matter. In this regard, it is apposite to place reliance on the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Gupta Versus State of Jharkhand and Another [ (2020) 13 SCC 355 ]. The law on the subject of compulsory retirement in the case of Judicial Officers has been summarized at para-17 of the Report which are quoted hereunder : “17. The law on the subject of compulsory retirement, especially in the case of judicial officers may be summarised as follows: 17.1. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is not punitive in nature. 17.2. An order directing compulsory retirement of a judicial officer has no civil consequences. 17.3. While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage. 17.4. Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired. 17.5. The “washed-off” theory does not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity. 17.6. 17.4. Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired. 17.5. The “washed-off” theory does not apply in case of judicial officers specially in respect of adverse entries relating to integrity. 17.6. The courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view the fact that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high-powered committee(s) of the High Court.” 12. The Apex Court had reiterated that the courts should exercise their power of judicial review with great circumspection and restraint keeping in view that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is normally directed on the recommendation of a high-powered committee of the Court. In the said case also, order of compulsorily retiring two Judicial Officers was considered by the Screening Committee on two occasions and its recommendation were accepted by the Standing Committee on both occasions. Therefore, it was a collective decision. In the absence of any allegations of mala fides or the facts so glaring that the decision of compulsory retirement was unsupportable by evidence, decision of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee comprising of senior High Court Judges should not be interfered with. Apex court had placed reliance upon the earlier decisions in the case of Chandra Singh and others Versus State of Rajasthan and another [ (2003) 6 SCC 545 ; Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and others Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir and others (2003) 9 SCC 592 ; Pyare Mohan Lal Versus State of Jharkhand and others (2010) 10 SCC 693 ; Rajendra Singh Verma Versus Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 10 SCC 1 ; R.C. Chandel Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another (2012) 8 SCC 58 ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Versus Babu Lal Jangir (2013) 10 SCC 551 ; High Court of Judicature of Patna through Registrar General Versus Shyam Deo Singh and others (2014) 4 SCC 773 , Para-7 to 12]. 13. In the facts of the present case, as borne from the records, it can’t be said that the decision of the Screening Committee was perverse or subjective satisfaction of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee of the High Court is vitiated for selectively taking into consideration the ACRs of the petitioner. 13. In the facts of the present case, as borne from the records, it can’t be said that the decision of the Screening Committee was perverse or subjective satisfaction of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee of the High Court is vitiated for selectively taking into consideration the ACRs of the petitioner. Consideration of the entire service record of the petitioner, as noticed above, would clearly show that his performance on several occasions was ‘satisfactory’ or ‘average’ and more contemporaneous records of the petitioner show satisfactory and average remarks. As such, following the ratio rendered by the Apex Court, as also reiterated in the case of Arun Kumar Gupta (Supra), we find that none of the grounds canvassed by the petitioner are made out for interfering in the order of compulsory retirement. 14. As observed hereinabove, ACRs of the petitioner for six years from 2000 till 2006 and 2007-08 showed that on two occasions, his ACR was assessed as ‘satisfactory’ and ‘average’. Therefore, the recommendation of the Screening Committee / Standing Committee of the High Court cannot be said to be actuated on malafides or perverse calling for interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.