JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service and relieved thereby has filed the instant writ petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “ 1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to quash the Notification as contained in Memo no.13/Judicial Misc.-06/2014 Personnel 4496/Ranchi dated 21.5.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby notification has been issued with respect to recommendation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 74 (kha) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code as the petitioner has completed the age of 50 years, without whispering anything about the petitioner, although Annual Confidence Report of the petitioner never speaks about the fact that petitioner was inefficient, dead wood, corrupt or dishonest, nor the order has been issued under public interest and without taking totality of the fact and the entire service record as well as character roll, the petitioner has been forced to superannuate at the age of 50 years when proper fruits of his service career was essential for carrying out the entire family liability of the petitioner and as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement is fit to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits, including full salary till the date of superannuation.” 3. It is averred that the petitioner was inducted in the judicial service in the erstwhile State of Bihar, where he served till the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and was thereafter allotted Jharkhand cadre and worked up till the service of the impugned order dated 21 st May, 2014. 4. According to the Writ petitioner, he has an unblemished service record, which would be evident from the fact that he has been promoted to the rank of Civil Judge, Senior Division in the year 2009 and thereafter posted as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sahebganj, where he joined on 25.03.2010. Not only this, the petitioner had been posted as an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 2012 and was continuing on the same post till the date of the impugned notification. Not only this, the petitioner had been posted as an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 2012 and was continuing on the same post till the date of the impugned notification. It is further alleged that the petitioner has served the judiciary for about 25 years in different capacity and performed his role honestly with full devotion and dedication. 5. In the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.), nothing adverse has been found against the petitioner so as to compulsorily retire him from service. It is specifically contended that the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, as assessed by the learned District Judge, Sitamarhi (Bihar) was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a representation against said ACR on 25.09.2001 but the High Court rejected the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner’s ACR for the year 2008-09, as assessed by the then District & Sessions Judge, Koderma was communicated to petitioner and has since been expunged by the High Court. As regards the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report for the year 2011-2012 as assessed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Sahebganj, the same was communicated to the petitioner only because of the fact that the Principal District Judge, Sahebganj had uttered some unparliamentary remark against the petitioner on 01.09.2011 and the petitioner had informed the matter to the High Court and subsequently the Principal District Judge had sent a special report against the petitioner on 03.09.2011 and because of that biasness, he entered adverse remarks for the year 2011-2012, which was communicated to the petitioner on 18.07.2013. The petitioner made a representation against the remark but the same was rejected by the High Court. The petitioner vide letter dated 22.02.2012 had requested the High Court to transfer him from Sahebganj showing apprehension that his career could be spoiled by the Principal District Judge, posted there and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Garhwa, as Civil Judge, Senior Division. The petitioner vide letter dated 22.02.2012 had requested the High Court to transfer him from Sahebganj showing apprehension that his career could be spoiled by the Principal District Judge, posted there and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to Garhwa, as Civil Judge, Senior Division. Lastly, it has been averred that while issuing the impugned notification on the basis of recommendation made by the Standing Committee of the High Court, the petitioner has never been considered to be inefficient, dead wood, dishonest or corrupt, nor the petitioner has been found to be inefficient for service and therefore, without forming a requisite opinion to this fact, on the basis of the materials on record, no occasion for compulsory retirement has been made out and therefore, the order deserves to be quashed. 6. The reply filed on behalf of the State-authorities hardly of any avail, as admittedly the authorities have acted upon the recommendation made by the High Court under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 for the compulsory retirement, recommending the compulsory retirement of several judicial officers including the petitioner. 7. By adverting to the reply filed on behalf of the High Court, It is stated therein, that a letter dated 14.10.2008 from the Chief Justice of India was received in this Court with regard to evaluation of performance of judicial officers on the basis of their service record, quality of judgment and also in matters regarding retirement of those officers, who were found unfit, ineffective, incompetent or having doubtful integrity on attaining the age of 50 and 55-58 years. In the light of the directions contained in this letter, the process of evaluation of judicial officers including the petitioner who had attained the requisite age, as aforesaid, was commenced. The service records and other relevant records of the judicial officers were placed before the Chief Justice of this Court, who, in turn, referred the matter to the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee considered the service records, vigilance files and entries made in the A.C.R. in respect of the petitioner and thereafter recommended that the services of some of the judicial officers including the petitioner were not required to be continued and thus recommended that they may be retired from service compulsorily under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The aforesaid recommendation, dated 22.04.2014 of the Screening Committee was placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court, who, in turn was pleased to refer the matter to the Standing Committee for its consideration. The Standing Committee having examined the said report of the Screening Committee as also the service records, vigilance files and the entries made in the A.C.Rs. of the officers, whose names have been recommended by the Screening Committee of the High Court for compulsory retirement, as well as totality of the materials appearing against such officers, on 29.04.2014, resolved to accept the report of the Screening Committee in the interest of justice for dispensing with the services of four such officers including the Writ petitioner by subjecting them to compulsory retirement under the aforesaid Code. Thereafter, the above resolution of the Standing Committee was finally placed before the Full Court, whereupon the Full Court by its resolution dated 05.05.2014 approved the said resolution/recommendation dated 29.04.2014 of the Standing Committee of the Court. Accordingly, recommendations of the Court, as aforesaid were forwarded to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, who thereafter issued the impugned Notification. 8. It has been vehemently argued by Mrs. Vaani Kumari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the compulsory retirement being totally unreasoned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. She would further argue that in absence of being any material to show that the petitioner was inefficient, dead wood, dishonest or corrupt, he could not have been compulsorily retired. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the High Court, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta contends that by the materials placed on record, it was after taking into consideration, the entire records pertaining to the petitioner, as mentioned in the reply, that the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired, which order essentially need not be speaking one. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now been crystallized into definite principles which can be summarized as under:- (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. 11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now been crystallized into definite principles which can be summarized as under:- (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment, under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead- wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry and when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 12. Adverting to the scope of judicial review, in matters of compulsory retirement of judicial officers, in Rajendra Singh Verma-Vs.-Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) , ( 2011) 10 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, held that if the authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful and it is in public interest to retire such judicial officer, judicial review of such order should be made with great care and circumspection. It is specifically observed that when an order of compulsory retirement is passed, the authority concerned has to take into consideration the whole service record of the concerned officer which could include no communicated adverse remarks also. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations as contained in paras 218-219. “218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of this Court to warrant or justify any interference. “218. On a careful consideration of the entire material, it must be held that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court, forming their unanimous opinion, is neither so arbitrary nor capricious nor can be said to be so irrational, so as to shock the conscience of this Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be blown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things, it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some real injustice, which ought not to have taken place, has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court. 219. Viewed thus, and considered in the background of the factual details and materials on record, there is absolutely no need or justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the three appeals fail and are dismissed. Having regard to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 13. It is otherwise settled law that compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary Rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in disciplinary proceedings, because such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. 14. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. 14. Then there are service rules, such as 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest, is found bona fide , the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with, by the judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being mala fide based on no materials or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. ( M.S. Bindra-Vs.-Union of India & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310 ). 15. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be noticed that even as per the petitioner himself right from the year 2001 to 2010 i.e. for 10 years (one decade) that the petitioner did not decide a single civil case, whereas, in the year 2011 he decided two cases, in 2012; 59 cases, in 2013; 129 cases and in the year 2014; 71 cases. He only decided criminal cases. This by itself clearly reflects, how inefficient the petitioner had been, while in service. 16. Even otherwise, the mere fact that some benevolence has been extended to him by still promoting him, does not carry his case any further. 17. As regards the order of compulsory retirement, being bereft of any reason, it was more than necessary that whether the authorities can make an order of compulsory retirement for any reason and no reason has been mentioned in the order, it cannot be predicated that the order of compulsory retirement has an indent stigma in the order. 18. 17. As regards the order of compulsory retirement, being bereft of any reason, it was more than necessary that whether the authorities can make an order of compulsory retirement for any reason and no reason has been mentioned in the order, it cannot be predicated that the order of compulsory retirement has an indent stigma in the order. 18. This Writ petition proceeds on the premise that the petitioner having compulsorily retired and therefore, such a retirement is stigmatic, whereas, it is more than settled that once the order is innocuous and does not contain any note, from which, anything could be inferred, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement amounted to an order of removal from service and by itself is a punitive and therefore, stigmatic. "12. An order of compulsory retirement on one hand causes no prejudice to the government servant who is made to lead a restful life enjoying full pensionary and other benefits and on the other gives a new animation and equanimity to the Services. The employees should try to understand the true spirit behind the rule a which is not to penalize them but amounts just to a fruitful incident of the Service made in the larger interest of the country. Even if the employee feels that he has suffered, he should derive sufficient solace and consolation from the fact that Item No.20/C-1 this his small contribution to his country, for every good cause claims its martyr." ( Union of India-Vs.-M.E.Reddy, (1980) 2 SCC 15 ) 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this Writ petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.