JUDGMENT

RAY, C.J.I. :— This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 18 November, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. The respondent joined the Punjab Civil Service. (Executive Branch) in November, 1954. He was selected for the Judicial Branch of the Punjab Civil Service on or about 1 May, 1965. On 15 November, 1968 he was promoted as officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge.

3. The respondent was due to attain the age of 55 years on 24 February, 1971. His case was referred to the High Court for their recommendation whether the respondent should retire at the age of 55 years or he should be retained in service till the age of 58 years which is the prescribed age of super annuation under the Punjab Civil Service Rules.

4. The High Court was of opinion that the work of the respondent as Additional District and Sessions Judge was not satisfactory. The High Court was not inclined to recommend the respondents continuance in Superior Judicial Service up to the age of 58 years. The High Court recommended that the respondent should be reverted to his substantive post of Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate and that he might be allowed to continue in service till the age of 58 years.

5. The State Government agreed with the recommendation for reverting the respondent from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge to the Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate. With regard to the retention of the respondent in service up to the age of 58 years the State again asked the High Court to consider whether in view of the respondents work as Additional District and sessions Judge, Hissar having been found to be unsatisfactory, the respondent should be retained at all in service beyond the age of 55 years. The State Government suggested that it was in public interest to retire the respondent at the age of 55 years. The High Court did not agree with the suggestion. By letter dated 16 August, 1971 the High Court reiterated that the respondent might continue in service up to the age of 58 years. The State Government did not agree with the recommendation of the High Court and decided to retire the respondent under Rule 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. A notice was issued to the respondent on 20 August, 1971 giving him notice of three months on the expiry of which he would retire from service.

6. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court impeaching the notice dated 20 August 1971. The matter was heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. The order retiring the respondent from service was quashed by the majority opinion.

7. The question is whether the State Government could compulsorily retire a Senior subordinate Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate under Rule 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules against the recommendation of the High Court.

8. This Court in Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1955) 1 SCR 26 held that compulsory retirement does not involve stigma or any implication of mis-behaviour or incapacity. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (1961) 1 SCR 88 this Court said that in order to find out whether an order of compulsory retirement is or is not by way of punishment, is to find out whether a charge of imputation against the officer is made the basis of the exercise of power and second whether the officer is deprived of any benefit already earned.

9. In the recent decision in Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) 4 SCC 86 this Court held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment because the officer does not lose the terminal benefits already earned by him. In B. Venkateshwararao Naidu v. Union of India (1973) 1 SCC 361 this Court held that compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences.

10. It, therefore follows that compulsory retirement simpliciter does not amount to dismissal or removal or reduction in rank under Article 311 or under the Service Rules. It is in fact compulsory retirement in accordance with the terms and conditions of se