IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Compulsory retirement from service is neither dismissal nor removal; it differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit.
2. A Judge is expected not to be influenced by any external pressure and he is also supposed not to exert any influence on others in any administrative or judicial matter.

JUDGMENT :-

R.M. LODHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. On 13.09.2004, the appellant, who was working on the post of District and Sessions Judge, Punna was compulsorily retired from the service in the public interest by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (for short, ‘the Government’) on the request of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (for short, ‘High Court’). The order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Government in exercise of its power under amended Rule 56(2)(a) of the Fundamental Rules, as made applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘1994 Rules’), Rule 42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘1976 Rules’) and Rule 1-A of Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1964 (for short, ‘1964 Rules’). In lieu of notice of three months, it was directed in the order that the appellant shall be entitled to three months’ salary and allowances which he was receiving prior to his retirement.

3. The appellant challenged the above order of compulsory retirement by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of that Court by his order dated 20.04.2006, allowed the writ petition; quashed the order of compulsory retirement dated 13.09.2004 and directed that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

4. The High Court on the administrative side challenged the order of Single Judge in writ appeal. The Division Bench of that Court on consideration of the entire matter held that the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement was ill-founded and, accordingly, set aside the order of the Single Judge vide its judgment dated 23.11.2006. It is from this order that the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.

5. The appellant was selected in the higher judicial service of Madhya Pradesh by direct recruitment. He joined the judicial service as an Additional District Judge on 17.10.1979. On 26.06.1985, he was confirmed as a District Judge. The appellant was awarded lower selection grade on 07.09.1990 with effect from 24.03.1989. He was awarded super time scale in May, 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. As noted above, by the order dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was compulsorily retired in public interest.

6. We have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for the High Court on the administrative side.

7. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Division Bench was not at all justified in setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order and the findings recorded therein are founded on incorrect and misleading facts. The service record of the appellant speaks otherwise.The appellant has been largely assessed in his ACRs ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. He highlighted that the appellant was confirmed as District Judge in 1985, he was awarded lower selection grade in 1990, he was given super time scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002 on merits and, on the basis of his judicial work he was also recommended for elevation as a High Court Judge by the High Court collegium in March, 2004.

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that compulsory retirement of the appellant on the basis of an adverse entry recorded in 1989 and two subsequent adverse entries for 1993 and 1994 was wholly unjustified. As regards 1989 adverse entry, learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant was awarded lower selection grade in 1990 and, therefore, the said entry had lost its efficacy. In respect of entries recorded in 1993 and 1994, learned senior counsel submitted that the said entries also lost their significance since the appellant was awarded super time scale in 1999 and above super time scale in 2002. In between in 2001,