ANJANA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner joined the Superior Judicial Service in the year 1991 on being selected as Additional District & Sessions Judge. He was placed at serial no. 2 in the list of 32. After completion of training, he was first posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda, which is now in the State of Jharkhand. His service was confirmed on 6-5-1992. He worked as Additional District & Sessions Judge at various places, such as Purnea and Siwan. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 2008, and punishment of reduction of rank by 17 places was imposed and the same became final.

2. The petitioner was functioning as Presiding Officer, Family Court, Gaya and on 14-2-2012 was transferred as District & Sessions Judge, Jehanabad.

3. A complaint/representation dated 7-8-2013 (Annexure-10) was addressed to this Court by the President and Secretary of the Bar Association, Jehanabad, alleging that the conduct of the petitioner as District & Sessions Judge was highhanded and arbitrary. One retired Stenographer of the court, by name Jagdish Sharma addressed a letter dated 2-8-2013 alleging that the petitioner committed irregularities in the matter of purchase of furniture and other items. The learned Inspecting Judge is said to have directed enquiry into this and on the basis of the report received from the Officer On Special Duty and Registrar (Vigilance), the matter was directed to be placed before the Standing Committee, on the direction issued by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Standing Committee, in turn, passed a Resolution in its Meeting dated 7-1-2014 directing that the petitioner be retired compulsorily in exercise of power under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code (for short, the Code), in public interest, duly offering him pay of three months. It was resolved on the same day that the petitioner shall be relieved from all duties. The said Resolution was placed before the Full Court, and at its Meeting held on 11-1-2014 the Full Court approved the same. That resulted in issuance of the Notification dated 6-2-1994 (Annexure-1) by the General Administration Department of the Government, compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

4. The petitioner contends that the order of compulsory retirement was passed as punishment, without conducting enquiry. He contends that the letters addressed by the retired Stenographer, by name, Jagdish Sharma, formed the sole basis for the Standing Committee and the Full Court, and the same is contrary to law. Other grounds are also urged.

5. The High Court filed counter-affidavit. The fact that representation/complaint was received from the President and Secretary of the Bar Association, Jehanabad and two complaints from Jagdish Sharma, Retired Stenographer, is admitted. It is stated that the said representations/complaints and relevant materials were placed before the Standing Committee, which, in turn, passed the aforesaid Resolution. It was further stated that the measure of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, and the Resolution and the consequent impugned order were passed on the basis of past performance of the petitioner.

6. Sri Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the Resolution of the Standing Committee, which is made available by the Court, makes it clear that the sole basis for the steps taken was a couple of letters addressed by the retired Stenographer, and it is a clear case of imposition of punishment without conducting enquiry. He submits that in case the High Court wanted to retire the petitioner compulsorily, in public interest, it could have done in usual course by evaluating his performance, and the very fact that the petitioner was promoted as District & Sessions Judge despite there being punishment on earlier occasion, makes the plea take