K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—A Judicial Officer compulsorily retired from service is before this Court challenging his severance from service.

2. Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the petitioner and argued for setting aside the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner who was initially appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) was promoted as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) and immediately thereafter suspended from service. The suspension was based on allegations with respect to which an inquiry was initiated. The inquiry was proceeded with and the evidence of the department was completed. While so, abruptly the proceedings were kept in abeyance as also the suspension and the officer was compulsorily retired. The learned Senior Counsel would stress on the aspect of the hasty manner in which the compulsory retirement was carried out especially when the inquiry was at the stage of the evidence of the delinquent employee. The doctrine of pleasure insofar as a compulsory retirement is concerned, cannot be invoked in a vacuum nor on extraneous considerations. When charges have been levelled and a disciplinary proceeding initiated, necessarily it has to be taken to its logical conclusion.

3. Learned Senior Counsel would stress upon the fact that the officer was even deprived of pension since he had not completed the minimum qualifying service. The compulsory retirement of the petitioner is hence stigmatic and punitive and cannot be considered as a weeding out, of deadwood, especially when he was found eligible for a promotion just prior to his suspension. The allegations raised against him were misconceived and ill motivated and his conduct as a Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board was above board.

4. The compulsory retirement has been made under the Bihar Service Code, 1952 specifically under Rule 74, the proviso of which requires the specific approval of the State Government before the order is passed. The suspension of the petitioner having not been revoked, the petitioner was earning only 50 per cent pay and he was thus deprived of even the notice pay in accordance with the provision under Rule 74. The allegations 1 to 8 and 10 & 12 were consigned and allegation 11 was the specific one under which the disciplinary proceedings were taken which was abruptly stopped. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the following judgments:—

(i) M.S. Bindra vs. Union of India & Others; (1998)7 SCC 310,

(ii) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and Another; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 234,

(iii) Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Another; (2022) 13 SCC 1,

(iv) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Others vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others; (1980) 2 SCC 593.

5. Shri Piyush Lall, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court submits that even if adverse entries are expunged, it can be considered for compulsorily retiring a person, without stigma and without it being deemed as a punishment, as has been held in State of U.P. and Another vs. Bihari Lal; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 593; when an officer is of doubtful integrity. If there are very many allegations, even if they are closed for reason of the impracticability of initiating a domestic inquiry, there could be a compulsory retirement imposed, as held in Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Another; (2020) 13 SCC 355. The allegations, gross in nature, were pointed out from the counter affidavit which were raised against the officer one after another. None of the allegations raised was closed on exoneration of the officer. One of the allegations had also led to a warning being issued and allegation No. 11 itself was serious enough to warrant the compulsory retirement.

6. There is no allegation of mala fides and there can be no ground of non-application of mind raised; especially considering the conduct of the officer as revealed from the various allegations raised against him. The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and unlike