Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ.—On the recommendation made by the Patna High Court vide Letter No. 14571, dated 09.03.2022, His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, issued a notification dated 16.03.2022, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from his service by invoking Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code (in short the Code).

2. The afore-noted order of compulsory retirement is under challenge in the present petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/Judicial Officer and Mr. Piyush Lall, the learned counsel for the Patna High Court. The State is represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, the learned AC to AAG-3.

4. The issues raised in the present petition are as follows:—

(i) There were no sufficient material evidences available before the High Court against the petitioner to form any bonafide opinion that he has become a dead wood and that his services were not needed in public interest.

(ii) The recommendation of the High Court and the decision of the Government suffers from the vice of malafide’ and unreasonableness.

(iii) The appointing authority was required to subjectively test the recommendations made by the Patna High Court on the anvil of public interest before taking a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner/Judicial Officer.

(iv) The petitioner had been a diligent Judicial Officer, who has suffered the ignominy of having been shown the door much before his date of superannuation.

5. Section 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code reads as hereunder:—

“The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month’s pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.”

6. A quick look at the law, which has developed with respect to compulsory retirement of an employee/Judicial Officer, would only serve the requisite purpose of testing the case of the petitioner.

7. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha : (1970) 2 SCC 458 had held that compulsory retirement does not involve civil consequences. The appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one, which power can be exercised, subject to conditions mentioned in the Rule, one of which is that the authority concerned must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bonafide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before the Courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. This judgment was followed in State of Gujarat vs. Suryakant Chunulal Shah : (1999) 1 SCC 529.

8. Later, in Baikuntha Nath Das vs. District Medical Officer : (1992) 2 SCC 299, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court laid down that:—

(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.

(ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.

(iii) The principles of natural justice have no place in the test of the order of compulsory retirement; which does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or the Supreme Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, but the order of compulsory retirement could be interfered, if the Courts are satisfied that the order passed is malafide or is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary