The order of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction and consideration of the entire service record, and interference is permissible only on specific grounds such as mala fide, no evidence, or arbitrariness.

S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition on behalf of a former judicial officer and member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service has been filed for quashing the order of his compulsory retirement, and for consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioner entered Government service initially as a Lower Division Clerk on 18.02.1976. While he was working as Stenographer Grade I, on promotion, in Bikaner Judgeship he successfully competed at the Rajasthan Judicial Service examination and was appointed to the Judicial Service on 27.09.1993. After completing training he was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate. While working as such on 010.1997 a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, CCA Rules) was issued to him. After inquiry, however, he was exonerated of the charge. On 13.01.2000, another charge-sheet was issued under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Again, he was exonerated of the charge. In file Nos. R/V/446/2000 and R/V/339/2003 orders were passed for initiating departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, but before charge-sheet could be issued his case was considered by a Committee of Judges which had been constituted by the Chief Justice to identify judicial officers falling within the zone of consideration for compulsory retirement under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (in short, the Pension Rules). The reconstituted committee finally considered the cases of the officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) and Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) who had either completed fifteen years of service or attained fifty years of age. It is relevant to mention here that though the petitioner was appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, on 27.09.1993, on his application, his past service rendered under the State Government from 18.02.1976 was counted and that is how he came within the zone of consideration. The Committee of Judges on consideration of his service record, including personal and other files, vide report dated 14.06.2004, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had proved to be a liability to the judicial service, and public interest warrants his immediate compulsory retirement. On 09.07.2004 the Full Court accepted the report of the Committee and made recommendation to the Governor for issuing the order. Order of compulsory retirement in public interest was issued by the Government on 13.07.2004 paying him three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of three months’ prior notice. By a separate communication on the same day, bank draft for the amount equivalent to three months’ pay and allowances was sent to him. Copies of the said order/letter have been enclosed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.

3. Before issuing formal notice to the respondents this Court considered it appropriate to examine the service records of the petitioner and called upon Shri Sangeet Lodha who usually appears for the High Court to produce the relevant records. From the record the following facts emerge, besides those already stated above.

4. During the first year of service in 1994 the petitioner was rated “good” but in 1995 and 1996 (I), he was rated “average”. In 1997 (I) he was rated “below average”. In the APAR the District Judge wrote that his character, integrity was under cloud and highly doubtful. He enjoyed a very low reputation and his general image was not commensurate of a judicial officer. In 1997 (II) also he was rated “below average”. In the year 1998 he was rated “average”. In 1999 he was rated “good” “on the basis of disposal of cases”. Again in 2000 he was rated “good” but in 2001 he was rated “average”. There was a remark about integrity and fairness and the integrity was said to be “highly doubtful” by the District Judge. In the year 2002 (I) he was again rated as “below average” but in 2002 (II) rated as “good”. In the year 2003 again he was rated as “average”. In 2004 he w