An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply any stigma. The principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement.

1. - By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order of the Govt. of Rajasthan D/- 9.11.2000 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53 (1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsory retired on recommendation of the High Court.

2. The facts that culled out are that the petitioner was initially selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service and appointed as Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate vide order D/- 29.8.1974. He was prompted to the Higher Judicial Service and posted as Additional District & Session Judge vide order D/- 16.5.1990 under R. 22 of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (Rules 1969) and was made substantive in the cadre of RHJS vide order D/- 25.6.1999.

3. While the petitioner was working as an officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a committee of Hon'ble Judges of this court was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order D/- 22.8.2000 to consider the cases of such of the judicial officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost it utility for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre-condition contemplated under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996 and the committee in its meeting held on 28/29th August, 2000 considered the cases of good number of judicial officers including the petitioner and after examining overall record of service including personal and other files of the officer arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order D/- 9.11.2000, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R. 244(2) of RSR (Old)/53(1) of Rules 1996.

4. The main thrust of counsel for the petitioner is that in the ACR of 1991 he was initially assessed as below average officer but on his representation, the word 'below' was deleted but still the Committee considered the ACR of 1991 which was originally indicating his work performance as below average and that has prejudiced the mind of the Committee and further submits that his disposal of work remain good and consistent and in these facts & circumstances of the subjective satisfaction of the committee arrived on the basis of service record for compulsory retirement is not based on valid material and such decision of becoming liability to the judicial service have no factual foundation and deserves to be quashed being an arbitrary exercise of power of the authority.

5. Counsel for petitioner has tried to persuade this Court as regards his doubtful integrity for the years 1982 & 1983 and the material which has been placed on record does not sustain the adverse remark and further grievance is that overall record of thee incumbent was to be looked into while taking decision as to whether one has become a deadwood or looses its utility to continue in service but from the minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice who examined the record of service of the petitioner it appears that it has not looked into the overall record of service and subjective satisfaction which has been based on the partial service record and decision of compulsory retirement of the officer is not legally sustainable deserves to be quashed.

6. The respondent filed their reply and while supporting the order impugned submits that the overall record of service was placed before the Committee annexed in the Form Schedule-A and as regards his integrity, it was found to be doubtful in 1982 and against the said ramark, representation and review petition both were rejected. In 1983, it was recorded that he was not good officer and his views found to be tainted with communalism ad the representatio