Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order of compulsory retirement passed by the High Court retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service. The petitioner was holding the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. He was a direct recruit appointed vide order dated 20.4.1998 on a probation period of two years. He was posted as District and Sessions Judge on 30.8.2002. He also held the post of Presiding Officer – Special Judge, Sessions Court, ACD Cases, Kota. While he was holding the post of Special Judge, Sessions Court, ACD Cases, Kota, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.5.2003 and a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him. Departmental enquiry was initiated into the allegation of accepting illegal gratification of Rs.15 lakhs from the accused Anandi Lal who was charged with the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Yet another memorandum of charge-sheet was served on 10.3.2004 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 of illegally granting bail to accused Pappu in connection with the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 341 IPC and thereby flouting the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur and also of the High Court.

4. The enquiry officer recorded statements of seven witnesses. No evidence of illegal gratification could be adduced. After revoking the suspension, his compulsory retirement was ordered. On the one hand, the suspension was revoked and enquiry was not continued, on the other hand, he was compulsorily retired on 13.7.2004 in public interest.

5. It is contended that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by way of penalty. He was promoted as District & Sessions Judge in August, 2002. There was no adverse material available against the petitioner so as to order his compulsory retirement. The enquiry ought to have been taken to its logical conclusion. Cancellation of bail of the accused was moved before the High Court, which petition was rejected. There was no adverse entry in the ACR communicated to the petitioner. The order has been passed as a camouflage for the order of penalty. Only those entries could have been considered which were duly communicated. During the pendency of the enquiry, he could not have been compulsorily retired.

6. In the return filed by the respondent no.2, High Court of Rajasthan, it is contended that though the petitioner was confirmed in the year 2000, he was also found fit to be posted as District & Sessions Judge in the year 2002, he was awaiting posting order. Then enquiry was initiated against him. The overall performance of the petitioner came to be considered by a duly constituted committee and considering the service record, the petitioner was not found fit to be continued in service and his compulsory retirement was ordered in public interest. As the compulsory retirement has been ordered, suspension was revoked and the enquiries were dropped. The compulsory retirement was ordered independent of the enquiries. The service record was scrutinised and there was sufficient material to order his compulsory retirement. His integrity was found to be doubtful in two ACRs and the quality of judgments was not upto the mark. He was not enjoying good reputation. He was found to be below average officer and his dealing was not fair and impartial with the public and the bar. The overall disposal figures of work performance and the service record were considered including reputation regarding integrity, behaviour with the public and bar, ACRs etc. before passing the order of compulsory retirement and un-communicated entry can also be taken into consideration in the matter of compulsory retirement.

7. Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the order of compulsory retir