Altamas Kabir, C.J.

1. This writ application, along with several other similar writ applications, has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge, for hearing and disposal since it involved a question regarding invocation of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code by the State Government to compulsorily retire the writ petitioner on the recommendation of the Jharkhand High Court.

2. The writ petitioner had been initially appointed as a temporary Munsif under the erstwhile Government of Bihar and was confirmed in the rank of the Munsif with effect from 1st April, 1985. He was thereafter empowered to act as Sub-Judge-I-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Assistant Sessions Judge in Godda in the month of May, 1990 and according to the writ petitioner during his tenure at Godda, he was involved in certain disputes with the learned District Judge for which he sought his transfer from Godda. It appears that such prayer was rejected by the Patna High Court and ultimately, certain adverse remarks were recorded in the petitioners Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 1991-92. However, such remarks appear to have been expunged on the petitioners representation, but subsequently such remarks were repeated and despite the petitioners representation, the same were not expunged from his Annual Confidential Report. The petitioner was ultimately posted at Khunti (Ranchi) by order dated 21st April, 2001. Soon thereafter, he was served with the order dated 17th July, 2001 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, State of Jharkhand retiring him compulsorily from his service. The said order has been challenged in this writ application.

3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Sharma, learned counsel, submitted that till the petitioner was posted at Godda, no adverse remarks were recorded as far as the petitioners services is concerned and that he was unfortunate in incurring the displeasure of the then District Judge, Godda. Mr. Sharma urged that differences arose between the writ petitioner and the learned District Judge, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner did not act in terms of the instructions of the District Judge with regard to judicial matters, which led to adverse remarks being recorded in his Annual Confidential Report. Mr. Sharma submitted that subsequently, option was sought for from the petitioner for being posted as the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and also for the post of Under Secretary (Law) in the newly-created State of Jharkhand on 23.11.2000. Mr. Sharma submitted that the writ petitioner was ultimately posted as Sub-Judge-I-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge at Khunti in Ranchi and the very fact that he had been offered posting as the Under Secretary (Law) in the State of Jharkhand would indicate that the adverse remarks against the writ petitioner were not on account of his performance, but since he had incurred the wrath and displeasure of the District Judge at Godda. Mr. Sharma submitted that the State Government had wrongly invoked the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the petitioners case and the same was liable to be quashed and the petitioner was entitled to receive all consequential benefits.

4. Opposing the writ petition, Mr. R.S. Majumdar urged that the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, as the High Court took into consideration the total service career of the writ petitioner and after coming to the conclusion that it would not be conducive in the public interest to continue with the petitioners service, recommended the invocation of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code in the petitioners case.

5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Majumdar referred to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court from which it would appear that not only was the petitioners performance found to be wanting, but there was persiste