Virender Singh, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as "Judicial Officer") has prayed for quashing the notification bearing Memo No. 2732 dated 20.5.2003 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.3 herein), whereby in exercise of the powers under 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code of 2001 (for short "Service Code of 2001"), he has been compulsorily retired from service with effect from 20.5.2003 (as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application), asserting that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is completely arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and bad in law.

2. The journey of the Judicial Officer till he was compulsorily retired is as under:

He joined Bihar Judicial Service as Additional Munsif at Jamshedpur on 09.06.1975, and thereafter transferred to Nalanda as Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the year 1978. Again he was transferred to Hazaribagh, and then Godda as Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Thereafter, he was transferred to Gopalganj as Munsif on 02.02.1981. He was granted Junior Selection Grade after crossing the efficiency bar on 09.06.1985 and thereafter promoted on the post of Sub Judge on 12.05.1992 and posted at Patna. It is the second regular promotion and later on, he was posted at Araria as Sub Judge. On 14.08.1996, he was posted as Special Judge, Economic Offences at Purnia and thereafter, transferred to Gumla on 22.6.2000 where he joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was promoted as Additional District Judge on 11.8.2001 and posted at Lohardaga, from where he was compulsorily retired on 20.05.2003.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the Writ Court records.

4. Mr. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Judicial Officer submitted that once he was granted promotion after crossing the efficiency bar, he could not be removed from service in the garb of compulsory retirement under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001. He submitted that the Judicial Officer who was granted timely promotions and was posted on important assignments and against whom no departmental proceeding was ever initiated, cannot be retired compulsorily, may be, he was an average officer, as it does not satisfy the conditions under Rule 74(b)(ii) of Service Code of 2001.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the adverse remarks for year 2001-02 in the column for reputation as 'integrity doubtful' and for the year 2002-03 as 'very much doubtful' were never communicated to the petitioner enabling him to tender his explanation for the same, whereas remark in all other columns is average and the net result is 'B' i.e. 'Good', as one finds from the ACRs. He submitted that the grounds taken by the High Court as spelt out in the counter affidavit do not justify compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officer, more particularly on taking an overall view, to say that retiring him compulsorily was in public interest.

6. In support of his contentions learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court :-

(i) Swami Saran Saxena Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1980) 1 SCC 12

(ii) J.D. Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1984) 2 SCC 8

(iii) Ms. Bindra Vs. Union of India reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310

(iv) High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chandra Jain reported in (1999) 4 SCC 579

7. Per contra, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the High Court, while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693 submitted that a single adverse entry regarding integrity even in the remote past is considered to be sufficient to award compulsory retirement. He submitted that in the said judgment the effect