Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure P-10) retiring the petitioner from the post of District & Sessions Judge.

2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 as Sub Judge IIIrd Class-cum-Judicial Magistrate IInd Class and was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the year 1996. The petitioner was promoted as Additional District & Sessions, Judge in February, 1999. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the Annual Confidential Report (for short ‘the ACR’) of the petitioner for the last 10 years are “B+” except for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 for which period the same were recorded as “B- Satisfactory”. The said two ACRs alongwith the ACR for the year 1998-99 were down-graded to “B-Average” after the lapse of 8 years and conveyed to the petitioner on 08.02.2008. The petitioner has also pointed out that he was charge-sheeted in the year 1997 with the allegation of tampering with the interim orders dated 07.05.1997 and 19.05.1997 in pursuance to a complaint filed at the instance of Shri S.S.Sidhu, Advocate. Thereafter, the District & Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, was asked by the High Court to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri S.D.Anand, the then District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance) and later Judge of this Court. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner proposing punishment of removal from service, but vide order dated 04.11.2004 punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the order dated 01.08.2008, which led to the order of premature retirement was passed by the same Judge, who was the then District & Sessions Judge and submitted his preliminary enquiry report against the petitioner. The order dated 01.08.2008 has been passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Bhalla in Criminal Misc. No.5658-M of 2008 titled “Anil Narang vs. State of Punjab”, whereby the order passed by the petitioner directing the petitioner therein to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.9 lac was set aside by observing as under:

“A perusal of both the orders do spell out that the aforereferred orders have been passed without assigning any cogent reason therein and they have been passed in a mechanical manner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned in his order dated 12.12.2007 that pending service of notice, he be released on interim bail in the event of his arrest. The facts of the case have not been incorporated by him either in the order dated 12.12.2007 or the order dated 12.02.2008 by virtue of which the above said order was made absolute. What to talk of assigning reasons on the basis of which pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner even none of the contentions either of the petitioner or the State Counsel was considered appropriate to be mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 12.02.2008, whereby order dated 12.12.2007 was made absolute. It is, however, apt to mention here that it was imperative on the part of the trial Judge to record facts, contentions, discussions and reasons effectively while passing a judicial order finally after hearing both the parties so that it could appear that a well reasoned order has been passed in favour of either of the parties, but herein in the instant case, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to give facts of the case, contentions of either of the parties, and reasoning on the basis of which, such a harsh condition of furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.9 lac was imposed upon the petitioner. Such a conditional order was not required to be passed for the simple reason that a dispute with regard to shares of inheritance to the tune of Rs.9 lac was pending between the parties. I have gone through the various Annexures appended with the file of this case,