Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Chaubey, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.5.2016 passed by the Special Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh whereby the petitioner has been granted compulsory retirement.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a member of U.P. Nyayik Seva on 13.4.1992. Consequent upon his appointment, the petitioner joined on the post of Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 10.10.2000. The petitioner was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service on 15.9.2010 and was posted as Additional District Judge at Azamgarh during the period 2012-13.

4. The Administrative Judge, Azamgarh wrote Annual Confidential Remarks (hereinafter referred to as “ACR”) for the year 2012-13 wherein he recorded that the complaints had been received regarding the work and conduct of the petitioner; and a vigilance enquiry on the complaint of one Shiv Shankar Singh was ordered against petitioner for taking bribe and illegal gratification in passing the judgment dated 19.12.2012, wherein he had acquitted the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 427 I.P.C. The Administrative Judge further recorded that while evaluating the judgment and order passed by the petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2010 (State v. Abhay Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2010 (State v. Ramakant Singh) in case crime No. 216 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Tarwan, District Azamgarh decided on 20.12.2012, he prima facie found that the said judgment had been rendered by the petitioner on the basis of some gratification and extraneous and irrelevant considerations. Therefore, again on 11.10.2013, he requested for a vigilance enquiry against the petitioner in respect of said decision.

5. In the said background the Administrative Judge, Azamgarh recorded that the work and conduct of the officer i.e. petitioner is not befitting to his post and in the opinion of the Administrative Judge, Azamgarh, the officer i.e. petitioner was positively lacking the integrity as judicial officer, therefore, his integrity could not be certified and he was rated as a poor officer.

6. The record reveals that against the remarks in the ACR for the year 2012-13, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 23.11.2013 to the Registrar General, High Court giving specific reasons for passing the judgment of acquittal in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2010 (State v. Abhay Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2010, and prayed for sympathetic consideration of his representation and expunge the adverse remark in the ACR for the year 2012-13.

7. In pursuance of the remarks in the ACR for the year 2012-13, a Vigilance Bureau Enquiry No. 47 of 2013 was instituted against the petitioner. The Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court submitted an enquiry report dated 10.2.2015. As per the petitioner, the vigilance report was placed before the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 31.3.2015 wherein the Administrative Committee considered the enquiry report dated 10.2.2015 of V.B. Enquiry No. 47 of 2013. The Administrative Committee resolved that the matter be dropped and no further action is required against the petitioner.

8. The record further reveals that a Departmental Enquiry No. 02 of 2014 was also instituted against the petitioner with regard to the Sessions Trial No. 507 of 2009 (State of U.P. v. Ajay Yadav and another) connected with Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2011 (State of U.P. v. Pathroo Singh) and Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2011