ORDER

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure-P-1) whereby, he has been compulsorily retired.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 28.7.1979 as Civil Judge Class-II. His services were later-on confirmed and he was given promotion from time to time to next higher posts. Vide order dated 13.8.1998 the petitioner was confirmed as District Judge with effect from 4.10.1997. According to petitioner, his entire service career remained unblemished. His service record remained excellent. Most of the ACRs were very good or excellent barring few which were also not adverse but only of advisory in nature. The petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 20.9.2004 in exercise of powers under rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 (hereinafter as referred as “the Rules of 1976), whereby, he has been compulsorily retired in public interest.

3. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not in public interest, the same is contrary to the provisions of law. The Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the relevant past five years commencing from 1999-2000 to 2003-04 do not contain iota of adverse material. Not even a single departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner was good performer and he cannot be termed as dead-wood. Since the order impugned is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The respondents have justified their stand. It is stated that the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Uchhatar Nyanik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 and sub-rule 2 of rule 14 provides that the provisions of rule 56 (3) of the Fundamental Rules and rule 42 (1) (b) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 have been specifically made applicable to the members of higher judicial services. It is provided in the applicable Rules that the appointing authority in public interest may retire a Government servant after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age, whichever, is earlier with the approval of the State Government after giving three months notice or and in the absence of such notice the Government servant is entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance for the period of notice. The petitioner can always be retired on completing the 20 years of service or 50 years of age whichever is earlier. In the present case, the petitioner was not given three months notice in lieu thereof, three months salary has been given to him in advance.

5. In rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that in February 1980, the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge, Class-II in Vidisha. The communication dated 14.1.1982 issued to him was advisory in nature. He was not graded as “D” and was never communicated with the adverse remark in the year 1980-81. The disposal of the work of the petitioner was average 91.05% per month. For the year ending 31st March, no grading was mentioned in his ACR and the communication dated 15.9.1982 was advisory in nature. The adverse remark pertaining to ending year 31st March 1983 graded “D” has never been communicated to him. So called adverse remark of the year 1983-84 as Annexure-R-3 was never communicated to the petitioner. On the contrary, the District Judge himself endorsed the disposal of work at the relevant time as 105.%. The adverse remark “D” for the year ending 1984-85 was also not communicated. Neither the remark for the year 1984-85 graded C was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has explained in his rejoinder all adverse remark. He states that the same are only either advisory in nature or h