Saral Srivastava, J.

1. 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 03.05.2016 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 13.04.1992. 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 15.09.2010 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 Vs. Abhay Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No.224 of 2010 (State Vs. 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 Vs. 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 10.02.2015. As per the petitioner, the vigilance report was placed before the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 31.03.2015 wherein the Administrative Committee considered the enquiry report dated 10.02.2015 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. Vs. Ajay Yadav and another) connected with Sessions Trial No.282 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Pathroo Singh) and Sessions Trial No.255 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh). The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry no. 02 of 2014.

9. It appears that in the meantime, a Screening Committee was constituted to consider the suitability of judicial officers with regard to their continuance in the service. The Screening Committee in its meeting on 01.04.2016 considered the case of the petitioner and recommended for compulsory retirement of petitioner and also rejected the representation of the petitioner against adverse remarks for the year 2012-13. Recommendation of the Screening Committee is extracted herein-below:-

SI No. ID. No. Name of the Officer Recommendation Avinash Chandra Tripathi, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Meerut.

The service record of officer reveals that in year 2012-13, the Honble A.J. did not agree with the remarks of the District Judge pertaining to the officer so far as the fairness of the working of the officer and his integrity was concerned. The court remarks also contained the fact that the Honble A.J. had recommended to hold vigilance enquiry against the officer in respect of judgments passed by the officer in many Sessions Trials. It is also contained in the court remarks that judgments submitted by the officer, is rendered on the basis of some gratification and extraneous, irrelevant considerations with corrupt motive, whereby he has acquitted the accused persons in a gang rape case.

Thus, in view of these facts, the court remarks stated that reputation of officer received from various other sources has been found to be not befitting his post and in the considered opinion of the Honble A.J. officer is positively lacking the integrity as Judicial Officer, therefore, his integrity can not certified. The officer was rated as poor officer.

A Departmental Enquiry No. 02/2014 is also pending against the officer where in allegations touching the integrity of the officer has been made.

The officers integrity has been found positively lacking in the year 2012-13 and he is rated as a poor officer.

The committee after taking into consideration overall service record of the officer recommends that the officer be compulsorily retired.

Representation of officer against Adverse Remarks for the year 2012-13 is rejected being devoid of force.

10. The Full Court accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee to compulsory retire the petitioner. Consequently, the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad by letter dated 19.04.2016 recommended to the State Government for issuing an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner.

11. The State Government on 03.05.2016 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service with effect from the date of said order with stipulation that the salary for the period of three months would be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order of compulsory retirement in this petition.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the High Court, Allahabad stating therein that the representation of the petitioner against the ACR for the year 2012-13 was rejected being devoid of force. The petitioner was informed about the rejection of the representation vide Courts D.O. No.C1064/Cf(A)/2016 dated 01.06.2016 through the District Judge, Meerut. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not exonerated in the V.B. Enquiry No.47 of 2013, but the Administrative Committee passed the resolution dropping of the vigilance enquiry against the petitioner. The respondents have further averred in the counter affidavit that there is no bar to compulsorily retire an officer from service during the pendency of the enquiry. The allegations upon which the departmental enquiry was instituted were quite serious in nature.

13. It is further stated that the Screening Committee had taken due consideration the adverse material against the petitioner on record and thereafter, the Screening Committee in its wisdom rightly recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The respondent High Court, Allahabad has enclosed the ACR of the petitioner from the years 1992-93 to 2014-15 as Annexure-CA 3. It would be useful to have a glance of the ACR as recorded by the District Judge and the Administrative Judge in respect of petitioner while petitioner was posted at different Districts during his service tenure, and as such, same are set out herein-below:-

Year Judgeship Post held during the year Remarks Inspecting Judge/District Judge 1992-1993 Basti IV Additional Munsif Integrity:-Certified Judgments:-Satisfactory Disposal:-36.1% Inadequate Sitting:-Punctual Over all assessment:-Fair Sri S.K. Gupta, District Judge 1993-1994 Basti IV Additional Munsif, Integrity Certified Proper fixation of cause list-Satisfactory Progress and disposal of execution cases:-Out of 53 execution cases, 01 decide Judgements:-Satisfactory Disposal of work:-13% Adequate Over all assessment:-Fair Sri S.K. Gupta, District Judge 1994-1995 Munsif- Magistrate Disposal of work:-Adequate Relations:-Cordial District Judge graded:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice O.P. Pradhan 1995-1996 Bahraich V Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Disposal:-130.4% Relations with Bar:-Cordial Sitting:-Punctual Integrity:-Certified Justice R.N. Ray 1996-9197 Bahraich Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dr.) Disposal:-124% Sitting:-Punctual Relations:-Cordial District Judge assessed:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Inspecting Judge 1997-1998 Bahraich V & IV Addl.Civil Judge (J.D.), Disposal:-Adequate, 144.02% Relations:-Good Rated:-Sincere, honest and very good Judicial Officer Integrity:-Certified Justice Dr. Maithli Sharan 1998-1999 Chandauli Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Integrity:-Beyond doubt Character:-Good Judgements:-Satisfactory Disposal:-Adequate, 131.67% Over all assessment:-Good Sri U.S. Tripathi 1999-2000 Chandauli Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Disposal:-130% Satisfactory Integrity:-Certified Justice G.P. Mathur 2000-2001 Kushinagar Civil Judge (S.D.) Integrity:-Beyond doubt Judgements:-Well reasoned Disposal:-127.32% Over all assessment:-Very good Sri Brahm Singh, District Judge 2001-2002 Kushinagar Chief Judicial Magistrate, Disposal:-153.54% Relations:-Cordial Over all performance:-Good Integrity:-Certified Rated: Good Officer Justice Pradeep Kant 2002-2003 Kushinagar Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rated: Good Officer Sitting-Punctual Disposal:-Adequate Relations:-Cordial Over all assessment:-Very good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice U.K. Dhaon 2003-2004 Kushinagar Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasia, Rated: Good Officer Sitting-Punctual Disposal:-Adequate Relations:-Cordial Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice U.K. Dhaon 2004-2005 Kanpur Nagar Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Disposal:-144.73% Judgements:-Satisfactory Over all assessment:-Good Integrity:-Certified Justice Bhanwar Singh 2005-2006 Kanpur Nagar Civil Judge (Senior Division), Judicial work:-Above the prescribed standard Judgements-Satisfactory Relations:-Cordial Sitting-Punctual Over all assessment:-Good Integrity:-Certified Justice Bhanwar Singh 2006-2007 Kanpur Nagar Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Sitting-Punctual Disposal:-Adequate Relations:-Cordial Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice U.K. Dhaon 2007-2008 Sultanpur Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Disposal:-107.7% Judgements:-Well reasoned Sitting-Punctual Relations:-Cordial Over all assessment : Average Integrity:-Certified Justice A.N. Varma 2008-2009 Sultanpur Addl. District & Sessions Judge/F.T.C. - III, Disposal:-118.42% Sitting-Punctual Judgements:-Well reasoned Relations:-Cordial Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice Rajiv Sharma 2009-2010 Sultanpur Addl. District & Sessions Judge/FTC, Relations:-Cordial Character:-Good Judgements:-Well reasoned Disposal:-111.97% Aadequate Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice Alok K. Singh 2010-2011 Azamgarh Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Disposal:-98.05% Over all assessment:-Good officer Justice Sanjay Misra 2011-2012 Azamgarh Rated:-Good officer Disposal:-121.96% Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice Arun Tandon) 2012-2013 Azamgarh Addl. Distt.& Sessions Judge Disposal:-120.46%Adequate.

Integrity:-Certified.

Relations:-Cordial Sitting:-Punctual.

District Judge, Azamgarh The work and conduct of the officer is not befitting to his post. His integrity cannot be certified. He is rated as a poor officer.

Justice Sabhajeet Yadav 2013-2014 Azamgarh Addl. District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act) Disposal:-103.70% Behaviour:-Good Over all assessment:-Good officer Integrity:-Certified Justice Ravindra Singh 2014-2015 Meerut Addl. District & Sessions Judge Integrity:-Certified Judgements-Satisfactory Disposal:-Adequate 78.93% Justice Amar Singh Chauhan

14. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit wherein he has stated that the enquiry officer in departmental enquiry no.02 of 2014 had submitted a report on 02.09.2011 wherein the enquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner were not proved. The conclusion recorded by the enquiry officer is reproduced herein-below:-

"In view of the above-noted discussion, merely on the basis of the alleged hear-say, it will not be safe to held that the judgment was delivered to provide undue benefit to the accused persons on extraneous consideration. According to my opinion, there is no reliable evidence that the Charged Officer acted in an unfair and unjustified manner. Hence, charge not proved.

Let this report be placed for consideration before the Honble Administrative Committee of this Court."

15. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the order of compulsory retirement is bad and is an outcome of arbitrary exercise of power inasmuch as the Screening Committee has failed to consider the entire service record of the petitioner.

16. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if ACR given to the petitioner by the District Judges and the Inspecting Judges for the whole service period is looked into, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has always been certified as a good officer, very good officer; his disposal of work was certified to be adequate and his integrity was never doubted rather it was always certified. His submission is that the Screening Committee has considered the remarks only for one year i.e. 2012-13 and the pendency of departmental enquiry no.02 of 2014 whereas it is settled principle of law that while recommending a person for compulsory retirement, his entire service record has to be looked into in order to arrive at a conclusion that the employee is a dead wood for the department.

17. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Screening Committee noticed the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, but the Screening Committee did not consider the fact that the enquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner not proved. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the pendency of the departmental enquiry cannot be made basis to form an opinion to give premature retirement to the petitioner. Further submission is that the Special Officer (Vigilance) submitted report on 10.02.2015, but the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 31.03.2015 resolved to drop the proceeding against the petitioner and further resolved that no further action is required against the petitioner in pursuance of enquiry report of Special Officer (Vigilance). Thus, screening committee had illegally swayed by the recommendation of the Administrative judge in the ACR of petitioner for instituting a vigilance enquiry against him.

18. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 23.11.2013 against the remarks in the ACR for the year 2012-13 and the Screening Committee without considering the representation of the petitioner rejected the same without assigning any reason. The order of the screening committee rejecting petitioners representation is non speaking and is not sustainable in law.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforesaid submission has relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court:

"(i) Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and others 1999 (3) SCC 396 (ii) High Court of Punjab & Haryana through R.G. Vs. Inshwar Chand Jain and another 1999 (4) SCC 579 [LQ/SC/1999/473] and (iii) Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others 2012 (3) SCC 580 [LQ/SC/2012/119] . "

20. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Screening Committee has considered the entire service record of the petitioner while recommending the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. He submits that the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings is no bar for considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement.

21. He further urges that even if the Administrative Committee decided to drop the proceeding after considering the enquiry report submitted by the Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad in V.B. Enquiry No.47 of 2013 on 10.02.2015, but as the enquiry report was against the petitioner, therefore, the Screening Committee was well within its right to consider the enquiry report in V.B. Enquiry No.47 of 2013 to ascertain the suitability of the petitioner with regard to his continuance in the service. He submits that since the petitioner has not challenged the rejection of the representation regarding the remarks in ACR for the year 2012-13, therefore, he has acquiesced to the decision of the Screening Committee with regard to rejection of his representation.

22. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that writing of ACR is the domain of the executive and the Courts should not interfere in cases of complaints against the adverse remarks and substitute their own finding for that of the reporting or reviewing officer. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court in support of his contention:

"(i) Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through Lrs. and others Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others 2011 (10) SCC 1 (ii) Nawal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2003 (8) SCC 117 (iii) Triloki Ram Vs. District Judge and another 2015 (4) ADJ 126. [LQ/AllHC/2015/680] "

23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the writ petition and also the original record relating to the petitioner produced before us by the learned counsel of the High Court.

24. Before considering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, we would first appreciate the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner.

25. In the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary (supra), the Apex Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer which in the opinion of the Apex Court was not supported by the material on record. In the said case, the Apex Court has considered the word consult in Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 26 to 28 of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below:

"26. From the scheme of the Constitution, as set out above, it will be seen that though the officers of subordinate judiciary are basically and essentially Government servants, their whole service is placed under the control of the High Court and the Governor cannot make any appointment or take any disciplinary action including action for removal or compulsory retirement unless the High Court is "CONSULTED" as required by the constitutional impact of both the Articles 233 and 234 and the "control" of the High Court indicated in Article 235.

27. The word "consult" in its "to ask advice" or "to take counsel". The Governor is ordinary meaning means thus a"consultor" and the High Court is the "consultee" which is treated as an expert body in all matters of action, service including appointments, disciplinary compulsory retirement etc. relating to State Judicial Services. Since the Governor cannot act on his own unless he has consulted the High Court, the Constitution has conferred upon the High Court a sacred and noble duty to give the best of advice or opinion to the Governor; an advice tendered after due deliberation and after taking into consideration all the relevant material and record relating to the problem on which consultation is made or advice is sought by the Governor. It is, therefore, essentially a matter of trust and confidence between the Governor and the High Court. The High Court cannot act arbitrarily in giving its opinion to the Governor or else it will be a betrayal of that trust. If the I advice is not supportable by any material on record and is arbitrary in character, it may not have any binding value.

28. It has already been pointed out by this Court in Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajiah, AIR 1988 SC 1388 [LQ/SC/1988/313] : (1988) 3 SCC 211 [LQ/SC/1988/313] : 1988 Supp. (1) SCR 332 that though the High Court, in its administrative jurisdiction, has the power to recommend compulsory retirement of a member of the Judicial Service in accordance with the rules framed in that regard, it cannot act arbitrarily and there has to be material to come to a decision that the officer has outlived his utility. It was also pointed out in this case that the High Court while exercising its power of control over the subordinate judiciary is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers from being harassed or annoyed by trifling complaints relating to judicial orders so that the and Officers may discharge their duties honestly independently unconcerned by the ill-conceived or motivated complaints, made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

26. In the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (supra), the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court whereby the High Court had set aside the order of compulsory retirement against a judicial officer. The Apex Court has held that the Court can lift the veil to find out the real basis of the order. The Court further held that in a case of compulsory retirement, a judicial review is permissible on the ground that the Authority in passing the order of compulsory retirement has appreciated the facts on record incorrectly or the formation of opinion to give premature retirement is based on defective material which ought not to have been taken into consideration. It would be useful to notice paragraphs 24 and 30 of the said judgment which are extracted herein-below:

"24. In Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and another 1990 (3) SCC 504 [LQ/SC/1990/272] , it was laid down that court can lift the veil of an innocuous order in appropriate cases to find the real basis of the order of compulsory retirement of an officer. This is how the Court said:

"32. On a consideration of the above decisions the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputations against the government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purposes. Mere form of the order in such cases cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned government servant as has been held by this Court in Anoop Jaiswal case 1984 (2) SCC 369 [LQ/SC/1984/23] .

30. ...........We agree with Mr. Krishnamani that the impugned order of compulsorily retiring Jain though innocuously worded is in fact an order of his removal from service and cannot be sustained. High Court on its judicial side was correct in setting aside the order compulsorily retiring Jain and allowing the writ petition of Jain to the extent mentioned in the impugned judgment........"

27. In the case of Nand Kumar Verma (supra), the Apex Court again held that it is well settled that the object of compulsory retirement from service is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty, and to keep the judicial service unpolluted. The Apex Court found that the order of compulsory retirement was not based on consideration of totality of relevant materials, and consequently, it quashed the order of compulsory retirement. Paragraph 34 of the said judgment reproduced herein-below:

"34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACRs which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs."

28. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, we would analyze the facts of the present case to see as to whether the subjective satisfaction of the authority for taking a decision to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner is based on valid material on record.

29. In the instant case, if we look at the ACR of the petitioner which have been extracted in the earlier part of the judgment, it is clear that the integrity of the petitioner has never been doubted right from the year 1992-93 uptill 2011-12. The ACR of the petitioner for the aforesaid period indicates that the petitioner has always been rated as good officer and very good officer except for the year 2007-08 in which his overall assessment was certified to be average officer by the Administrative Judge. One thing needs to be noticed in the ACR for the year 2007-08 that his integrity was certified beyond doubt and his disposal of work was 107.7%.

30. The ACRs of the petitioner from the year 1993-94 to 2011-12 further reflects that the Districts Judges/ Inspecting Judges had certified that the judgments of petitioner on the facts and law are sound, well reasoned and expressed in good language; and the disposal rate of the petitioner was good.

31. It is also relevant to notice that even for the year 2012-13, the District and Sessions Judge certified the disposal rate of the petitioner was 120.46%, and his integrity was beyond doubt by the District Judge. However, Honble the Administrative Judge did not agree with the remarks of the District Judge, Azamgarh and in the opinion of the Honble Administrative Judge he had passed the judgment in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2010 (State Vs. Abhay Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No.224 of 2010 (State Vs. 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 on extraneous considerations.

32. We have also perused the report of the Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad dated 10.02.2015 which was instituted to enquire about the correctness of allegation against the petitioner as to whether he had passed judgments in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2010 (State Vs. Abhay Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No.224 of 2010 (State Vs. 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 on extraneous considerations.

33. The report of the Special Officer (Vigilance) indicates that the witnesses summoned in evidence by Special Officer were Advocates, office bearer of the Bar Association and Ex ADGC (Criminal) of District Court, Azamgarh, who had stated that the reputation of the petitioner was that of an honest officer and he did not perform judicial work under-pressure of anyone. But these statements have been brushed aside by the Special Officer (Vigilance) on the ground that ADGC (criminal) and private counsel considering their future prospects of the legal profession avoided to clarify way of working of petitioner as judicial work as disclosed by some senior advocates according to them the petitioner had decided cases at district Azamgarh through his tout Sri Namwar Singh, owner of betel shop by indulging in corrupt practice.

34. From perusal of the report of the Special Officer (Vigilance) it is manifest that there was no evidence except hearsay of some advocates that the petitioner had decided cases through Sri Namwar Singh, owner of betel shop. It is relevant to notice that the vigilance report was placed before the Administrative Committee and the Administrative Committee after considering the same decided not to proceed with the same and dropped the proceeding.

35. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with respect to the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.507 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Ajay Yadav and another) connected with Sessions Trial No.282 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Pathroo Singh) and Sessions Trial No.255 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Singh). The conclusion of the enquiry report dated 02.09.2016 in the department enquiry no. 02 of 2014 has already been extracted above which indicates that the charges against the petitioner were not found proved, and consequently the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 14.09.2016 accepted the report of the Enquiry Judge and decided to drop the matter against the petitioner.

36. The recommendation of the Screening Committee for giving compulsory retirement to petitioner shows that it did not notice the relevant fact that the Administrative Committee did not proceed further in pursuance of vigilance enquiry report and the charges in disciplinary proceeding were not found proved. Further, though the Screening Committee had recorded that it had taken into consideration overall service record of the petitioner, but a glance of the entire service record which has been extracted above reflects that the petitioner was always rated to be a good officer and his integrity was also certified and was never doubted, thus, the facts as borne out from record reflects that the screening committee has not appreciated the material correctly in forming the opinion in recommending the compulsory retirement of petitioner.

37. One thing also needs to be noticed in the instant case is that any action upon the report of the Special Officer (Vigilance) would invite punishment after due enquiry. Since the Administrative Committee after considering the vigilance report dropped the proceedings, it appears that in the opinion of the Administrative Committee, the material to take action against the petitioner was lacking in the enquiry report. It is settled principle of law that the compulsory retirement cannot be used as a camouflage to overcome a weak departmental enquiry.

38. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Patna Vs. Ajay Kumr Srivastava and others AIR 2017 Supreme Court 548, the Apex Court repelled the contention of the High Court that there are serious allegations of misconduct against the judicial officer, therefore, the continuation of the officer will not be in the large public interest and the judiciary and affirmed the order of the Patna High Court whereby it had quashed the order of compulsory retirement against the judicial officer. Paragraph 3 of the said judgement is reproduced herein-below:-

"3. It all boils down to this that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the first respondent. If that is the case, the appellant is always at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action against the respondent which action according to us, the High Court is duty bound to take. If the officer whose conduct is questionable warranting his removal or compulsory retirement from the service, such an officer cannot simply be sent home with all the retiral benefits. But at the same time, if an officer is to be retired on the ground that his conduct is unwholesome, he is entitled to claim that the due process of law be followed."

39. Now we would test the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents.

40. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraphs 191 to 193 of the judgment in Rajendra Singh Verma (supra) in support of his submission that that even un-communicated adverse entries can be considered in forming an opinion as to whether an employee can be given compulsory retirement. The same are reproduced herein-below:-

"191. Further, in case where the Full Court of the High Court recommends compulsory retirement of an officer, the High Court on the judicial side has to exercise great caution and circumspection in setting aside that order because it is a complement of all the judges of the High Court who go into the question and it is possible that in all cases evidence would not be forthcoming about integrity doubtful of a judicial officer. As observed by this Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chand Jain 1999 (4) SCC 579 [LQ/SC/1999/473] : 1999 SCC (L&S) 881, at times, the Full Court has to act on the collective wisdom of all the Judges and if the general reputation of an employee is not good, though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be given compulsory retirement in public interest and judicial review of such order is permissible only on limited grounds. The reputation of being corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of an officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke. Sometimes there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it part of the record. It would, therefore, be impracticable for the reporting officer or the competent controlling officer writing the confidential report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence.

192. Normally, the adverse entry reflecting on the integrity would be based on formulations of impressions which would be the result of multiple factors simultaneously playing in the mind. Though the perceptions may differ, in the very nature of things there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in subjecting the entries in the confidential rolls to judicial review. Sometimes, if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest. The duty conferred on the appropriate authority to consider the question of continuance of a judicial officer beyond a particular age is an absolute one. If that authority bona fide forms an opinion that the integrity of a particular officer is doubtful, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. When such a constitutional function is exercised on the administrative side of the High Court, any judicial review thereon should be made only with great care and circumspection and it must be confined strictly to the parameters set by this Court in several reported decisions. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest, the writ Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the order.

193. Further this Court in M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India (1998) 7 SCC 310 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1812 has used the phrase preponderance of probability to be applied before recording adverse entry regarding integrity of a judicial officer. There is no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted with a duty of writing ACR does not have right to tarnish the reputation of a judicial officer without any basis and without any material on record, but at the same time other equally important interest is also to be safeguarded i.e. ensuring that the corruption does not creep in judicial services and all possible attempts must be made to remove such a virus so that it should not spread and become infectious. When even verbal repeated complaints are received against a judicial officer or on enquiries, discreet or otherwise, the general impression created in the minds of those making inquiries or the Full Court is that judicial officer concerned does not carry good reputation, such discreet inquiry and/or repeated verbal complaints would constitute material on the basis of which ACR indicating that the integrity of the officer is doubtful can be recorded. While undertaking judicial review, the Court in an appropriate case may still quash the decision of the Full Court on administrative side if it is found that there is no basis or material on which the ACR of the judicial officer was recorded, but while undertaking this exercise of judicial review and trying to find out whether there is any material on record or not, it is the duty of the Court to keep in mind the nature of function being discharged by the judicial officer, the delicate nature of the exercise to be performed by the High Court on administrative side while recording the ACR and the mechanism/system adopted in recording such ACR."

41. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nawal Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents lays down that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty to keep the judicial service unpolluted. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:

"6. Further, it is to be reiterated that the object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty to keep the judicial service unpolluted. It empowers the authority to retire officers of doubtful integrity which depends upon an overall impression gathered by the higher officers as it is impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest. This aspect is dealt with in Union of India Vs. M.E. Reddy (1980) 2 SCC 15 [LQ/SC/1979/384] : 1980 SCC (L&S) 179 wherein the Court (in para 17) held thus:--

"17. Mr. Krishnamurty Iyer appearing for Reddy submitted that the order impugned is passed on materials which are non-existent inasmuch as there are no adverse remarks against Reddy who had a spotless career throughout and if such remarks would have been made in his confidential reports they should have been communicated to him under the rules. This argument, in our opinion, appears to be based on a serious misconception. In the first place, under the various rules on the subject it is not every adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. Some of these remarks may be purely innocuous, or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to watch the performance of the said officer from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that he enjoys."

42. The Courts have consistently held that the object of compulsory retirement is to remove a dead wood. It is also settled proposition of law that the Courts should not interfere in cases of complaints against the adverse remarks and should not substitute their own finding for that of reviewing officer inasmuch as writing of the confidential report is primary and essentially administrative function, but those judgments also reiterate the principle that the authority concerned in forming the opinion for recommending compulsory retirement has to take into consideration whole service record of the petitioner which would include un-communicated entries.

43. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra) has further laid down that if the general reputation of an employee is not good though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be compulsorily retired in public interest.

44. In the facts of the present case, we have noticed that the entire service record of the petitioner was unblemished and further the Administrative Committee decided to drop action on the basis of the vigilance enquiry report, and the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding holding charges against the petitioner were not found proved was accepted by the Administrative Committee. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the general reputation of the petitioner was tainted or not good. Thus, in our considered opinion, the judgment of the apex court relied upon by the respondent are not applicable in the facts of the present case, consequently we find no force in the submissions of the counsel for the respondent.

45. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has acquiesced to the decision of the rejection of his representation against the adverse remarks is also misconceived for the reasons that the petitioner has sought relief (b) for quashing of the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 01.04.2016 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

46. We find that the Screening Committee has not given any reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner and as such the same is non-speaking, consequently we set aside the order of screening committee rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

47. For the reasons given above, we find that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without appreciating the material on record correctly and properly, and consequently, we quash the order dated 03.05.2016 of compulsory retirement.

48. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.