H.K. Sema, J.

1. The appellant at the relevant time was holding the post of Additional District Judge (Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service). By an order dated 9.11.2000, he was compulsorily retired from service. He has assailed the order of compulsorily retirement before the High Court. The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the Writ Petition after perusing the entire records placed before it. The appellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of Review Committee report submitted by four Senior Honble Judges of the High Court which was approved by the Full Court of the High Court.

2. We have been taken through the entire judgment of the High Court. The High Court, on perusal of the record produced before it, found that in the year 1983, the appellant was not assessed as good officer and his integrity was doubtful. In 1984 he was reported to be corrupt officer. The High Court was also of the view that when the appellant has been granted selection grade, the adverse entries were not brought to the notice of the authority. The High Court also noted that the Review Committee consisting of four Senior Honble Judges of the High Court noticed that the performance of the appellant was poor and he was advised to improve his judgment writing. In 1974 there was a remark that he should be watched and quality of case work was found unsatisfactory. The remarks were also communicated to the appellant. In 1977 there was also an entry that he should improve the quality of his judgments. In 1983 he was not assessed as good officer and his integrity was found doubtful. His representation against adverse entry was rejected. In 1993 there was an entry in his ACR that he failed to inspire the confidence in subordinate staff and lawyers and his disposal was also found low. The Review Committee also noted that he has been superseded without being considered for promotion in 1983. The departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 where finding against the appellant of being negligent and grossly careless in discharging his judicial duties, have been recorded, which ended in minor penalty of censure imposed on him and he was further warned to remain careful and cautious while discharging his judicial functions.

3. On the basis of overall perusal of the ACR and overall assessment of service record of the appellant, the Review Committee consisting of four Senior Judges found that continuance of officer would be liability to the Department and adverse to the public interest and recommended that he should be compulsorily retired. It is noticed that the recommendations of the Review Committee was accepted by the Full Court in a meeting held on 8th November, 2000. It is really a case of chopping of the dead wood.

4. That apart, either before the High Court or before this Court, the appellant ever raised any allegation of mala fide nor the said order has been passed without application of mind. In fact, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appointing authority has come to the conclusion that the appellants continuance in the service will be a liability to the public interest and passed the order after subjective satisfaction of the matter on the basis of the record placed before the authority.

5. Learned senior counsel cited the decisions rendered in 1. (1992) 2 SCC 299 [LQ/SC/1992/182] (Bhaikuntha Nath Das & Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer Braipada & Anr.) 2. (2001) 3 SCC 314 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] (State of Gujarat Vs. Umedhbhai M. Patel) 3. (2002) 3 SCC 641 [LQ/SC/2002/361 ;] (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Vinay Kumar Jain) and 4. (2001) 3 SCC 389 [LQ/SC/2001/542] (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Lalsa Ram).

6. The ratio of the decision cited quoted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, are not applicable in the facts of this case.

7. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, does not merit consideration in view of the facts and circumstances as recited above.

8. In the result, we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.