ALTAMAS KABIR, J. - (1.) ON 14th September, 1976, the petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate and subsequently, he was promoted to the higher post of Subordinate Judge in the month of June, 1989. On 8th May, 2001, he joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, where he was served with a letter dated 17th July, 2001 written by the Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, informing him that he had been compulsorily retire from service in exercise of powers under Section 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ application, which has been referred to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal along with several other matters of like nature. Appearing in support of the writ application, Mr. V. Shivnath, firstly contended that the impugned order has passed by the State Government mechanically and without application of mind, merely on the recommendation of the High Court of Jharkhand. Mr. Shivnath submitted that throughout his judicial career, the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner would show that he was a good officer whose integrity was beyond doubt. Mr. Shivnath submitted that on 21st April, 1998 an adverse remark was entered in the petitioner's Annual Confidential Report by the District Judge, but the same was expunged by the High Court on a representation made by the petitioner. Mr. Shivnath submitted that yet another adverse remark was made against the petitioner by the Inspecting Judge that the petitioner did not carry good judicial reputation. According to the petitioner, he also filed a representation in respect of such observation, but such representation was never disposed of. Subsequently, while the petitioner was posted at Motihari, an observation made by the District Judge to the effect that the petitioner should not grant provisional bail, was also entered into his service record. Mr. Shivnath contended that apart from the adverse entries, which had been made by the learned Inspecting Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radha Mohan Prasad, against which representation had been filed by the petitioner, there are no adverse entries made against the petitioner as far as he is aware.
(3.) MR . Shivnath urged that for the purpose of compulsory retirement, the entire service record of an employee is required to be taken into consideration and a decision in that regard could not be taken on the basis of a single incident. Furthermore, even the remark which had been made was with regard to the grant of provisional bail and was a mere suggestion that such provisional bail should not be granted. Mr. Shivnath submitted that the writ petitioner's integrity had never been doubted and there was absolutely nor material before the High Court to recommend to the State Government that the provision of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code be invoked in the petitioner's case.;