NEW DELHI: Use of “highly sexist” language during a lecture for civil service probationers cost a judge his job as the Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement saying even a single aberration cannot be tolerated in the judiciary Though the allegations were levelled by 10 women civil service probationers years ago and the judicial officer had since got promotion, the apex court said past adverse record of a judge does not lose the sting at any stage and action can be taken on that basis. The judge had addressed the probationers as deputy director of the Administrative Training Institute in Ranchi.A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta also took into account the allegation that the judge who was number two principle judge of the family court in Godda in Jharkhand had put a hot iron on the head of a washerman who had not ironed his clothes properly.While upholding the Jharkhand High Court decision to compulsory retire the judge, the apex court went through the complaint filed by women probationers and found that the language used by him was “highly sexist”.“There are two very serious allegations against him. The first is that when he was working as deputy director, Administrative Training Institute at Ranchi, as many as 10 women, who were civil service probationers, made allegations that he was using unwarranted and objectionable language during his lectures, citing indecent examples and using words having double meaning, thereby causing embarrassment. We have perused the complaints which are filed with the reply and the common refrain is that the language used by him during his lectures was highly sexist. There is also another allegation that he had physically hurt a washerman by placing a hot iron on the head of the washerman who had allegedly not ironed his clothes properly,” the bench said.The court also upheld compulsory retirement for another judge whose integrity had been doubted more than once. The court noted that even his knowledge of law and procedures was found to be average and his relations with members of the Bar was found to be not very good.“There are also allegations against him of having granted bail for illegal gratification and substance has been found in this allegation in the report of the judicial commissioner, Ranchi. The officer had granted bail by noting in the order that Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 was bailable whereas the offence is non-bailable and an unrecorded warning regarding the integrity of the judicial officer was issued to him in 2012,” the bench said.Challenging the administrative order of the HC, the judicial officers had contended that their entire service record, especially the contemporaneous record, had not been taken into consideration. They said they had been granted various promotions which would have the effect of “washing off” their previous adverse entries, if any.But the court refused to accept their contention. “While considering the case of a judicial officer for compulsory retirement the entire record of the judicial officer should be taken into consideration, though the latter and more contemporaneous record must be given more weightage. Subsequent promotions do not mean that earlier adverse record cannot be looked into while deciding whether a judicial officer should be compulsorily retired,” the bench said.