ORDER Jagmohan Lal, J. - The petitioner Jagdish Sahai Agnihotri was in the employ of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as an Excise Inspector. He was compulsorily retired under Rule 465-A of Civil Service Regulations by the State Government under an order dated 17-4-1969 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). He made a representation against that order which was also dismissed by the State Government on 26-8-1969, vide Annexure 12. Being dissatisfied with these orders he filed this writ petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri R.P. Khosla, the then Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Excise Department, Smt. Lata Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government in the said department, the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh and the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, Kanpur. He challenged these orders on various grounds mentioned in the petition, the main ground being that the orders were mala fide and they had been passed at the instance of Sri R.P. Khosla and Smt. Lata Singh. He prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash these orders and the issue of a direction or order commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in service from the date he handed over charge, that is, 21-4-1969, till he is properly retired on attaining the age of superannuation or his services are legally dispensed with. 2. The writ was contested by the opposite parties who filed counter-affidavits. One counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 5 was sworn by Sri Raghunandan Sahai, the then Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Circle, another counter-affidavit was sworn by Sri R.P. Khosla, the third by Smt. Lata Singh and the fourth by Sri S.K. Chaudhury, the then Excise Commissioner. In these affidavits the factual allegations made by the petitioner to challenge the order of retirement were controverted. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal and that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to show cause before passing this order. Lastly he contended that this order was divorced from the circumstances on the basis of which it could be said that it had been passed in the public interest. 4. Lastly he contended that this order was divorced from the circumstances on the basis of which it could be said that it had been passed in the public interest. 4. As regards the allegation that the order was mala fide, the petitioner contended that at the time this order was passed he was posted as Excise Inspector at Standard Refinery and Distillery, Unnao which was owned by Messrs Karam Chand Thapar and Sons. It was contended that one of the proprietors, named Sri B. M. Thapar, was a relation of Sri R. P. Khosla, the then Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, Excise Department, and that the petitioner had detected certain irregularities and malpractices in the working of this Distillery by Messrs Thapar and Sons which annoyed the said proprietor of this Distillery and he was instrumental in bringing about the compulsory retirement of the petitioner through his relation Sri R. P. Khosla. With regard to Smt. Lata Singh Opposite Party No. 3, the allegation of the petitioner was that she was on intimate terms with Sri O. P. Diwan, the Manager of the aforesaid Distillery. Besides that, she was also interested in helping one Sri Mathur, proprietor of N.K. Industries Kanpur. She wanted that denatured spirit from the aforesaid Distillery may be made available to this firm in defiance of the rules and the petitioner should connive over these dealings, but the petitioner did not agree to do so and this incurred the displeasure of Smt. Lata Singh. It was, therefore, suggested that both these officers were responsible for getting this order of compulsory retirement passed even though the proceedings were not initiated by the Excise Commissioner who was the appointing authority of the petitioner. To give strength to these allegations a further allegation was made by the petitioner that when he made a representation against this order of compulsory retirement, it was strongly recommended by Sri R. Sahai, Assistant Commissioner Excise, Kanpur, who delivered the same to him for taking it to the Excise Commissioner and when he approached the Excise Commissioner with this representation and the recommendation of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Sri S.K. Chaudhri, the then Excise Commissioner, had remarked as to why the petitioner had incurred the wrath of Smt. Lata Singh. 5. 5. All these allegations were denied by the concerned officers in their counter-affidavits except the fact that Sri R.P. Khosla is related to the proprietor of the aforesaid Distillery. Smt. Lata Singh denied that she had any intimacy with Sri O.P. Diwan and asserted that she did not even know that man personally and represented that if that person had ever approached her in her official capacity she would not be in a position even to recognise him. Even Sri S.K. Chaudhury the then Excise Commissioner, against whom no allegation has been made by the petitioner, contradicted the petitioner's allegation regarding his having made the aforesaid remark in relation to Smt. Lata Singh at the time the petitioner had taken his representation to him. Sri R. Sahai, Assistant Commissioner, who had even recommended the representation of the petitioner and against whom also no allegation whatsoever has been made by the petitioner, also did not support the allegations of the petitioner that he had taken any active part in bringing to book the irregularities and malpractices committed by the Standard Refinery and Distillery, Unnao. According to him, whatever the petitioner had done was in the routine course of his duty. Under these circumstances it is not possible to hold that the allegations of the petitioner regarding mala fides have been established. It is an established rule that the burden to prove mala fide rests on the person who alleges the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's allegation that the proceedings for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner had not been initiated by the Excise Commissioner, who is his appointing authority, and that the same had been initiated by the Government itself has not been challenged and from this circumstance it may be inferred that these proceedings were actuated by some oblique motive. It is true that this allegation has not been controverted and it may, therefore, be assumed that these proceedings had been initiated at the Government level without any move from the Excise Commissioner. But this circumstance alone will not be sufficient to hold that the proceedings were arbitrary or mala fide. In fact it is the Government which can exercise the power under Rule 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations and not any other appointing authority which may be lower in status to the State Government. But this circumstance alone will not be sufficient to hold that the proceedings were arbitrary or mala fide. In fact it is the Government which can exercise the power under Rule 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations and not any other appointing authority which may be lower in status to the State Government. The rule does not in terms require that the proceedings should be initiated by the appointing authority before an order can be passed by the State Government in cases where the appointing authority is different from the State Government. 7. It was then contended that the rules of natural justice require that the petitioner should at least have been given an opportunity to show cause before this order was passed. The rule under which this order has been passed does not lay down that any notice should be issued to the Government servant. It is argued that every administrative act should conform to the minimum requirements of natural justice and one of such requirements is that the person against whom any administrative action is proposed to be taken should be apprised of it and he should be given an opportunity to show cause against it. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458 : A.I.R. 1971 SC 40. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with a case under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) framed by the Government of India which was similarly worded as Rule 465-A of Civil Service Regulations. It was held that since the rule did not contain any requirement of giving a notice to the concerned officer before exercising the power of compulsory retirement by the Government, no such provision can be inserted in the role by application of the principles of natural justice. In view of this decision this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. 8. The last point that was argued on behalf of the petitioner was that there was no material on record to show that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was in public interest. In view of this decision this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. 8. The last point that was argued on behalf of the petitioner was that there was no material on record to show that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was in public interest. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shivacharana v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1965 SC 280 that whether or not the petitioner's retirement was in the public interest was a matter for the State Government to consider and the plea that the order was arbitrary and illegal cannot be accepted unless there is material placed by the petitioner before the Court to show that the said order suffers from vice of mala fides. We have already held that the petitioner's allegation regarding mala fides have not been established. It was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that his representation against this order was recommended in strong terms by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, vide Annexure 11, that his work was commended on several occasions by his superior officers, vide Annexures 4 to 8, and that he was neither stopped at the efficiency bar nor his increments were ever withheld. 9. Opposite Party No. 5 in his counter-affidavit has alleged that the record of the service of the petitioner was not unblemished and he had received several adverse entries, some of these entries were brought on record (vide Annexure A to this counter-affidavit). It appears that in 1961-62 the Assistant Excise Commissioner had appraised the capacity of the petitioner by observing that he was an easy going Excise Inspector who failed to exercise necessary control ever licensees. The entry earned by the petitioner in 1962-63 puts him in a still worse light by observing :- "An easy going officer who seems to have lost interest in work. Neither enjoys confidence of his officers nor of subordinates. His work was below average. In spite of severe goading he was (does ?) not move out on tour sufficiently. His work poor and conduct not upto the mark. Integrity certified." 10. There were several other adverse and damaging entries given to him in previous years. Neither enjoys confidence of his officers nor of subordinates. His work was below average. In spite of severe goading he was (does ?) not move out on tour sufficiently. His work poor and conduct not upto the mark. Integrity certified." 10. There were several other adverse and damaging entries given to him in previous years. There is no requirement of any rule that the State Government in forming its subjective opinion whether or not it is in the public interest to retire compulsorily a Government servant under Rule 465-A should only look to his performance during the preceding five or six years alone and should not take into consideration his entire performance throughout his service. 11. With this record of his service as a whole it is not possible to say that the State Government passed this order of his compulsory retirement without there being any material before it to form an opinion that the retirement of the petitioner would be in the public interest. 12. The petition is devoid of any merits and it is dismissed accordingly with costs to the Opposite Parties.