JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police has challenged his compulsory retirement order dated 7-11-1975 passed under Fundamental Rule 55 (c) of the U. P. Fundamental Rules. 2. The decision to retire an officer compulsorily in public interest is an objective decision. Apart from taking into account other factors for reaching the decision, the authority concerned necessarily takes into account the character roll entries of the officer, as in the present case. In para 3 (c) of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner had adverse, entries in the years 1958-59, 1963-64, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, and the Screening Committee had looked into these entries and came to the conclusion that it was not in public interest to retain the petitioner in. service. This Court does not sit in appeal over a decision of compulsory retirement. However, in case the decision inter alia is one that is arbitrary, or a conclusion has been reached which no reasonable man, could in the circumstances, have reached, or is based on no material, the decision can be interfered under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Further, if it is found that the decision to compulsorily retire an officer has been taken ignoring relevant material or representations made against adverse entries, then too the decision is amenable to a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This is so because the decision being objective in nature, the authorities concerned have to take into account representations made against character roll entries before coming to a final conclusion. The order would also bear the stamp of arbitrariness in case certain entries have been taken into account which have no relevance to the question of public interest i. e. interest of the administrative service in which the officer concerned is serving. The decision to compulsorily retire the petitioners has been taken on the basis of certain alleged adverse entries made against him. These entries have been set out in Annexure "1" to the counter-affidavit and may be extracted : "1958 ....... Made efforts to work out some dead cases given to him for investigation but was unfortunate in not getting much success. ................ ............In other cases it was mediocre ... 1963-64 ....... These entries have been set out in Annexure "1" to the counter-affidavit and may be extracted : "1958 ....... Made efforts to work out some dead cases given to him for investigation but was unfortunate in not getting much success. ................ ............In other cases it was mediocre ... 1963-64 ....... Sri Chandradeo Singh is a simple unassuming type of any officer who has tried to do his best but has yet to prove his worth as a Gazetted officer ........... 1972-73: He worked hard, but could not be able to provide effective guidance and extract satisfactory work from his subordinate staff .......... 1973-74: inhoone janchon ke sambandh men Kabhi daura bhi kiya hai. Allahabad men Janchon ke sambandh men 52 din rahe aur wahan ki kul 2 janche puri ki. ........... "Was hardly able to settle down during this period. Besides, during this period he mostly stayed at Allahabad, from where he was transferred to Kanpur. I had little opportunity to see his work. As . such no comments about his capabilities and work are offered. ................... An experienced officer who knows his job, as his family is still at Allahabad, and he is posted at Kanpur where he has not been able to get a house, he tried to go to Allahabad frequently and did not feel quite settled........... Is an experienced Officer, capable of much better work. 1974-75 .............. An experienced officer, who is rather distracted due to posting away from his family which stays at Allahabad .............. Sri Chandra Deo Singh has remained posted in the C.I.D. for a long time and, therefore, was expected to display good detective ability. Unfortunately, some of his enquiries were found to be superficial and casual and did not inspire confidence............... The work of this officer deteriorated during the year and he needs to pull himself together to be able to show better results in future." 3. So far as entries of 1958 is concerned. that is hardly of any relevance for deciding as to whether the officer should be retired, for in the first place, the mere fact that he was not successful in investigating dead cases, cannot possibly have any relevance to his efficiency as an officer. So far as entries of 1958 is concerned. that is hardly of any relevance for deciding as to whether the officer should be retired, for in the first place, the mere fact that he was not successful in investigating dead cases, cannot possibly have any relevance to his efficiency as an officer. It was to say the least expecting him to achieve the impossible, for on the language of the entry itself, the cases were "dead cases." As regards the other part of entry the remark is that the investigation was 'mediocre.' The Word 'mediocre' is of neutral significance, and does not connote any remissness of duty. The entry of 1963-64 is in no way deprecatory for it states that he did his best. As regards proving his worth as a Gazetted Officer, that runs counter to the earlier part of the entry which says that he did his best. Now, if an officer on being appointed to a Gazetted post discharges his duty to the best of his ability, the conclusion that the officer has still to prove his worth as a Gazetted Officer, appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary. So far as entry for 1972-73 is concerned, it lauds the hard work put in by the officer. The only defect pointed out is that he was not able to provide effective guidance and extract satisfactory work from his subordinate officers. Whether an officer can extract satisfactory work from his subordinate officers depends on the quality of the officers posted under him. It was not urged that the petitioner had choice over the officers posted under him. As regards his failure to provide effective guidance, that is hardly of any relevance in determining as to whether the officer should be retired, when the officer concerned is a hard working officer. The entry of 1973 is to say the least, is commendatory. It states that the petitioner is an experienced officer, who knew his job. The latter part of the entry again mentions that the petitioner was an experienced officer. The only cloud cast is that he is capable of much better work, but this alone cannot provide a relevant ground for retirement. The entry of 1974-75 is unfavourable. 4. It states that the petitioner is an experienced officer, who knew his job. The latter part of the entry again mentions that the petitioner was an experienced officer. The only cloud cast is that he is capable of much better work, but this alone cannot provide a relevant ground for retirement. The entry of 1974-75 is unfavourable. 4. It will be clear from what we have said above that some of the entries relied upon for making the order are not relevant for the purposes of coming to the conclusion that it was in the public interest to retire the officer. However, in view of the entry in 1974-75, it can be said that there was some material on the basis of which the order could have been passed. 5. The question, however, arises whether the entry of 1974-75 could be taken into account while passing the impugned order. The State of U. P. issued an office memorandum No. CR.583/II-A-38-1955 as regards the making of adverse entries and the communication thereof to the officer concerned. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this memorandum may be extracted: "3. Communication of adverse (entries) (i) in respect of a report, Part of which is adverse, the whole entry, both appreciative and critical, should be communicated to the Government servant reported upon. In case the report for any particular years comprises report for more than one officer, only the report which is wholly or partly adverse should be communicated; (ii) the communication of the adverse entry to the Government servant reported upon should be in writing and his acknowledgment should be obtained. This modified para 4 (b) of office memorandum dated July 16, 1957, referred to above; (iii) Adverse remarks should be communicated to the Government servant reported on as early as possible after the entries have been finalised. 4. Representation against adverse entries: Government have noticed that in many cases representations against adverse entries have been made after an inordinate delay which resulted in difficulties in considering such representation. 4. Representation against adverse entries: Government have noticed that in many cases representations against adverse entries have been made after an inordinate delay which resulted in difficulties in considering such representation. In future, therefore, a period of three months from the time of the communication of the entry in question, unless in special circumstances where for reasons beyond the control of the Government servant making the representation this period is considered inadequate in which case an extension of period of two months could be given." This was followed by another order issued by the Chief Secretary Government of U. P. No. 4191/II-A-38-1954 dated June 29, 1956, which directed that adverse entries should be communicated to the officer concerned at an early date so that representations can be made by the officer concerned in due time. This office memorandum may also be extracted: "The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to appointment (A Department Office Memorandum No. A-702/II-A-54, dated June 17, 1954). in which the desirability of communicating to the officials concerned the adverse remarks contained in their character rolls, was stressed. Some cases have recently come to the notice of Government in which the adverse remarks were communicated very late and the representations of the Officials against those remarks were forwarded to the authorities concerned with considerable delay. This is very unfair as it not only defeats the very purpose underlying the communication of adverse remarks, but also puts the officials concerned at great disadvantage in the matter of promotions etc. which is decided on the basis of these remarks. (2) Government have decided that every possible care should be taken to ensure that adverse remarks are communicated within three months after they have been recorded and representations made by officials against them must be forwarded so as to reach the appropriate authorities within a couple. of months of their submission." This has now been followed by another order dated 21-4-1971 being Government Order No. 3690/II-Ka-7(l) 69 Part 2. This order appears to have been issued on account of the fact that entries in the character rolls were not being made within time, and were also not being communicated expeditiously. Paragraph 1 sub-clauses B (2), (3) and (4) of this order may be extracted as they are relevant for the decision of this case: "(2) For communication of adverse entries. Paragraph 1 sub-clauses B (2), (3) and (4) of this order may be extracted as they are relevant for the decision of this case: "(2) For communication of adverse entries. All the entries should be examined quickly and orders for communication of the adverse entries to the officials concerned must be issued at the earliest and under all events, by the 31st of August. (3) For submission of representation against adverse entries. According to the existing orders, an employee can submit a representation against an adverse entry within three months of its communication. In case it is not possible for him to do so due to unusual circumstances this period can be extended by two months. The Government has made no changes in this connection, but it is necessary that the said order is complied with fully and that the representations submitted after the expiry of the time allowed are not considered. The date of communication of the adverse entry must be mentioned in the representation. (4) For taking decision over the representation against adverse entry. Till now there are no orders of the Government prescribing any time limit for taking decision over the representations, against adverse entries. Now, the Government have decided that the decision over the representation must be taken within three months of its receipt. This is possible only when the representations of the officials are forwarded to the competent authority without undue delay. Normally, it is also necessary to obtain the report of the person making entry, before taking a decision over the representation. There should not be any delay in this regard. The persons making entries should also take special care to send their reports within a month of the receipt of the representations, at the most, so that a decision may be taken on them in time." A perusal of these orders clearly shows that adverse entries have to be communicated to the officer concerned, and he is entitled to make a representation against them, and further that the representations made should be decided within a period of three months. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been urged that the entry-of 1974-75 was not communicated to the petitioner and as such he had no opportunity to make any representation against it. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been urged that the entry-of 1974-75 was not communicated to the petitioner and as such he had no opportunity to make any representation against it. This fact has not been specifically denied -in the course of argument.; It was, however, contended that the orders referred to above are administrative in character and this being so, even-if the adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioner, they could be relied upon while making the impugned order. We are not impressed by this argument. It is not denied that normally all adverse entries are communicated to officers and the administrative directions referred to above are complied with. In the case of the petitioner too, the entries of 1972-73 were communicated to the petitioner which means that administrative instructions were being complied with in the case of this officer too. Thus there was no reason to depart from the normal practice of communicating adverse entries to the officer concerned before relying on these entries. Departure from an established administrative practice in the case of a particular individual would be clearly discriminatory. No-foundation has been laid in the counter-affidavit for singling out the petitioner for departing from the normal rule of communicating adverse entries so as to enable him to make a proper representation for expunction of the entries. Thus the entry for 1974-75 could not be relied-upon while passing the impugned order. Although we have taken the view that the entries for 1972-73 and 1973-74 were not relevant for passing the retirement order, we may assume that they furnished material on the basis of which the order could not be passed. However, the same infirmity which attaches to the consideration of the entries for 1974-75. applies to these entries too. The entry for 1973-74 was not communicated to the officer at all. The entry for 1972-73 was communicated but the representation against this entry was not disposed of at the time when the impugned order was made. It transpires that the representation was disposed of on 13-3-1976 i.e. much after the passing of the impugned order. We have already extracted the relevant administrative orders on this, point, which indicate that an expeditious decision on the representation should be taken. This was not done. Apart from this, at any rate the representation should have been considered while relying on the adverse entries for 1972-73. We have already extracted the relevant administrative orders on this, point, which indicate that an expeditious decision on the representation should be taken. This was not done. Apart from this, at any rate the representation should have been considered while relying on the adverse entries for 1972-73. As the representation was disposed of subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the representation obviously was not considered at the time when the impugned order was made. In this context it was urged that as the representation was dismissed, no significance can be attached to the fact that the representation in respect of this entry was not considered at the time when the impugned order was passed, as even if the representation had been considered it would have been rejected. The entry of 1972-73 has already been commented upon. It has not been urged that the authority which dismissed the representation in respect of this entry was the Screening Committee which passed the impugned order. The entries for 1972-73, being to say the least, marginally adverse, may have been deleted by the Screening Committee, for it was possible to take a different view of these entries. The fact that some other authority subsequently took a view adverse to the petitioner on his representation, cannot lead to the conclusion that the Screening Committee which passed the impugned order would have taken the same view. The Standing Counsel then contended that the adverse entries of 1958-59 and 1963-64 already referred to earlier constituted sufficient material for reaching the conclusion that the officer should be compulsorily retired. We have already held earlier that these entries do not provide a reasonable nexus to the order passed. At any rate, inasmuch as the petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police subsequent to these entries, these entries lost their significance and could not be taken into account (See Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 : 1976 Lab IC 1146). A further argument was raised in respect of entries for 1958-59 and 1963-64, the contention being that the principles laid down in Pawan Kumar Dubey's case would not be applicable in respect of these entries, as there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had been selected on account of being held fit to hold the higher post. A further argument was raised in respect of entries for 1958-59 and 1963-64, the contention being that the principles laid down in Pawan Kumar Dubey's case would not be applicable in respect of these entries, as there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had been selected on account of being held fit to hold the higher post. It was urged that in cases where promotion is made solely on the basis of seniority, the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar Dubey's case cannot be appropriately applied. This contention is wholly misconceived. In para. 2 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was promoted as an officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1962 after approval by the U. P. Public Service Commission. In the later paragraphs of the petition, it is stated that he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on a number of occasions and was confirmed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 11-4-75 with effect from 1-1-1971. These facts are admitted in the counter-affidavit. Thus the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police was not based solely on his seniority. It was made after approval by the Public Service Commission. He was appointed on merits. This being so, the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar Dubey's case (supra) are fully applicable to the case of the petitioner. We have reached the conclusion that the entries relied upon for passing the impugned order could not be taken into account on account of the fact that these entries were not either communicated to the petitioner or the representation in respect of some of the entries was not disposed of at the time when the impugned order was passed, solely on a consideration of the relevant orders in force at the time when the impugned order was passed. There is another aspect of the matter which fortifies this conclusion. The impugned order has been passed under Fundamental Rule 56. 6. Fundamental Rule 56 has been amended by the U. P. Act No. 33 of 1976. The explanation to Fundamental Rule 56 has been replaced by the following : "...... There is another aspect of the matter which fortifies this conclusion. The impugned order has been passed under Fundamental Rule 56. 6. Fundamental Rule 56 has been amended by the U. P. Act No. 33 of 1976. The explanation to Fundamental Rule 56 has been replaced by the following : "...... (iii) for explanation, the following explanation shall be substituted and be deemed to always have been substituted, namely :- (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointment authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration : (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant has been allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis or; (b) any entry against which a representation is pending provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry, or (c) any report of the vigilance Establishment constituted under the U. P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest." This explanation has been added retrospectively. This means that it would be deemed to be in effect at the time when the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was made. Clause (b) of the explanation enjoins that representations made by the officer have to be taken into account while passing the order of compulsory retirement. Inasmuch as it is incumbent on the authority concerned to take into account representations made by the officers, it impliedly postulates that it could take into account only such entries which have been communicated to the officer concerned, for if it were otherwise, it would have been purposeless to make it incumbent on the authorities concerned to take into account representations made against character roll entries sought to be used. The entries for the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 were obviously adverse entries and in case they had been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner as stated in the rejoinder affidavit, would have made representation against those entries, and in that event the authorities concerned would have to take that into account. 7. The entries for the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 were obviously adverse entries and in case they had been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner as stated in the rejoinder affidavit, would have made representation against those entries, and in that event the authorities concerned would have to take that into account. 7. As in the present case, the entries for 1973-74 and 1974-75 were not communicated and the representation for 1972-73 was not disposed of when the impugned order came to be made, the order has been passed in violation of Fundamental Rule 56, and is as such invalid. 8. The Standing Counsel contended that we should not interfere with the order in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the petitioner has already sought relief by making a reference under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. It is undoubtedly true that the existence of an alternative remedy is a relevant circumstance for considering as to whether we should exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the mere existence of an alternative remedy or the fact that the petitioner has resorted to such a remedy does not constitute a bar to the exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was entertained by this Court, even though such a remedy existed and the petitioner had resorted to it. This being so, and as we are of the view that the order passed does not appear to be justified in law, we are not inclined to refrain from granting relief to the petitioner. 9. For all the reasons stated above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 7-11-1975. There will be no order as to costs.