ORDER.-This writ petition is to quash the order of compulsory retirement made in G.O.Ms. No. 1112, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 19th September, 1975. 2. Originally the matter was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Ramaprasada Rao, J., and Ratnavel Pandian, J. The learned Judges have overruled the very many legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and relegated the matter for consideration on two aspects, viz.- (i) Whether the records disclose the existence of materials which would warrant the compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest or whether it had been done arbitrarily ? (ii) Whether the stigma stems from the order of retirement? 3. Having regard to this scope I have got to examine the various arguments raised by Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. But, before that it is necessary on my part to state that this writ petition and other connected writ petitions were adjourned to await my decision in K. Venugopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Madras-91 , which judgment was delivered holding against the petitioner. Close on the heels of those arguments presently it is urged by Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as follows:-The petitioner had crossed the efficiency bar and therefore the materials which were adverse to the petitioner cannot again be used for a different purpose, viz., the compulsory retirement. In other words, any adverse remarks which existed prior to that date must be eschewed from consideration. If they are eschewed, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be supported. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Slate of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal1and J.R. Jam v. Union of India (Delhi)2. 4. Secondly it is urged that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, and posted as member of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras only on 7th May 1975 in G.O.Ms.No. 558 dated 7th May, 1975. “Within a short period of seven months, certainly it cannot be claimed that there were such adverse entries as to warrant compulsory retirement because the order of promotion itself clearly mentions that the various allegations and the charges made against the petitioner were found baseless in an enquiry. “Within a short period of seven months, certainly it cannot be claimed that there were such adverse entries as to warrant compulsory retirement because the order of promotion itself clearly mentions that the various allegations and the charges made against the petitioner were found baseless in an enquiry. If that were so, it cannot be claimed within four months that the petitioner had managed to get so many adverse entries to warrant compulsory retirement. 5. It is not known whether the persona file contained any adverse remarks, and the actual order of compulsory retirement proceeds upon those files. Any entry made therein which had not been communicated to the petitioner, certainly cannot be relied on and those entries which were made when charges were pending against the petitioner cannot again be used against the petitioner since the petitioner was absolved of those charges. 6. Lastly it is urged that the Secretary of the Government (Mr. C.N.S. Raghavan) was alone instrumental in compulsorily retiring the petitioner and his recommendation was accepted without any application of mind by the Government. This is all the more so, when the concerned head of the department had not chosen to recommend the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. Where, therefore, the Secretary who played a dominant role was actuated by mala fides, even the ultimate order would get vitiated on this score. 7. Learned Government Pleader refutes each one of these arguments and contends, after producing the relevant files, including the personal file, that the records disclose enough materials to warrant compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest. The order of compulsory retirement itself was based upon materials which included personal files. Those personal files confirm the conclusion of compulsory retirement. Merely because the petitioner was promoted four months previous to the order of compulsory retirement, nor again merely because the petitioner had a good record, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement should not have been passed. If the totality of circumstances are taken into consideration, neither the crossing of the efficiency bar nor the promotion of the petitioner would in any way enable him to contend as is sought to be done now that the previous records would get obliterated. The cases cited do not afford any assistance to the petitioner. If the totality of circumstances are taken into consideration, neither the crossing of the efficiency bar nor the promotion of the petitioner would in any way enable him to contend as is sought to be done now that the previous records would get obliterated. The cases cited do not afford any assistance to the petitioner. After all, the Division Bench directed the noting, of the existence of the relevant materials in order to satisfy the Court that there do exist these relevant materials. 8. As regards mala fides, this Court in Writ Petition No.” 6210 of 1975 has categorically laid down the bias or mala fides of one of the officers forming the recommendatory committee will not vitiate the ultimate order. In this case not a word of mala fide is stated against the Government. That being the position, the plea relating to mala fides will have to be rejected. 9. I find the petitioner’s case is practically concluded by my judgment in W.P. No. 6210 of 1975, because the arguments here are more or less the same, excepting it is put in a different fashion. However, for the sake of completeness, let me deal with them. 10. (i) Certainly, neither the promotion of the petitioner nor his crossing the efficiency bar would enable him to contend that whatever adverse records were there before these orders, they should not be looked into for the purpose of compulsory retirement. Totally different considerations applied either with regard to crossing the efficiency bar or with regard to promotion as against the order of compulsory retirement. This is precisely what I have held in Writ Petition No. 6210 of 1975 applying an earlier judgment of mine. The case reported in State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal1was one relating to compulsory retirement by way of punishment. Therefore, it has no application. What is essentially to be borne in mind in a case of this character is that compulsory retirement is not by way of punishment. That makes a very vital difference. The totality of circumstances are taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out whether the services of the petitioner could be retained, even after he had attained the age of 50 years. Therefore, neither the promotion nor the crossing of the efficiency bar has any bearing on compulsory retirement. 11. That makes a very vital difference. The totality of circumstances are taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out whether the services of the petitioner could be retained, even after he had attained the age of 50 years. Therefore, neither the promotion nor the crossing of the efficiency bar has any bearing on compulsory retirement. 11. In this case, I have carefully perused all the records which were made available. Here again as I have held in W.P.No. 6210 of 1975 the records produced were not with a view to assess, but with a view to note the existence of the materials. A perusal of the personal files will lead to the decision that the compulsory retirement was made only in public interest. It is not for this Court so say that since the officer had rendered meritorious service in the past, his services could have been retained, because it is the satisfaction of the employer that is material. Where, therefore, on the materials the Court is satisfied as in the instant case, that compulsory retirement was made in public interest, the petitioner cannot have any valid grievance. As a matter of fact, along with the petitioner the case of 8 others came up for review and the recommendatory committee recommended only the writ petitioner for compulsory retirement, which recommendation, on an independent application of mind, was accepted by the Government. 12. As regards the plea of mala fides, here again applying my judgment in W.P. No. 6210 of 1975 the bias alleged, is that of the recommendatory committee which mala fides cannot be attributed to the Government, I will have to necessarily reject the same. But even otherwise, I am unable to see how the petitioner had been singled out for hostile treatment when cases of several officers were considered, each one of them, on merits and the recommendation came to be made on merits. This recommendation is fully supported by the entries in the personal file, thereby excluding any scope for mala fides or arbitrariness. 13. In the result, I conclude that this writ petition carries no merit and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.