ORDER Chandra Pal Singh, J. 1. The District and Sessions Judge, Guna by his order of 21. 1. 1981 has compulsorily retired the petitioner with effect from 30-4-1981. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of that order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Class III servant on 19. 1.1948 in the Judicial Department of the Government of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) and confirmed by the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Guna of 24-11-1979 (Annexure A). He after having put in 321/2 years of service was compulsorily retired under rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 by the order of the District and Sessions Judge of 21-1-1981 (Annexure B) The petitioner's grievance is that throughout his service he worked hard without any adverse remarks having been communicated to him or there being any complaint against him. He pursuant to the order made representations to the State Government and the High Court, the latter of whom stayed the operation of the order till the disposal of his representation, but he came to know later on that that representation had been rejected. He contends that the order in question is unconstitutional, arbitrary and mala fide. 3. In the return at page 23 of the paper book, it is asserted that mostly the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory but he was being tolerated somehow or other in the Department, He had been retired, because of his lelhargy and his disobeying (superior's orders) according to law. The petitioner was in the habit of not attending to his duties promptly. The order retiring him is not challengable by a writ petition. 4. The only question for decision by me is whether the order in question deserves to be quashed. 5. The order translated into English would read substantially as follows.-- Shri Laxminarayan Verma's date of appointment in the Government service is 16-1-1948. The order retiring him is not challengable by a writ petition. 4. The only question for decision by me is whether the order in question deserves to be quashed. 5. The order translated into English would read substantially as follows.-- Shri Laxminarayan Verma's date of appointment in the Government service is 16-1-1948. Alghough his age of superannuation would be completed on 4-11-1984, he, under rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 keeping in view public interest, with the concurrence of the State Government, is being retired with effect from 30-4-1981, afternoon, Shri Laxminarayan Verma be sent a notice of this order and his receipt acknowledging the order be obtained before 25-1-1981, The Accountant shall prepare the pension papers and send them to the Accountant General Gwalior. 6. Rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 so far as relevant for out purposes is as follows; -- ......The appointing authority may also require a Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 25 years' qualifying service, with the approval of the State Government; Provided that the appointing authority shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the Government Servant atleast three months before the date on which he is required to retire or make payment to him of an amount equal to pay and allowances for the period for which the notice given to him falls short of three months; Note 1. The appointing authority shall not ordinarily exercise powers under this precision unless it becomes necessary in the public interest so to do. 7. There is no dispute that the appointing authority has required the petitioner to retire after he has already completed more than 25 years of qualifying service (to be exact he has completed 321/2 years of service), after the approval of the State Government giving him three months' notice before the date on which he is required to retire. The question narrows down to; whether there has been compliance with Note 1 appended to rule 42 directing the appointing authority not to ordinarily exercise powers under the provision unless it becomes necessary in the public interest to do so. 8. 'The expression' public interest' in the context of prematurs retirement has a well settled meaning. The question narrows down to; whether there has been compliance with Note 1 appended to rule 42 directing the appointing authority not to ordinarily exercise powers under the provision unless it becomes necessary in the public interest to do so. 8. 'The expression' public interest' in the context of prematurs retirement has a well settled meaning. It refers to cases where the interests of public administration require the retirement of a Government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competence and utility called for by the Government servant to which he belongs. No stigma or implication of misbehaviour is intended, and punishment is not the objective". (Gian Singh Mann v, High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another. AIR 1980 S. C. 1894, par. 7). 9. 'It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary Securty of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service. The Administration, to be competent must have servants who are not plagued by uncertainty about tomorrow. At the age of 50 when you have family responsibility and the somora problems of one's own life's evening, your experience, secomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the Administration if and only if you are not hurried or worried by' what will happen to me and my family ? ". (Baldeo Rai Chadha v. Union of India and athera AIR 1981 SC 70 ). 10. The important fact to be taken note of however, is that admittedly the petitioner was confirmed on 24-11-1979 vide' Annexurs A' implying thereby that till that date his record was not such as to disentitle him from being confirmed. In the case of (Swami Saran Saksena v. State of Uttar pradesh (AIR 19:0 SC 269), their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of a temporary judicial officer who was compulsorily retired from service, taking into account the fact of his being permitted to cross the second efficiency bar only a few months before, had quashed the order of his compulsory retirement. Any adverse entries made in the confidential report of the petitioner before 24-11-1979, therefore, could not have had any bearing the retirement of the petitioner. Any adverse entries made in the confidential report of the petitioner before 24-11-1979, therefore, could not have had any bearing the retirement of the petitioner. 11. Similarly whatever came to be recorded in the confidential report of the petitioner after 21-1-1981 the date compulsorily retiring the petitioner cannot be used justifying that order, At annexure R/7-A is the confidential report of the petitioner for the period ending 31-3-1981. It came to be recorded on 7-5-1981, This report itself notices against item No. 12 the fact of a notice having been sent to the petitioner retiring him. The remarks of the District and Sessions Judge regarding the petitioner's work being very bad, his condition being lazy and he being a recalcitrant worker carry no weight because the order against the petitioner had already been made, and it has not been specified that such was the disposition of the petitioner also before the passing of the order in question, 12. The relevant period, therefore, which could have formed the basis for the order in question was between 24-11-1979, the date of the confirmation of the petitioner and 21-1-1981, the date of the passing of the order. For the period ending 31-3-1980, the report records as follows :-- The personality and behaviour, physical capacity, intelligence and initiative, ability to write noteand precis and capacity to control ... ... ... Ordinary promptess ... ... ... Average conduct and character ... ... ... Good Then the remark of the Scrutinizing Officer--the District and Sessions Judge is. "His work not satisfactory". This record in the confidential report (contained In Annexure R/7-B) is in no way worse than his confidential reports for the years ending March 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972(Annexures R/1, R/2, R/3, R/4 and R/5 respectively). The administration has not chosen to produce confidential reports during the intervening years upto 31.3.1978, giving rise to the inference that either they were not written at all for those years at have been suppressed because they were favourable to the petitioner. The administration has not chosen to produce confidential reports during the intervening years upto 31.3.1978, giving rise to the inference that either they were not written at all for those years at have been suppressed because they were favourable to the petitioner. The fact is that the confidential reports before 24-11-1979, did not come in the way of the confirmation of the petitioner and he came to be retired solely on the basis of confidential report which was not worse than the reports of previous years and particularly the report for the year immediately preceding his confirmation, The confidential report is at R/6 it records as follows;-- As a Head Record keeper his work is not good. The Central Record Room is in great mess. The clerk enjoys siesta (noon sleep) and he never bothers to take work from them, Inspite of this confidential report, he was confirmed; and yet was compulsorily retired by the order in question. 13. The other important aspect is that the petitioner had not been communicated the adverse entries made in his confidential report. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brij Bharilal Agrawal v. High Court of M. P. and others AIR 1981 SC 594 ) laid down that" It is necessary to communicate adverse entries made in confidential reports to the Government servants concerned, when considering the question of compulsory retirement, while it is no doubt desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's record, more than ordinary value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. It is possible that a Government servant may possess a somewhat erratic record in the early years of service, but with the passage of time he may have so greatly improved that it would be of advantage to continue him in service upto the statutory age of superannuation. Whatever value the confidential reports of earlier years may possess, those pertaining to the later years are not only of direct relevance but also of utmost importance." 14. The High Court in such matters as is before (sic) is not an appellate Court. Its function is only supervisory. It does not interfere with the judgment of the relevant authority on the point whither it is in public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant. The High Court in such matters as is before (sic) is not an appellate Court. Its function is only supervisory. It does not interfere with the judgment of the relevant authority on the point whither it is in public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant. But in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I had to go through the record to ascertain whether a reasonable man under the circumstances could have passed the order in question without giving the petitioner an opportunity of explaning his conduct, particularly when worse conduct than the one which could have formed a foundation for the impugned order, had not come in the way of the petitioner to confirm him, 15. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order in question is quashed. It is open to the administration to take fresh decision based on lagal material and guided by legal principles with regard to compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The outstanding amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioner. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/- if certified. Petition allowed.