D. H. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Chandrasinh Mulsinh Raol joined the services of the respondent State in the Year 1915 as a Police Constable and in course of time he reached the post of Police Inspector. He was promoted to the post of a Police Head Constable in the year 1962 as a Police Sub Inspector in the year 1964 and as a Police Inspector in the year 1974. Since then he has been employed with the respondent State as a Police Inspector and was last posted as a Circle Police Inspector at Ranavav. The petitioner 1 as been given promotion all throughout as per his seniority and in routine course excepting when he was promoted as a Police Inspector which promotion came late by about five months. The petitioner has thus served the department continuously for the last 38 years. The petitioner avers that in his long standing service there has not been a single blemish nor has he received a single adverse remark throughout his career. On the contrary the petitioner avers that he has rendered meritorious service to the department and even after the age of 55 years he has been awarded approximately 25 awards in discharge of his duties. He has further averred that his case was reviewed in connection with the premature retirement when he reached the age of 55 years in the year 1985 i. e. to say on 10-1-1985 and for that purposes of review he was medically examined. In medical examination he was found fit. This averment is found corroborated by a xerox copy of the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon Porbandar dated 10-1-1985 wherein it is stated that Shri C. M. Raol aged about 55 years was examined by him (the Civil Surgeon) and he is fit for further service. It is pertinent to note that the words for further service are found in writing in a certificate which is otherwise typed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner carne to know that he was being prematurely retired from service. by an order which was passed and which numbered A/1/72/cmr/55 86 dated 25-7-1986 However before the same could be served on the petitioner the petitioner filed the present Special Civil Application to protect his rights. ( 2 ) THE petitioner carne to know that he was being prematurely retired from service. by an order which was passed and which numbered A/1/72/cmr/55 86 dated 25-7-1986 However before the same could be served on the petitioner the petitioner filed the present Special Civil Application to protect his rights. Later on however he was served with the apprehended order above referred to and a typed copy of which marked Confidential is produced by the petitioner. The main text of the order runs thus:in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 161 (I) (AA) (I) (I) of BCSR Rules Volume I it has been decided to retire you prematurely in public interest. An amount equal to your three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice is enclosed herewith as per orders contained in Government Circular GAD No. CRA/1276/4593/g dated 17-8-1976. ( 3 ) IT is this order of premature superannuation that is under challenge in this petition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) IN order to resist the admission of the petition the State filed an affidavit-in-reply of Shri M. P. Rao Under Secretary Home Department dated 21-8-86. At the commencement of the affidavit-in-reply it is stated that the affidavit-in-reply was filed only for the limited purpose of opposing the admission of the petition and that leave was sought to file further detailed affidavit if and when necessary. Pertinent it is to note at this early stage of my judgment that no further affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) THE aforestated are the circulars which were placed before me by Mr. M. H. Kadri the learned Assistant Government Pleader. ( 6 ) IT is in the background of these legal requirements that I shall now proceed to consider the case of the petitioner before me. ( 7 ) I have pointed out above that the petitioner has averred in the petition that even after the age of 55 years the petitioner has been awarded approximately 25 awards for the discharge of duties. ( 7 ) I have pointed out above that the petitioner has averred in the petition that even after the age of 55 years the petitioner has been awarded approximately 25 awards for the discharge of duties. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder he has stated as I have pointed out above that he was conferred upon 9 awards for his meritorious service in the year 1985 and 16 awards for the meritorious services rendered by him in the year 1986. Now this claim is not controverted in the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. M. P. Rao. which was filed to resist the admission of the petition. As I have pointed out above no further affidavit is filed by the State thereafter. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has also pointed out that there was not a single adverse remark in his entire 12 years service as Police Inspector. So far as his physical health is concerned he was asked to appear before the medical authority and the medical authority has certified him to be fit for service. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has also averred that he was due for crossing the Efficiency Bar on 1-11-1981. His case was considered in the year 1985 and on 18-4-1985 Shri V. T. Shah Director General of Police passed an order allowing him to cross Efficiency Bar with effect from the date on which it was due i. e. from 1-11-1981. This claim has also gone uncontroverted. ( 10 ) I have quoted above the circular dated 2-11-1976 which was issued in modification of the earlier circular dated 4-8-1975 wherein it was provided that only those Government servants should be retained in service beyond 55 years of age who were graded Good during the last three years i. e. at the age of 52 53 and 54 and the modified direction issued by the circular dated 2-11-1976 is to the effect that the above instructions were likely to cause injustice to persons whose record was consistently good and therefore it was provided that while reviewing cases for relation beyond 55 years of age consideration should not be restricted to last three years but reports during the last eight to ten years should invariably be taken into consideration. It is pertinent to point out that in this circular Government has taken into its notice that in actual practice as per the earlier circular regarding the requirement of confidential record being Good for preceding three years that it operated unduly harshly and a good officer might get retired due to an isolated adverse confidential report received at the age of 52 53 or 54 I am pointing out this modified direction in the circular dated 2 because in view of this circular it is required to consider the confidential record of the petitioner for the last 8 to 10 years. Mr. Kadri submitted the confidential file of the petitioner for my perusal. I must point out that the State should have filed a proper affidavit-in- reply to bring on record specifically as to what adverse confidential remarks the State wanted to rely upon. There is no such affidavit-in- reply filed before me but since Mr. Kadri wanted to refer to the confidential file of the petitioner I thought it fit and proper not to restrain him from doing so if in fact there was such adverse remark against the petitioner which justified his earlier termination from service. If the occasion had required to do so I would have even permitted the petitioner to file a further affidavit-in-rejoinder. Since Mr. Kadri wanted to fall back upon the confidential file of the petitioner 1 have myself gone through the confidential file and especially after the years 1974-75. ( 11 ) IN the confidential report of the petitioner for the period- from 5-11-1974 to 31-3-1975 there is nothing adverse. On the contrary in general remarks column it is stated: Capable Officer Knows his job well. His grading is stated as Good. The Reviewing Officer is Mr. P. G. Nawani Dy. Inspector General of Police (Crime and Rlys) Gujarat State Ahmedabad. ( 12 ) REPORT for the period from 1-4-1975 to 30-7-1975 discloses no adverse remarks and in the general remarks it is stated: Officer of good calibre. Knows his job well. The Reporting Officer is Mr. R. B. Rana S. P. C. I. D (Crime) G. S. Ahmedabad. ( 13 ) IN the report for the period from 1-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 it is found stated: Both the Reporting Officers generally agree and I agree with them and the grading good. The general remarks are: Dependable Working satisfactorily. The Reviewing Officer is Mr. R. B. Rana S. P. C. I. D (Crime) G. S. Ahmedabad. ( 13 ) IN the report for the period from 1-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 it is found stated: Both the Reporting Officers generally agree and I agree with them and the grading good. The general remarks are: Dependable Working satisfactorily. The Reviewing Officer is Mr. P. G. Nawani Dy. Inspector General of Police C. I. D. (Crime and Rly.) G. S. Ahmedabad. ( 14 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1976 to 5-12-1976 the remark of the Reviewing Officer is: I accept the assessment and opinion about integrity of the Reporting Officer. The assessment of integrity is Good. Nothing adverse. General remarks: Worked satisfactorily. The Reviewing Officer is Mr. P. G. Nawani Dy. Inspector General of Police. ( 15 ) FROM 1-4-1976 to 5-12-1976 the remarks of the Reviewing Officer is: I accept the assessment and opinion about integrity of the Reporting Officer. The assessment of integrity is Good and nothing adverse. General remarks Worked satisfactorily. The Reviewing Officer is Mr. P. G. Nawani Dy. Inspector General of Police ( 16 ) FOR the period from 16-6-1977 to 17-2-1978 the general remarks are: A seasoned officer whose performance was found satisfactory on the whole during the period under report. Mr. Malia former Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City has added his note at the end of which it is stated: It would be highly incorrect therefore to condemn the integrity of this P. I. especially when it has to be based on dubious evidence as aforesaid. ( 17 ) FOR the years 1978-79 the overall assessment is Can be well relied in mob control. Is a seasoned hard-working officer. Very competent in all respects. Dependable too. So far as suitability for other spheres of work it is stated: Can work on all fields but is suitable more in city. So far as his capacity for organization and to get work from subordinates is concerned it is stated Very good. The overall assessment for this period is A good sincere and competent officer. The Reviewing Officer is Y. B. Jhala Dy. Inspector General of Police Baroda Range Baroda. ( 18 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1979 to 16-7-1979 the overall assessment is: so far as suitability for other spheres of work is concerned it is stated: ( 19 ) THE Reporting Officer is Mr. J. B. Jhala D. S. P. Bharuch. The Reviewing Officer is Y. B. Jhala Dy. Inspector General of Police Baroda Range Baroda. ( 18 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1979 to 16-7-1979 the overall assessment is: so far as suitability for other spheres of work is concerned it is stated: ( 19 ) THE Reporting Officer is Mr. J. B. Jhala D. S. P. Bharuch. ( 20 ) THE report from 9-2-1979 to 31-3-1980 mentions in the column of overall assessment: An all round outstanding officer did very good work to maintain industrial peace in his area. The Reviewing Officer is P. G. Nawani Addl. I. G. P. Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City. . ( 21 ) IN the report for the period from 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981 the overall remark is a bold officer. The Reporting Officer has stated: it is by M. M. Singh Additional Commissioner of Police holding additional charge of Addl. I. G. of Police and Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City. ( 22 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1981 to 7-11-1981 the overall assessment is: it is by Mr. P. K. Datta Dy. Commissioner of Police South Division Ahmedabad. So far as the Reviewing Officer the report is blank. 39 For the period from 8-11-1981 to 31- 3-1982 the Reporting Officer has stated in his overall assessment: A capable and efficient officer. Very good for law and order and crime investigation. The Reviewing Officer Mr. M. M. Singh Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City has stated: Bold and courageous in public order work. ( 23 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1989 to 20-1-1983 the Reporting Officer Mr. Amitabh Pathak has stated : Very bold hard-working and dependable officer who has risen from ranks. The Reviewing Officer the Commissioner of Police has stated I accept. ( 24 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1983 to 31-4-1984 the Reporting Officer Mr. N. K. Bhandari has stated:the Reviewing Officer Mr. S. Banerjee Deputy Inspector General of Police has stated that he accepts the assessment of the Reporting Officer and has stated by way of overall assessment: ( 25 ) FOR the period from 1-4-1984 to 22-9-1984 the Reporting Officer Mr. N. K Bhandari has stated: so far as his character is concerned it is stated: the Reviewing Officers assessment is blank. ( 26 ) THE next report is for the period from 22-9-1984 to 31-3-1985 wherein Mr. N. K Bhandari has stated: so far as his character is concerned it is stated: the Reviewing Officers assessment is blank. ( 26 ) THE next report is for the period from 22-9-1984 to 31-3-1985 wherein Mr. Gurudial Singh D. S. P. as a Reporting Officer has stated : so far as character is concerned he has stated . The Reviewing Officer Mr. S. Banerjee Deputy Inspector General of Police has stated in his remark on overall assessment: it is dated 10/11-7-1985. I have noted this date 10-7-1985 because on that date the Reviewing Officer has stated: although there is placed on record a note from D. S. P. Porbandar dated 10-6-1985 which I reproduce as under: A case of murder was registered in Ranavav P. Stn. in which five persons were killed. There were in all It accused in this case. One Bhima Dula of Boricha village was the leader of this gang. Investigation of this case was handed over to CPl Shri C. M. Raol. It has been learnt that some shady deal has been made by Shri C. M. Raol. Hence the main accused has not been arrested so far. I had followed the investigation very closely and was also supervising the operations to arrest the main accused. At one state it was learnt that CPI Shri Raol is very much near the accused He told me that there are persons who have told him that Shri C. M. Roal can meet the accused. However when Shri Raol was told that he should meet the accused and arrest him he did not do so. This confirms the reports learnt that he has made a shady deal in this matter. ( 27 ) SO although this adverse report dates 10-6-1985 is kept on record it is pertinent to note that the Reviewing Officer Mr. S. Banerjee has stated on 10-7-1985. if this adverse report on a loose paper dated 10-6-1985 was on record it is difficult to understand how on 10-7-1985 the Reviewing Officer certified that the petitioner is doing satisfactory work. It is also pertinent to note that this adverse report of the district Superintendent of Police Porbandar dated 10-6-1985 is slot supported on oath by an affidavit filed to that fact by the Officer concerned. It is also pertinent to note that this adverse report of the district Superintendent of Police Porbandar dated 10-6-1985 is slot supported on oath by an affidavit filed to that fact by the Officer concerned. It is all the more pertinent to note this fact because the petitioner has emphatically averred that he has not received any adverse report. There is no adverse remark so far found in my perusal of his confidential reports which I have noted above. If this confidential report made by the District Superintendent of Police Porbandar existed on record I do not understand why it was not conveyed to the petitioner and why this adverse report has not been take into consideration by Mr. S. Banerjee. I have a lurking suspicion that this report has been placed on record after Mr. S. Banerjee had certified on 10-7-1985 in his overall assessment that the petitioner is doing satisfactory work. It is also pertinent to note that it was Gurudayal Singh who was the Reporting Officer who has stated in the petitioners confidential report dated 25-4-1985 that the petitioner is: but the Reviewing Officer Mr. S. Banerjee has stated : nowhere the State has stated that in prematurely retiring the petitioner the State has relied upon the adverse note dated 10-6-1985 of the District Superintendent of Police Porbandar namely Mr. Gurudayal Singh. But if it has done so it is not justified in doing so in view of the doubtful circumstances narranted by me above and further in view of the fact that this adverse report is not communicated to the petitioner and in view of the further fact that Gurudayal Singh has not come forth to file his affidavit. I am specially referring to the need of filing an affidavit since it is observed in the note dated 10-6-1985 referred to above that: At one stage it was learnt that CPI Shri Raol is very much near the accused. He told me that there are persons who have told him that Shri C. M. Raol can meet the accused. However when Shri Raol was told that he should meet the accused and arrest him he did not do so. This confirms the reports learnt that he has made a shady deal in this matter. He told me that there are persons who have told him that Shri C. M. Raol can meet the accused. However when Shri Raol was told that he should meet the accused and arrest him he did not do so. This confirms the reports learnt that he has made a shady deal in this matter. Now this note relating to the integrity of the petitioner is based upon what was learnt by the Reporting Officer from unknown quarters. I would very much like to know from the Reporting Officer on oath as to from what sources did he hear about the allegations against the petitioner and what factors led him to rely upon the hearsay reports on the basis of which he has emboldened himself to put a loose note on the confidential report of the petitioner. I am particularly referring to this note dated 10-6-1985 as Mr. Kadri invited my attention in this connection to the circular dated 25-10-1963 clause (d) which runs to the following effect: (d) In a case in which the authorities concerned have reasonable cause to believe that a Government servant is lacking in integrity it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement irrespective of an assessment of his ability or efficiency in work. He also relied upon clause (6) of the circular dated 15-5-1970 referred to above which runs as under : In the case of a Government Servant whose integrity is in doubt it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement irrespective of an assessment of his ability or efficiency in work. ( 28 ) I have taken these instructions contained in the circulars into consideration but I am of the view that under the circumstances mentioned above the adverse loose report which is not entered into the confidential record of the petitioner has no credibility and if the State has acted upon this adverse loose report it is not justified in doing so. ( 29 ) THE next report is for a period from 1-4-1985 to 17-9-1985. The Reporting Officer is the same namely Mr. ( 29 ) THE next report is for a period from 1-4-1985 to 17-9-1985. The Reporting Officer is the same namely Mr. Gurudayal Singh he has stated in the overall assessment: it is pertinent to note that the same Reporting Officer has stated for the same period regarding the character and temperament including relations with fellow officers and general public; when the Reporting Officer has specifically to give his assessment regarding the character and temperament of the officer under review why at this juncture does the Reporting Officer opine only about the temperament and has nothing to state about his character ? If the Reporting Officer had made a loose report regarding the doubtful character of the petitioner on 10-6-1985 why does he in his report dated 8-6-1986 keep complete silence about the character of the petitioner regarding which he is under a specific duty to opine ? That is not enough. So far as the report of this period is concerned there is no assessment by the Reviewing Officer at all. However in the same report the Reporting Officer Mr. Gurudayal Singh the then D. S. P. Porbandar has again introduced a loose report wherein he states that the petitioner was working as CPI at Ranavav. A gambling raid was carried out by the D. S. P. at Ranavav wherein huge amount/muddamal was seized and many persons were arrested. Mr. Gurudayal Singh D. S. P. Porbandar has stated in his confidential note dated 8-6-1986 that CPI Shri C. M. Raols headquarter being there it was not likely that he had no knowledge about such activities going on there. An enquiry was conducted into it and a draft charge-sheet has been sent to the Dy. I. G. P. S. S. R. Junagadh vide D. S P. Porbandars Office No. SB/dp/pbr/3957/86 dated 19-5-1986. Thus it is confirmed that CPI Ranavav Shri C. M. Raol failed to stop such anti-social activities in his headquarter and for that he is held responsible. ( 30 ) I have noted above that on the same date i. e. 8-6-1986 as a Reporting Officer he has stated a single word about the character of the petitioner in the confidential report of the petitioner. Mr. Gurudayal Singh has not made any statement on oath in regard to the loose adverse note. This adverse note has not been communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Gurudayal Singh has not made any statement on oath in regard to the loose adverse note. This adverse note has not been communicated to the petitioner. It does not form part of the confidential report but as I have reiterated it is a loose note on which there is no remark of the Reviewing Officer. As a matter of fact the sheet to be filled in by the Reviewing Officer is blank. Although the report is for a period from 1 to 17-9-1985 the Reporting Officer has put his assessment only on 8-6-1986. How is the delay in making the assessment report to be explained ? This delay is all the more so when we note that the premature retirement order is dated 25-7-1986. Has the State taken this adverse report into account ? There is no specific averment to that effect in the affidavit-in-reply which is on record and there is no further affidavit-in-reply filed. I fail to appreciate how these loose adverse report continue to be in the confidential record of the petitioner without State having communicated its contents to the petitioner ? In fact the premature retirement order appears to have been based on such loose reports and if it is so it need hardly be stated that the action of the State has operated unjustly against the petitioner. ( 31 ) THE next report is for the period from 6-11-1985 to 31-3-1986. The reporting is done by Shri K. Kumaraswami District Superintendent of Police Porbandar. His assessment is dated 10-6-1986. In his overall assessment he has stated: As regards character and other factors he has opined: If the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful why has the Reporting Officer not stated a word about it in his report which is later in point of time than that of Gurudayal Singh and on the contrary why has he stated that his work is satisfactory ? S. Banerjee has stated his overall assessment:but this assessment is dated 16-8-1986 which is subsequent to the order of premature retirement date 25-7-1986 and therefore this overall assessment by Mr. S. Banerjee is irrelevant. ( 32 ) THE aforestated is the overall assessment of the petitioner for a period of little over ten years. S. Banerjee has stated his overall assessment:but this assessment is dated 16-8-1986 which is subsequent to the order of premature retirement date 25-7-1986 and therefore this overall assessment by Mr. S. Banerjee is irrelevant. ( 32 ) THE aforestated is the overall assessment of the petitioner for a period of little over ten years. In this connection I may again revert to the instructions contained in the circular dated 2-11-1976 wherein inter alia it is provided that while reviewing cases for retention beyond 55 years of age consideration should not be restricted to the last three years but reports during the last 8 to 10 years should invariably be taken into account. I again revert to it to reiterate that the State found it necessary to issue this modified instruction as it realised that in actual practice the earlier instructions operated unduly harshly and a good officer might get retired due to an isolated adverse confidential report received at the age of 52 53 or 54. I have considered the overall report of the petitioner for the last over ten years and the adverse reports which are again loose reports are only two and that also by the same officer and again they suffer from several infirmities which I have noted earlier and which infirmities only for the brevity sake I do not repeat. ( 33 ) IN this connection it is interesting and instructive to quote from the judgment of Krishna Iyer J. in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Others reported in 1981 (1) All India Services Law Journal page 188. The following observations at paragraph 4 thereof are relevant:a break-down of the provision brings out the basic components. The order to retire must be passed only by the appropriate authority. That authority must form the requisite opinion not subjective satisfaction but objective and bona fide and based on relevant material. The requisite opinion is that the retirement of the victim is in public interest not personal political or other interest but solely governed by the interest of public service. The right to retire is not absolute though so worded. Absolute power is anathema under our constitutional order. Absolute merely means wide not more. Naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law. These essentials once grasped the appellants submissions become self-evident. (Underscoring mine ). The right to retire is not absolute though so worded. Absolute power is anathema under our constitutional order. Absolute merely means wide not more. Naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law. These essentials once grasped the appellants submissions become self-evident. (Underscoring mine ). Krishna Iyer J. further observed at para 8 of the above judgment as under:this takes us to the meat of the matter viz. whether the appellant was retired because and only because it was necessary in the public interest so to do. It is an affirmative action not a negative disposition but 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. Security 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 sombre problems of ones own lifes evening your experience accomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the Administration if and only if you are not harried or worried by what will happen to me and my family? Where will I go if cashiered ? How will I survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be superannuated ? These considerations become all the more important in departments where functional independence fearless scrutiny and freedom to expose evil or error in high places is the task. And the Ombudsmanic tasks of the office of audit vested in the C and AG and the entire army of monitors and minions under him are too strategic for the nations financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats and oblique over-aweing is very much in public interest. So it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of public interest is unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for taking an order of premature retirement. It will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. To Constitutionalise the rule we must so read it as to free it from the potential for the mischiefs we have just projected. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. It will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. To Constitutionalise the rule we must so read it as to free it from the potential for the mischiefs we have just projected. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and the only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether the order has been made in public interest. When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest the State must disclose the material so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law is sufficient to sustain the grounds of public interest justifying forced retirement of the public servant. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review well settled in administrative law and founded on Constitutional obligations. The limitations on judicial power in this area are well known and we are confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. To me it does appear that if this is the material Oil which the State has relied to say the least it is unjustified. ( 34 ) AT this juncture I may also mention that there is a reference to some inquiry regarding the properties held by the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. At paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply it is alleged that there was Some report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau dated 8 and on the basis thereof the department had called for certain further information about the properties held by the petitioner. The petitioner did not furnish the same. I have referred to this allegation earlier and the reply filed by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-rejoinder wherein he has stated that it is not true that he has not furnished the information about his property. The inquiry was from the Anti-Corruption Bureau and not from the department. But to the inquiry from the Anti-Corruption Bureau he has already given a reply and thereafter no further steps Were taken by the department. The inquiry was from the Anti-Corruption Bureau and not from the department. But to the inquiry from the Anti-Corruption Bureau he has already given a reply and thereafter no further steps Were taken by the department. To this reply there is no affidavit-in-reply filed. ( 35 ) MR. Y. N. Oza strongly relied upon the Circumstance that the petitioner is allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar on 18-4-1985 with effect from 1-11-1981 and therefore even if there is anything adverse to the petitioner prior to 18-4-1985 such an adverse factor cannot be taken into account. He invited my attention to the observations in the case of The state of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal AIR 1370 SC 2086. This ruling does not have much relevance because there is nothing adverse against the petitioner till the loose note dated 10-6-1985 was placed on the confidential record of the petitioner and this note is subsequent to the order dated 18-4-1985 by which the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. ( 36 ) MR. Oza then referred me to the judgment in the case of Mohan Lal Capoor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 1984 SLR 370. It is observed therein that while considering the validity of premature retirement it is open to the High Court to peruse the record of the petitioner which may have been taken into account by the Government in forming the requisite opinion to retire him prematurely. At para 10 of the above judgment the Division Bench further observed: The Courts jurisdiction to consider the material is confined to an examination of the material to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest If the order of compulsory retirement is based on irrelevant material or the vital material is ignored or that obsolete material less relevant to the decision is found to influence the decision the order of premature retirement would be vitiated. In the present case the perusal of the confidential record of the last over 10 Nears of the petitioner has led me to believe that either there is non-application of mind by the authority concerned or that an extraneous circumstance has played part in influencing the Opinion of the authority concerned or; I am afraid both the factors are responsible in bringing about this order of premature retirement of the petitioner. The Division Bench has also observed at paragraph 13 of the above judgment: The Supreme Court emphasised that it is necessary to communicate the adverse entries made in confidential reports of the Government Servant concerned. We are therefore of the opinion that Reddys case does not affect the legal position that if a number of uncommunicated adverse entries are taken into account in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government Servant in public interest the order would be vitiated. ( 37 ) IN Brij Behari Lal Agrawal v. Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others AIR 1981 SC 594 the Supreme Court speaking through Pathak J. observed:the circumstances in which it is necessary to communicate adverse entries made in confidential reports to the Government servant concerned have been considered by this Court in R. L. Butail v. Union of India (1971) 2 SCR 55 in Gurdial Singh Fiiji v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1622 and more recently in Union of India v. M. E. Reddy AIR 1980 SC 563 . . . . . . ( 38 ) MR. M. H. Kadri on the other band relied upon the judgment in Reddys case in regard to the necessity of communicating the adverse remarks. He drew my attention to paras 17 and Z7 of the Judgment wherein the question of the communication of the adverse remark is discussed. The proposition stated in Reddys case (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 563) has no application to the facts of the present case. In para 18 it is observed as under:here we might mention that the appellants were fair and candid enough to place the entire confidential personal file of Reddy before us starting from the date he joined the Police Service and after perusing the same we are unable to agree with Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer that the officer had a spotless career. In para 18 it is observed as under:here we might mention that the appellants were fair and candid enough to place the entire confidential personal file of Reddy before us starting from the date he joined the Police Service and after perusing the same we are unable to agree with Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer that the officer had a spotless career. The assessment made by his superior officers from the very beginning of his service until the impugned order was passed show that at the best Reddy was merely an average officer and that the reports show that he was found to be sometimes tactless impolite impersonated suffered from other infirmities though not all of them were of a very serious nature so as to amount to an adverse entry which may be communicated to him. We might also mention that before passing the order under Rule 16 (3) it is not an entry here or an entry there which has to be taken into consideration by the Government but the overall picture of the officer during the long years of his service that he puts in has to be considered from the point of view of achieving higher standard of efficiency and dedication so as to be retained even after the officer has put in the requisite number of years of service It is in this background of the confidential report of Mr. Reddy that the earlier observation is required to be read. The earlier observation of the Supreme Court is as under:mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer appearing for Reddy submitted that the order impugned is passed on materials which are non-existent inasmuch as there are no adverse remarks against Reddy who had a spotless career throughout and if such remarks would have been made in his confidential reports they should have been communicated to him under the rules. This argument in our opinion appears to be based on a serious misconception. In the first place under the various rules on the subject it is Dot every adverse entry or remark that has to be communicated to the officer concerned. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. some of these remarks may be purely innocuous or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. The superior officer may make certain remarks while assessing the work and conduct of the subordinate officer based on his personal supervision or contact. some of these remarks may be purely innocuous or may be connected with general reputation of honesty or integrity that a particular officer enjoys. It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those two have had the opportunity to watch the perform ance of the said officer from close quarters are in a position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that be enjoys. This explains the nature of adverse remarks which may not be communicated to the officer. These adverse remarks are based on the general opinion of the Reporting Officer. In this case we are not concerned with such remarks as these. As a matter of fact the alleged adverse remarks are not introduced in the confidential reports themselves but they are placed as a loose report on the confidential file. Secondly they refer to specific instances and the surmises based on hearsay report. This cannot be said to be an adverse report based on the personal impression of the officer concerned based upon his general observation. In Reddys case (supra) an observation is cited from the judgment in the case of R. L. Butail v. Union of India (1971) 2 SCR 55 made by Hidayatullah C. J. The said observation is also to the same effect. It runs as under:these rules abundantly show that a confidential report is intended to be a general assessment of work performed by a Government servant subordinate to the reporting authority that such reports are maintained for the purpose of serving as data of comparative merit when questions of promotion confirmation etc. arise. They also show that such reports are not ordinarily to contain specific incidents upon which assessments are made except in cases where as a result of any specific incident a censure or a warning is issued and when such warning is by an order to be kept in the personal file of the Government servant. In such a case the officer making the order has to give a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant to present his case. In such a case the officer making the order has to give a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant to present his case. The contention therefore that the adverse remarks did not contain specific instances and were therefore contrary to the rules cannot be sustained. Equally unsustainable is the corollary that because of that omission the appellant could not make an adequate representation and that therefore the confidential reports are vitiated. It may well be that in spite of the work of the appellant being satisfactory as he claimed it was there may have been other relevant factors such as the history of the appellants entire service and the confidential reports throughout the period of his service upon which the appropriate authority may still decide to order appellants retirement under FR. 56 (j ). I am therefore of tie view that the observations in Reddys case (supra) do not apply to the present case and the loose adverse reports based; on some specific instance not communicated to the petitioner could not have formed a basis for the premature termination order. ( 39 ) MR. Kadri also relied upon a judgment in the case of Gujarat Housing Board v. C. G. Desai 23 GLR 625. Mr. Kadri relied upon it for the said purpose that adverse remarks need not be communicated It appears that that is not the ratio of the observations of Majmudar J. What Majmudar J. emphasised was that the premature retirement was different from a penal action and that for considering the premature retirement what was required to be seen was the overall performance of the employee concerned and that each and every remark made against the employee in his confidential report is not required to be communicated to him. These observations are made in a different background of facts and circumstances. In this case. I have discussed the overall performance of the petitioner for the last over 10 years and what appears to have been the basis of the premature termination order is the loose adverse report of the Reporting Officer based upon certain specific instances. These observations are made in a different background of facts and circumstances. In this case. I have discussed the overall performance of the petitioner for the last over 10 years and what appears to have been the basis of the premature termination order is the loose adverse report of the Reporting Officer based upon certain specific instances. In the facts and circumstances of the case before mob I am of the view that apart from the other factors on which such loose records should not have been relied upon one of the important factors is that such an adverse report should have been communicated to the petitioner so that the petitioner may not become a victim of unwarranted inferences based upon hearsay information of the Reporting Officer. ( 40 ) I find therefore great deal of force in the submission of the petitioner that the premature retirement order is passed without an application of mind and/or that it is influenced by extraneous considerations. . ( 41 ) THE circulars which are issued from 1963 onwards and which I have referred to above have concurrent application and there is no indication that the earlier one is superseded by the later. In the circular dated 25-10-1963 at paragraph 2 (a) it is stated that six months before a Government servant attains the age of 55 years his record should be carefully examined by the authority competent to make an appointment to the post which he is holding whether in an officiating capacity or substantive capacity and a decision should be taken whether he should be retired on attaining the age of 55 years. At paragraph 2 (c) it is directed. Where the authorities concerned come to the conclusion as a result of this examination that a Government servant should be retired prematurely they should record fully and clearly considerations and reasons for their conclusion; and where it is necessary to obtain the previous approval of the next superior authority or Government the reference in this regard should give a full indication of the considerations and reasons for the proposal. In the present case no evidence is brought before me by the respondents that this requirement is satisfied. No affidavit in filed as to the examination of the confidentials of the petitioner carefully by the officer concerned and as to which factors weighed with him to issue an order of premature retirement. In the present case no evidence is brought before me by the respondents that this requirement is satisfied. No affidavit in filed as to the examination of the confidentials of the petitioner carefully by the officer concerned and as to which factors weighed with him to issue an order of premature retirement. In fact there is no material before me to give me an idea as to which factors did the competent authority take into consideration to prematurely retire the petitioner. It was Mr. Kadri who at the time of his submissions pointed out to me the loose adverse report in support of his submission that when the question of integrity is considered the other aspects of the confidential report need not be. gone into I have dealt with the credibility of these loose reports. It does not appear to me that these vague adverse reports have been examined at all by the competent authority much less carefully ( 42 ) THE circular dated 15-5-1970 directs that for reviewing the cases of gazetted officers for their retention in service or premature retirement Committees should be constituted and in the cases of Class II Officers the Committee should consist of the Head of the Department concerned and a Senior Class I Officer from the Administrative Secretariat Department concerned. It is further provided therein that the aforesaid Committee should carefully examine the cases and should submit their recommendations to the Government on the point whether the Government servant under review should be retained in service or retired on his attaining the age of 50 years and that the recommendations should be forwarded to the Administrative Secretariat Department for obtaining the final orders of the Government. It is further provided in the same circular: Where the Committee concerned comes to the conclusions as a result of the examination of the Government Servants record that he should be retired prematurely they should record fully and clearly the consideration and reasons for their conclusion. The respective Secretariat Deptt. On receipt of the recommendations of the Committee. should decide such cases after consulting the General Administration Department. It is necessary that this process should be completed in each case in about three months time so that in the event of retirement being finally decided upon it is possible to serve a notice on the Govt. The respective Secretariat Deptt. On receipt of the recommendations of the Committee. should decide such cases after consulting the General Administration Department. It is necessary that this process should be completed in each case in about three months time so that in the event of retirement being finally decided upon it is possible to serve a notice on the Govt. servant concerned at least three months before the date on which he attains the age of 50 years. ( 43 ) IN the circular dated 7-5-1986 there is a direction given as regarding the constitution of the Committee namely that the Chairman shall be the Chief Secretary to Government and the two members shall be Secretary in charge of the Home Department and Secretary of the Administration Department concerned. There is no evidence that this procedure has been gone through in the case of the petitioner. I specifically inquired from Mr. Kadri as to whether these circulars have been complied with in reply to which he stated that the practice of constituting a Review Committee is discontinued. Mr. Kadri submitted that even if the Review Committee is necessary it is in those cases when the employee is to be compulsorily retired at the age of 50 and not when he is to be compulsorily retired at the age of 55. That argument does not seem to have any force in it. In fact there is a letter of the Chief Secretary addressed to the Secretary Home Department dated 26/05/1976 I have read a xerox copy of the said letter which may be kept on record. It is stated therein inter alia Accordingly it has been decided that the Review Committees constituted for Review of cases of Class I and Class II officers on their attaining the ago of 50 should recheck the cases of all officers who were reviewed on their attaining the age of 50/55. As you are aware the Review Committees are constituted only to review the cases of officers attaining the age of 50 but not 55. Government has now decided that for this limited purpose of rechek the same Review Committees should undertake the recheck of Class I and Class II Officers who have already attained the age of 55 to determine their suitability for continuance in service. Government has now decided that for this limited purpose of rechek the same Review Committees should undertake the recheck of Class I and Class II Officers who have already attained the age of 55 to determine their suitability for continuance in service. It is further stated therein: The Review Committee on going through the records of Class I Officers after excluding clear cases of continuance should submit their recommendations along with C. R. files in respect of the rest of the cases to the Chief Secretary through the Administrative Department concerned. So far as Class II Officers are concerned the same procedure should be followed by the Review Committees which may exclude clear cases of continuance and submit their recommendations in respect of doubtful cases to the Secretary of the Department for his consideration. It does not appear therefore that the procedure of the consideration of the matter by the Review Committee is not required to be followed. ( 44 ) IN view of the above discussion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of premature retirement of the petitioner bearing No A/i/720/cmr/55/86/2322 dated 25-1-1986 is held unjustified unreasonable illegal and consequently devoid of any legal effect with the further effect that the petitioner shall be deemed to continue in service as if the impugned order was not passed at all and shall have all the consequential economic benefits. However there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. (The rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports ) rule made absolute accordingly. .