JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 12.9.84 passed under Rule 56 (C) of the U.P. Financial Hand Book ' Vol. 2 Part 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 31.8.51 on the post of Cane Development Inspector, in June 1972 he was promoted to the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector. It was from this post that the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the impugned order dated 12.9.84 which is contained in Annexure1. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner's record of service has all along been satisfactory and except the adverse entry for the year 197273, no other entry was communicated to the petitioner which could be said to be an adverse entry. It is further stated that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1978 and was once again allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1981, the effect of which would be that even the adverse entry for the year 197273 would stand washed off. It is further stated that the adverse entry for the year 197273 was communicated to the petitioner in 1978 against which he had filed a representation which was rejected by order dated 11.9.84 and the next day i.e. on 12.9.84, he was retired from, service compulsorily. 4. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. They have also filed supplementary counter affidavit in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. 5. We have heared the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the writ petition and the counter affidavit and other affidavits filed in the case. 6. The fact that there was only one adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll and that too relating to the year 197273 is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties who further do not dispute that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar twice i.e. in 1978 and 1981 and that too after the above entry was recorded in his character roil. Their case, however, is that the petitioner was due for crossing of the Efficiency Bar in 1976 but because of the adverse entry, which was given to him in 197273, he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar from the due date and was allowed to cross it in 1978. Their case, however, is that the petitioner was due for crossing of the Efficiency Bar in 1976 but because of the adverse entry, which was given to him in 197273, he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar from the due date and was allowed to cross it in 1978. In 1981 again he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. The petitioner, according to the averments made in the counter affidavit, has completed the age of 55 years in 1982 and, therefore, when his case was scrutinised in 1984 for purposes of determining whether he is to be further retained in service, his service record pertaining to a period of ten years immediately preceding the year 1982 was looked into and since there was an adverse entry for the year 197273, he was compulsorily retired from service as he was not considered fit for further retention in service in public interest. 7. The right to compulsorily retire its servant in public interest is a right which is available to the State Government under Fundamental Rule 56 (C). The purpose for which this right is available has been stated by Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak (as he then was) in Gyan Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab &Haryana & another AIR 1980 SC 1994, as under: ......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 service to which he belongs. No stigma or implication of misbehavior is intended and punishment is not the objective. The Supreme Court observations extracted above indicate that the authority who has to ultimately decide whether or not to retire a Government servant compulsorily, has to be satisfied, if it decided to retire, that the Government servant, with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the Standard of efficiency competence and utility required of him. The decision has to be bonafide & not capricious; honest and not malicious. It has to be based on an overall assessment of the employee's work and conduct which is necessarily reflected in his service record including the Character Roll entries. These entries are to be read and appreciated in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. It has to be based on an overall assessment of the employee's work and conduct which is necessarily reflected in his service record including the Character Roll entries. These entries are to be read and appreciated in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions. Some of the principles for example, are that while scrutinising the Character Roll entries of an employee due weight and significance should be given to more recent entries. Entries which are old and remote and reflect erratic functioning of the employee at one time should not form the basis of an order of compulsory retirement if the employee has functioned smoothly and efficiently thereafter and has earned good entries or promotions and has or has been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in due course. 8. In State of Punjab v. Dewan Chunni Lal AIR 1970 SC 2086 and Swami Saran Saxena v. State of U.P. AIR 1980 SC 269 , it has been held that old adverse entries are washed off if and when an employee is allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. These decisions have been followed by this Court in Dr. Girish Behari v. State of U.P. & others 1982 Lab 1C 1500. 9, In a very recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 948 , it has been held that if an employee is allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar or he is promoted, his previous adverse entries would stand washed off. It has also been held that recent entries should be given greater weight than the earlier entries and that old entries should not be looked into, instead the entries of recent past of five to ten years should be considered while forming requisite opinion to retire a Government employee under public interest. 10. Let us analyse the present case in the light of the above principles. Once the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1978, the earlier adverse entry, namely, the entry relating to the year 197273 lost its relevance particularly as the petitioner was again allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1981. 10. Let us analyse the present case in the light of the above principles. Once the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1978, the earlier adverse entry, namely, the entry relating to the year 197273 lost its relevance particularly as the petitioner was again allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1981. There was no other material available on the record on the basis of which opinion could be legally formed that the petitioner had outlived his utility as a Government Servant or that his compulsory retirement was required to be made in public interest. 11. It may be stated that the petitioner, in para 5 of the writ petition, has stated that he was awarded good entries for the years 197374, 7475, 7576, 7677, 7778, 7879, 7980, 8081, 8182, 8283 and 8384. This is not disputed in the counter affidavit. The opposite parties while maintaining that the good entries were not taken into consideration as the petitioner has completed fifty five years of age in 1982 and the decision, whether or not the petitioner was fit to be retained in service or was to be compulsorily retired, had to be taken on the basis of performance upto 1982. The latter entries were not considered, this is preposterous and exhibits the tendency to compulsory retire an officer who had still not lost his utility and who cannot, in view of continued good performance be categorised as dead wood. 12. Even upto 1982 when the petitioner had completed fifty five years of age, he had earned eight good entries after 197273. These good entries have been totally ignored and the order of compulsory retirement was passed merely on the basis of the adverse entry for the year 197273, which as observed earlier, had lost its relevance after the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1978 and 1981. In any case, the fact that petitioner had completed the age of fifty five years in 1982 would not mean that on the date on which his case for compulsory retirement was considered, the subsequent entries that he might have earned after the completion of fifty years upto the date on which his case was considered could not be considered. His entire service record specially the recent entries had to be considered and scrutinised to find out whether the petitioner was a fit person for compulsory retirement. His entire service record specially the recent entries had to be considered and scrutinised to find out whether the petitioner was a fit person for compulsory retirement. Since the opposite parties have deliberately omitted not only to consider the good entries which the petitioner had obtained upto 1982 but they have also ignored the good entries awarded to the petitioner after 1982 upto the date on which his case was considered for compulsory retirement, the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained particularly as it is clear that it was arbitrarily passed without there being any material available on the service record to support such an order. 13. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement, contained in Annexure1. is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits including full salary payable to the petitioner till the attainment of the age of superannuation which the petitioner would have by now attained as he was fifty five years of age in 1984 when he had filed the writ petition. He will also be entitled to costs.