S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the action of his premature retirement from service inter alia on the ground that the order is vitiated having been passed in colourable exercise of power since it is based on consideration of irrelevant and non-germane factors and non-consideration of relevant material. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge of the petitioner to the order of premature retirement dated 30-4-87 it is necessary to refer briefly to his service particulars. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was appointed to the post of Sales Tax Inspector on 4/11/1959 in the erstwhile State of Bombay. He was promoted to the post of Sales Tax Officer on 26/06/1976. He was thereafter posted at Jamnagar where he worked upto 2 5/06/1982. On 30/06/1980 adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner for the year 1979-80 against which the petitioner made representation to the appropriate authority. Vide order dated 20/08/1981 his representation against adverse remarks for the year 1979-80 was partially accepted and two out of three adverse remarks were ordered to be deleted. ( 4 ) ON 8/06/1981 for the year 1980-81 once again adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner. He represented against the said adverse remarks and the competent authority accepted the said representation vide order dated 20/03/1984 and ordered deletion of two adverse remarks placed in the Confidential Report. ( 5 ) IT appears that thereafter the petitioner came to be selected and placed in the select list of Sales Tax Officers-Cl. I. The said list was prepared on 22-4-84. ( 6 ) BY order dated 2 9/01/1985 the petitioner was permitted to cross E. B with effect from 1/06/1981. ( 7 ) ON 13/02/1985 an order imposing minor penalty of withholding of one increment without future effect was passed against the petitioner Petitioner preferred appeal against said order which came to be dismissed on 6/01/1986. ( 8 ) ON 30/04/1987 the impugned order is passed by the Dy. Secretary Finance Department State of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules immediately retiring the petitioner from service. It is this order of the premature retirement dated 30/04/1987 which is under challenge in this petition. ( 8 ) ON 30/04/1987 the impugned order is passed by the Dy. Secretary Finance Department State of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules immediately retiring the petitioner from service. It is this order of the premature retirement dated 30/04/1987 which is under challenge in this petition. ( 9 ) BEFORE I advert to various submissions made on behalf of the petitioner it would be necessary to state the stand of the respondents and justification shown by them for passing the impugned order. ( 10 ) MR. M. H. Chanchi Undersecretary to the Govt. of Gujarat Finance Department has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is prematurely retired from the post of Sales Tax Officer-Cl. II at the age of 50 years in pursuance to Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules in public interest. It is further stated that upon perusal of service record of the petitioner the Revenue Department was of the opinion that in the public interest the petitioner should be prematurely retired In para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply the positive case of the respondents is stated The said para is reproduced hereinbelow :"it is submitted that upon perusal of the confidential remarks and service record of the petitioner it was found that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful It is further submitted that the petitioner was holding a responsible post of Sales Tax Officer Cl. II. In view of the fact that the petitioner was also not good in administration after careful consideration and due deliberation the Committee had recommended that the petitioner should be prematurely retired. It is submitted that the said recommendation of the Review Committee was accepted by the respondent No. 1 after due deliberation and careful consideration. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has been rightly retired prematurely in the public interest". ( 11 ) FROM the positive stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply it becomes clear that premature retirement of the petitioner is sought to be justified on the ground that (i) the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful as found from this service record and other confidential dossiers (ii) he was not good at administration. ( 11 ) FROM the positive stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply it becomes clear that premature retirement of the petitioner is sought to be justified on the ground that (i) the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful as found from this service record and other confidential dossiers (ii) he was not good at administration. ( 12 ) BEFORE I undertake the exercise of dealing with the rival submissions of the parties I must say that the respondents fairly produced for my inspection the proceedings of the Review Committee entire confidential dossiers of the petitioner and other service record on which reliance was placed by the Review Committee. Having gone through the proceedings of the Review Committee and the confidential dossiers of the petitioner I find that there is no justification either in confidential dossiers or in other files maintained by the department for holding that the petitioner was not good at administration. In fact I would not have undertaken the exercise of assessing the petitioner especially when the duly constituted Expert Committee has assessed the matter for determining as to whether he should be continued beyond the age of 50 years. I am at pains to observe that the remarks in the confidential dossiers of the petitioner suggest that the petitioner was found to be clever and efficient officer by almost all the reporting officers except one and at no point of time he was found to be lacking or bad at administration. In fact a close look at the proceedings of the Review Committee also do not justify the conclusion that the petitioner was not good at administration as is sought to be suggested by the deponent of the affidavit-in-reply. The Review Committee has mainly relied upon the entries in the confidential dossiers and other service records suggesting that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. I therefore find that the justification given in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents namely that the petitioner was not good at administration is not one which is wholly born-out by the service record of the petitioner. In fact material on record establishes that the petitioner was good at administration. ( 13 ) I will now refer to various entries in the confidential dossiers of the petitioner and the service record of the petitioner as produced before me. In fact material on record establishes that the petitioner was good at administration. ( 13 ) I will now refer to various entries in the confidential dossiers of the petitioner and the service record of the petitioner as produced before me. In order to possess the fitness of a Government employee for being continued in service beyond the age of 50 years normally confidential remarks of the period between 5 to 10 years immediately preceding the date of retirement are to be looked into and entire service record is not required to be looked into though overall perspective of the service record should be taken Keeping this principle in mind and more particularly in view of the fact that the respondents have also not referred to entries in the confidential report of the petitioner prior to 1976 I would undertake the exercise of referring to the relevant entries in the confidential report of the petitioner from 1976-77 till 1985-86. (I) For the period commencing from 8/07/1976 to 3 1/07/1977 one R. J. Rawal who was the reporting officer has in the column of assessment of integrity found the petitioner to be of doubtful integrity. On overall assessment of the petitioner he has stated that the petitioner can be better utilised in assessment work. This assessment of the reporting officer is accepted by Mr. Y. M. Desai the Reviewing Officer and he has stated that the report about doubtful integrity of the petitioner is based on enquiry reports made by the Asst. Commissioner It is the confidential report of this particular year which is the foundation for respondents to justify their action. (II) In the next year commencing from 1-4-77 to 31/03/1978 one K. G. Shah who was the reporting officer in the column of assessment of integrity found that though complains were received against the petitioner and though such complaints were investigated nothing adverse was noticed. In the column of overall assessment he found the petitioner to be good at work and good officer. It is pertinent to note that the Reviewing Officer Mr. Desai accepted the assessment made by the returning officer. (III) For the period commencing from 1-4-78 to 31/03/1979 one Mr. K. G. Shah who was returning officer has assessed the petitioner as good officer in the column of overall assessment. In the column of assessment of integrity he has noted nothing adverse has come to notice. Desai accepted the assessment made by the returning officer. (III) For the period commencing from 1-4-78 to 31/03/1979 one Mr. K. G. Shah who was returning officer has assessed the petitioner as good officer in the column of overall assessment. In the column of assessment of integrity he has noted nothing adverse has come to notice. Mr. Y. M. Desai who was Reviewing Officer has concurred with the general rating of the reporting officer but he has stated that the petitioner is accustomed to finding petty excuses about subordinate staff with whom he finds difficulty in work. The confidential report of this year taken solely and isolately cannot supply the basis or justification for an order of premature retirement. (IV) From 1-4-79 to December 1979 the confidential dossier is not filled in and from 1 to 31-3-1980 one G. H. Patel who is the reporting officer has on overall assessment found the petitioner to be extremely clever reliable and dexterous officer. He has also found that since the petitioner exerts work the subordinate employees who are shirking work make complaints against him. (V) Then comes the confidential dossier of the year 1979-80. As stated hereinabove in column No. 2 4 (4) and (5) and in column No. 7 adverse remarks were placed by one K. S. Pathak who was the reporting officer. It appears that the said adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner made his representation to the Commissioner of Sales Tax who vide his order dtd. 20/08/1981 ordered that the adverse remarks in column No. 4 (4) and (5) partially should be deleted. The said adverse remarks/entries and the portions ordered to be deleted are as under: ** it may be noted that Y. M. Desai who was the reviewing officer has endorsed the view of the reporting officer about the very peculiar method of work of the petitioner and the method of dealing with the subordinates adopted by the petitioner. However as regards the integrity of the petitioner the reviewing officer has stated as under "reporting Officer has not followed prescribed procedure when the honesty of a subordinate is suspected. Continuous state of enquiries into complaints admittedly yield no result. It is therefore suggested that he may be on the suspect list for watch". However as regards the integrity of the petitioner the reviewing officer has stated as under "reporting Officer has not followed prescribed procedure when the honesty of a subordinate is suspected. Continuous state of enquiries into complaints admittedly yield no result. It is therefore suggested that he may be on the suspect list for watch". The reproduction of above remarks in the confidential dossier for the year 1979-80 after excluding from consideration the remarks which are already deleted would show that the petitioner was capable to take work from his subordinates but he was in the habit of keeping himself the pending cases and the correspondence received. This habit has resulted into administrative difficulties. It is also found that various complaints were received against the petitioner rendering his honesty doubtful and investigation into such complaints was pending. The reporting officer has summed up the assessment of the petitioner as a very clever but controversial officer. He has also found that out of number of complaints received against the petitioner no substance was found in some of the complaints. The Reviewing Officer has therefore suggested that the officer should be kept in the suspect list and his behaviour should be watched. Similarly for the period commending from 1-4-80 to 25/06/1980 there were adverse remarks in the confidential dossiers of the petitioner as against column No. 1 4 4 and 4 (4) as well as in the column of assessment of the integrity. In the column of overall assessment the reporting officer once again found that he is a very clever officer but he has peculiar method of work and he was keeping the office record with him. (VI) From June 1980 no confidential report was written since time of less than three months was available at the disposal of the reporting officer. It may be staled that the adverse remarks placed in column Nos. 4 (1) and (2) and 4 (4) are ordered to be deleted pursuant to the order of Addl. Sales Tax Commissioner dated 20/03/1984 (VII) Reference to confidential report for the year 1980-81 would suggest that on overall assessment the reporting officer has found the petitioner to be clever and hardworking and in the column of assessment of integrity he has stated that nothing adverse is noticed. The reviewing officer has concurred with the said findings. Sales Tax Commissioner dated 20/03/1984 (VII) Reference to confidential report for the year 1980-81 would suggest that on overall assessment the reporting officer has found the petitioner to be clever and hardworking and in the column of assessment of integrity he has stated that nothing adverse is noticed. The reviewing officer has concurred with the said findings. (VIII) For the year 1981-82 the assessment of the petitioner by the reporting officer is quite good and nothing adverse is noticed. In the column of assessment of integrity reporting officer Mr. R. K. Shah finds the petitioner to be honest officer. (IX) For the following years i. e. 1982-83 1983 and 1984-85 the reporting officer has found the petitioner to be honest while assessing his integrity. Thus excepting for years 1976 and 1979-80 the integrity of the petitioner was not in doubt and despite remarks by the reviewing officer that the petitioners name should be kept in the suspect list all the reporting officers have from 1982- 1986 found the petitioner to be an honest officer. ( 14 ) I will be failing in my duty if I omit to mention at this stage the fact that pursuant to the remarks of the reviewing officer Mr. Y. M. Desai name of the petitioner according to respondents was kept in the suspect list and his movements and conduct were under investigation all throughout. Mr. L. K. Pujari Ld. AGP for respondents has fairly produced the file maintained in this behalf showing the notings of the committee which has watched the conduct of the petitioner as a suspect employee. Mr. Pujari also brings to my notice the fact that from 1980 till date he was prematurely retired the name of the petitioner continued in the suspect list. Factually Mr. Pujari is right. However I find that the name of the petitioner has continued in the suspect list for the reasons stated against his name and the reasons given against his name are i. e. the complaints made against the petitioner were under investigation. This very remarks continued in all the subsequent years till he was prematurely retired and it is not clear as to whether any final investigation has suggested that his integrity is doubtful and as to whether any complaint is finally investigated into or not. This very remarks continued in all the subsequent years till he was prematurely retired and it is not clear as to whether any final investigation has suggested that his integrity is doubtful and as to whether any complaint is finally investigated into or not. To contrast with this maintenance of suspect list I would like to refer the remarks placed in the confidential dossier of the petitioner by his immediate superiors from 1982 to 1986. All the reporting officers as well as reviewing officers have categorically found him to be an honest officer. It therefore requires closure judicial scrutiny as to whether the conduct of the petitioner after 1980-81 was in fact investigated into. In my opinion from the remarks made against the name of the petitioner while keeping his name in the suspect list from 1981 to 1986 it appears that his name is simply continued in the suspect list because investigation into various complaints was not completed. There was no positive evidence nor was any positive finding recorded at any point of time that his integrity was doubtful. I therefore would better rely upon the positive material which as put up before the reviewing committee namely the confidential dossiers of the petitioner which undoubtedly show the petitioner to be an honest officer at least from the confidential reports for the years 1980 1981 to 1985-86. ( 15 ) BASED on the above-referred confidential reports and the notings while the petitioner was kept in suspect list the reviewing committee has assessed the case of the petitioner for his continuance in service beyond the age of 50 years. The reviewing committee has after considering various complaints made against the petitioner found that in number of cases the complaints were baseless and the chapter was treated as closed. However the reviewing committee has on overall assessment of the petitioner based on his confidential reports for the 1st 10 years found that some administrative difficulty was created by the petitioner by keeping to himself correspondence and files of pending cases and has also found that he was not making proper use of powers given to him. The reviewing committee has also found that there were complaints received against the petitioner and the Vigilance Commissioner was also consulted. The reviewing committee has also found that there were complaints received against the petitioner and the Vigilance Commissioner was also consulted. It is found that the petitioner has received the reputation of controversial officer and therefore even though he may be clever or dexterous his integrity appears to be doubtful and therefore his continuance in service was not regarded in the interest of public. On the backdrop of this factual metrices I am called upon to decide the validity of the impugned order of premature retirement. Rule 161 (1) (aa) of Bombay Civil Service Rules in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this petition is reproduced hereinbelow:"161 Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) (i) An appointing Authority shall if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do have the absolute right to retire any Government servant to whom Clause (a) applies by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice; (1) if he is Class I or Cl. II service or post or in any unclassified gazetted post the age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which is below 35 years on or after the date on which attains the age of 50 years and"analysis of this Rule shows that the following are the essential ingredients or the components of the rule and they must be satisfied before the order of premature retirement retiring the Government servant is passed; (I) that the member of the Service must have reached the age of 50 years; (II) that the Government has an absolute right to retire the Govt. servant concerned because the word require clearly confers an unqualified right on the Government (see AIR 1980 SC 563 ). However this right is stated to be not absolute though so worded. Absolute power is anathema under out constitutional order. Absolute merely means wide not more. servant concerned because the word require clearly confers an unqualified right on the Government (see AIR 1980 SC 563 ). However this right is stated to be not absolute though so worded. Absolute power is anathema under out constitutional order. Absolute merely means wide not more. Naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law (see AIR 1981 SC page 70); (III) that the order to retire must be passed by only by the appropriate authority; (IV) that the authority must form the requisite opinion - not subjective satisfaction but objective and bona fide and based on relevant material; (V) 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; (VI) three months prior notice in writing shall be given to the Government servant concerned before the order is passed. ( 16 ) IF these essential or basic components of the exercise of power are satisfied next comes the question of jurisdiction of the court. Before I undertake the exercise to ascertain the scope extent and nature of the jurisdiction of the court Article 226 of the Constitution of India I shall like to refer to the objects as to why such provision came to be enacted by the Legislature and came to be upheld by the courts of law. Object of Compulsory retirement in the case of Union of India v. M. R. Reddy reported in AIR 1980 SC 563 Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali of the Supreme Court tried to ascertain the object of the rule in the following words:" It seems to us that the main object of this Rule is to instil a spirit of dedication and dynamism in the working of the State Services so as to ensure purity and cleanliness in the administration which is the paramount need of the hour as the services are on of the pillars of our great democracy. Any element of constituent of the service which is found to be lax of corrupt inefficient or not upto the mark of has outlived his utility has to be weeded out. Rule 16 (3) provides the methodology to achieve this object. Any element of constituent of the service which is found to be lax of corrupt inefficient or not upto the mark of has outlived his utility has to be weeded out. Rule 16 (3) provides the methodology to achieve this object. We must however hasten to add that before the Central Government invokes the power under Rule 16 it must take particular care that the rule is not used as a ruse for victimisation by getting rid of honest and unobliging officers in order to make way for incompetent favourites of the Government which is bound to lead to serious demoralisation in the service and defect the laudable object which the rule seeks to subserve. If any such case comes to notice of the Government the officer responsible for advising the Government must be strictly dealt with. Compulsory retirement contemplated by the aforesaid rule is designed to infuse the administration with initiative and inertia (sic.) energeia) so that it is made piggnant and piquant specious and subtle so as to meet the expanding needs of the nation which require exploration of fields and pastures new. Such a retirement involves no stain or stigma not does it entail any penalty or civil consequences. In fact the rule merely seeks to strike a just balance between the termination of completed career of a tired employees and maintenance of top efficiency in the diverse activities of the administration. Yet in another decision Justice V. R. Krishna Tyer in the case of Baldevrai Chadha v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 70 outlined the principle of the Rule in the following words:"the whole purpose of the rule is to weed out the worthless without the punitive extremes covered by Art. 311 of the Constitution. After all administration to be efficient must not be manned by drones do nothings incompetents and unworthies. They may not be delinquent who must be punished but may be burden on the administration if by insensitive insoucient unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the flow or promote stagnation in a country where speed. sensitivity probity and non-irritative public relations and enthusiastic creativity are urgently needed but paper logged processes and callous cadres are the besetting sin of the administration. sensitivity probity and non-irritative public relations and enthusiastic creativity are urgently needed but paper logged processes and callous cadres are the besetting sin of the administration. It is in public interest to retire a never-do-well but to juggle with confidential reports when a mans career is at stake is a confidence trick contrary to public interest. Moreover confidential reports are often subjective impressionistic and must receive sedulous checking as basis for decision making. The appropriate authority not the Court makes the decision but ever so a caveat is necessary to avoid misuse". ( 17 ) FROM the above weighty observations of the Supreme Court it becomes clear that the power of premature retirement is constitutionally recognised power and it cannot be doubted that it reflects one of the facts of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The safety valve of public interest is the most powerful and the strongest safeguard against any abuse or colourable exercise of power under this rule. This rule holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public. While minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant the Government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. If the appropriate authority is satisfied on the basis of material before it that the continuance of a government servant is not in public interest the courts should be loathe to interfere with such order only on the ground that the Judge himself would not have reached such a decision based on the material on which the authority has reached the decision. It is undoubtedly true that exercise of such drastic power must receive sedulous checking as the basis for decision making. The appropriate authority not the court makes the decision but as put by Justice Krishna Iyer caveat is necessary to avoid misuse. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power confer red under this rule. In some cases the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power confer red under this rule. In some cases the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. In some cases the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have more efficient officer or in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. The government may also feel that the officer is a dead-wood and it is in the public interest to chop off the same. Similarly there may be some officers who may possess better initiative and higher standard of efficiency and if given chance the work of the Govt. might show marked improvement. In such case compulsory retirement of an officer who fulfils the conditions of Rule 161 is found to be in public interest. Similarly there may be cases of officers who are corrupt or of doubtful integrity and who may be considered fit for compulsory retirement in public interest since they have almost reached the fag end of their career and their retirement would not cast any aspersion nor does it entail any civil consequences. Keeping various aspects in mind the exercise and existence of power is uphold and the exercise of power is to be judicially reviewed in the facts and circumstances of each case. ( 18 ) THE question is as to what is the scope of such power of judicial review ? Are the courts Justified in re-appreciating and re-assessing evidence and material and in reaching conclusions different from that reached by the appropriate authority ? Should the courts dwelve deep into the service record and try to find out factors favourable to the employee by ignoring factors which are quite relevant and material to the foundation of public administration? Should the courts sit in appeal over the order of decision of the appropriate authority ? Answers to all such questions are in negative and the jurisdiction and scope of judicial review is very limited. When the court is satisfied that the exercise of power under this rule amounts to colourable exercise of power or is arbitrary or mala fide it can always strike down the order. Answers to all such questions are in negative and the jurisdiction and scope of judicial review is very limited. When the court is satisfied that the exercise of power under this rule amounts to colourable exercise of power or is arbitrary or mala fide it can always strike down the order. However as observed by Justice V. H. Krishna Iyer in the case of Baldevraj Chadha v. Union of India (supra) Judicial monitoring becomes an unpleasant necessity where power may be humour and a career may be a victim. Potential compulsory retirement under Rule 161 haunting the afternoon of official life injects an awesome uncertainity which makes even the honest afraid the efficient tremble and almost everyone genuflect. Since exercise of such power has very drastic consequences on the Govt. servants in the evening of his career and since the scope of judicial review is staled to be very limited it becomes the duty of the court to sedulously check exercise of such power. The adverse effect of the order on the Govt. employee cannot be better stated that in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Baldevraj Chadha v. Union of India (supra ). Justice Krishna Iyer observed in the case aforesaid as under:"the Administration to be competent must have servant who are not plagued by uncertainity 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 I cashiered ? How will I survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be superannuated ? These consideration becomes 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 adult vested in the C and AC and the entire army of monitors and menions under him are too strategic for the nations financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats and oblique overaweing is very much in public interest. And the Ombudsmanic tasks of the office of adult vested in the C and AC and the entire army of monitors and menions under him are too strategic for the nations financial health and discipline that immunity from subtle threats and oblique overaweing is very much in public interest. So it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of public interest if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making 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. There is no demonstrable ground to inter mala fide 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 maybe 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 public servant. Judges cannot substituted 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 on 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". ( 19 ) IT becomes clear from the above observations that under the guise of public interest if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making the order of premature retirement it will be the surest menace to public interest and it must fail for unreasonableness arbitrariness and disguised dismissal. Shortly speaking in order to succeed in an action challenging the Order of premature retirement the authority exercising power must prove that the exercise of power is bona fide and is to promote public interest. Shortly speaking in order to succeed in an action challenging the Order of premature retirement the authority exercising power must prove that the exercise of power is bona fide and is to promote public interest. The authority must disclose the material based on which the order is passed and the court must 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 ground of public interest. I however the court cannot substitute its Judgment for that of the authority but the Courts are not absolved from the minimal review well-settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. ( 20 ) WHETHER there is colourable exercise of power or the authority is lacking any bona fide while passing the order can be tested by ascertaining and finding out. as to whether the authority has taken into consideration the factor which were irrelevant and or extraneous or whether it has failed to take into consideration the factors which were relevant and material. From the enquiry the courts have tried to justify the exercise of powers. When the court was satisfied that the decision was vitiated by taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous factors of by ignoring relevant and material factors it has invalidated such action on the ground that the order was passed in colourable exercise of powers. 20 A. From this enquiry a new line of reasoning is developed. The question is as to whether the authority should consider the entire service record and the confidential reports of an employee or it should only consider the service record and confidential reports of 5 to 10 years immediately preceding the date of retirement? Further question is as to whether the order of compulsory retirement is necessarily bad if the authority has taken into consideration the reports of remote past so as to justify the action by ignoring the reports of recent service career of the employee ? Further question may also arise as to whether a subsequent factum of promotion to a Govt. employee necessarily renders his earlier service record beyond scope of consideration by the authority exercising power of premature retirement ? Whether a purely administrative action of permitting a Govt. Further question may also arise as to whether a subsequent factum of promotion to a Govt. employee necessarily renders his earlier service record beyond scope of consideration by the authority exercising power of premature retirement ? Whether a purely administrative action of permitting a Govt. employee to cross E. B. would also put his entire service record prior thereto outside the field of consideration while assessing his suitability for continuance in service beyond the age of 50 years? Enquiry into all these aspects has gradually resulted into widening the scope of judicial review. In fact power of premature retirement which was once stated to be absolute power is now subjected to a detailed judicial scrutiny under the heading of colourable exercise of powers. What is relevant and what is not relevant. what should be looked into and what should not be looked into for assessing fitness of the employee for continuance in service is indirectly taken into judicial scrutiny and very often the order of premature retirement is avoid on the ground that the authority has taken into consideration irrelevant and extraneous factors or has failed to take into account the relevant or get mane factors. . ( 21 ) BASED on the above legal principle Mr. Soparkar learned Advocate for petitioner challenges the impugned action firstly on the ground that the order is an colourable exercise of power inasmuch as the respondent has taken into consideration the confidential reports of the years prior to 1985 i. e. the year in which the petitioner is permitted to cross E. B. He submits that as per the decision of this Court as well as the Supreme Court various entries made in the confidential dossiers till the order permitting the petitioner to cross EB is passed cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly the factum that the petitioner having been enlisted in the selection list for Cl. I post is also pressed into service to impress upon the court that the petitioner was meritorious candidate who was even found it fit for being selected for promotion to Cl. I post as back as 1984. Mr. Sorparkar further submits that excepting complaints made against the petitioner and entries to that effect in the confidential dossiers there was no concrete material before the authority to reach conclusion that the petitioner was a man of doubtful integrity. I post as back as 1984. Mr. Sorparkar further submits that excepting complaints made against the petitioner and entries to that effect in the confidential dossiers there was no concrete material before the authority to reach conclusion that the petitioner was a man of doubtful integrity. He further submits that at no point of time the adverse remarks in that behalf were communicated to the petitioner nor was he informed of any complaint filed or received against him. Except for one year which was recorded in the confidential report that the petitioner had peculiar method of working and that he was keeping files and correspondance to himself thereby causing administrative difficulties there was no other report or material to base the conclusion that the petitioner was not good at administration. As against this solitary entry there are entries in the confidential reports of the petitioner showing that he was clever hardworking and efficient officer. Mr. Sorparkar further submits that subsequent to 1980-81 till the petitioner was retired the reporting officer have in the column assessment of integrity found the petitioner to be honest officer. Therefore based on one entry which was not supported by any concrete acceptable evidence and in the absence of any positive finding against the petitioner by the authority which was maintaining the suspect list in which the name of the petitioner was included the retirement of the petitioner was not justified. ( 22 ) MR. L. It. Pujari Ld. AGP for respondent refutes the submission made by the learned Advocate for petitioner and points out that at least for two years in the confidential reports adverse remarks are found and the integrity of the petitioner was stated to be doubtful. He was at pains to point out to the court the fact that even the reviewing officer has desired that the petitioners name should be put in the suspect list and that his conduct should be watched. Mr. Pujari submits that in fact the name of the petitioner was put in the suspect list in the following years i. e. 1980-81 to 1985-86 and that all throughout his name has continued to be in the suspect list. Based on such blameworthy record of the petitioner if the review committee has taken decision that his continuance in Govt. Mr. Pujari submits that in fact the name of the petitioner was put in the suspect list in the following years i. e. 1980-81 to 1985-86 and that all throughout his name has continued to be in the suspect list. Based on such blameworthy record of the petitioner if the review committee has taken decision that his continuance in Govt. service was not in public interest it is not for the court to sit in appeal over such decision submits Mr. Pujari. 22 A. In order to appreciate rival submissions of both the parties a close look at the service record of the petitioner is required. I do not want to refer to entire record of the petitioner because that would be an exercise which is stated to be not permissible. By reference to incident connected to remote past the order of premature retirement cannot be Justified. As stated by the Supreme Court it is permissible to look into the service record of 5 to 10 years immediately before the date of retirement and if 1987 is the year when the power was exercised I would be Justified in looking into the service record of the petitioner from 1976-77. I have also referred to confidential reports of the petitioner and except entry in the year 1976-77 where his integrity was stated to be doubtful and entry in the subsequent year that complaints were received against the petitioner but no substance was found in some of the complaints there was nothing in his service record to brand him as a dishonest or corrupt officer. The reviewing officer rightly found that it is not safe to act upon complaints only and that name of the petitioner should be placed in the suspect list. Despite that exercise of keeping him under observation all subsequent reporting officers and reviewing officers after 1981 have found the petitioner to be an honest officer. If the name of the petitioner was kept in the suspect list and it was order to continue in the suspect list as such the reporting officers or at least reviewing officer could have stated in the column of assessment of integrity that the officer was in the suspect list. The reporting officer or reviewing officer could not have stated that the officer was an honest officer despite the fact that his name was in the suspect list. The reporting officer or reviewing officer could not have stated that the officer was an honest officer despite the fact that his name was in the suspect list. In fact it appears from the files shown to me that every year after 1981 against the name of the petitioner it is stated that his name was required to be continued in the suspect list because the complaints were yet to be investigated into. In no entry it is stated that fresh complaints were received nor it is stated that in any of the complaints received he was found to be guilty or in any way involved. In the absence of this material based on the entry of doubtful integrity in the year 1976-77 the order of premature retirement could not have been passed in the year 1986 especially when the petitioner has earned good remarks starting from the year 1981 upto 1985 The petitioner is described as honest officer and is also described as a clever and hardworking officer. Therefore unless one turns Nelsons Eye to the recent service record of the petitioner i. e. starting from 1981 to 1985 and one overemphasises the entry of 1976-77 one cannot reach the conclusion that is reached by the authority. Moreover confidential reports are often subjective impressionistic and must receive sedulous checking as basis for decision making. To juggle with confidential reports when mans career is at stake is a confidence trick contrary to public interest. (see Baldevraj v. Union of India ). In my opinion the learned Advocate for petitioner Mr. Soparkar rightly pressed into service the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. D. Shrivastava v. State of M. P. and Ors. reported in A. I. R. 1984 SC 630. In the case before the Supreme Court while retiring judicial officer the High Court of MP relied upon the confidential reports relating to remote past. The Supreme Court while invalidating the said order of compulsory retirement held that reports for the period beyond 10 years immediately preceding the date of the order should have been looked into by the authority. The court held it would be arbitrary to base the decision to compulsorily retire a person on the entries that were made about 20 years before the date on which the decision was taken. The court held it would be arbitrary to base the decision to compulsorily retire a person on the entries that were made about 20 years before the date on which the decision was taken. Such entries were regarded as stale entries and court found that dependence cannot be based on such stale entries especially when the Government employee is subsequently promoted to the higher post despite said entries. A factum of promotion is regarded as a material factum so as to wipe out the effect of earlier adverse entries though the court did not say that previous history of Government servant is to be completely ignored once he is promoted. Mr. Soparkar in this behalf invites my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1987 SC 948 . In the case before the Supreme Court like the present case there was an entry in the service record expressing doubt about the integrity of the employee. However it was found that the employee was subsequently promoted. The court held that the adverse entries prior to promotion cannot be taken into consideration while forming opinion to retire him prematurely. Mr. Sorparkar also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 28 (1) GLR 479 as well as 1990 GLH 225 . All these decisions are cited for the purpose of making good the proposition that the adverse remarks contained in the confidential reports of the petitioner prior to 1985 i. e. the year in which the petitioner is permitted to cross E. S. are to be ignored for the purpose of making decision as to whether he should be prematurely retired or not. I am therefore of the opinion that in view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to cross E. S. by order dated 29/01/1985 with effect from 1/06/1981 the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner prior thereto are required to be ignored. In fact the petitioner is selected and placed on the select list as back as 22/04/1984. Excepting the adverse entry about his integrity entered in the confidential report for the year 1976-77 there was no material before the review committee to reach decision to prematurely retire the petitioner. In fact the petitioner is selected and placed on the select list as back as 22/04/1984. Excepting the adverse entry about his integrity entered in the confidential report for the year 1976-77 there was no material before the review committee to reach decision to prematurely retire the petitioner. The fact that number of complaints were received against the petitioner cannot justify the premature retirement when the same were not investigated. In fact the reporting officers and the reviewing officers after 1981 have found the petitioner to be an honest officer. I therefore hold that it is unsafe and unreasonable to rely upon the sole entry in the confidential report and on some univestigated complaints to brand the petitioner as a person of doubtful integrity and to retire him on that score alone when the name of the petitioner was in the suspect list if the investigation had revealed anything against him it could have been very well stated by the deponent of the affidavit. It could have been brought to the notice of the court as to what the investigation revealed. From the files produced before me the reason why the name of the petitioner continued in the suspect list appears to be that the complaints were pending investigation and for that lethargy of investigators fault cannot be found with the petitioner. If they do not investigate into the complaints and if the petitioners name is continued to be in the suspect list for an indefinite period that would not make the petitioner an officer of doubtful integrity. I am therefore of the opinion that the decision of the authority is vitiated inasmuch as it is colourable. The authority has taken into consideration the facts which were irrelevant and extraneous and has ignored the factors which were absolutely irrelevant. The impugned order dated 30/04/1987 Annexure G to the petition retiring the petitioner prematurely therefore requires to be quashed and set aside. ( 23 ) NOW the question is as to what relief should be granted ? From 1/05/1987 the petitioner is out of service. Said premature retirement was however not resulted into total financial loss. Petitioner has received 90% of gratuity. Petitioner is receiving amount of Rs. 1 450 p. m. by way of pension. ( 23 ) NOW the question is as to what relief should be granted ? From 1/05/1987 the petitioner is out of service. Said premature retirement was however not resulted into total financial loss. Petitioner has received 90% of gratuity. Petitioner is receiving amount of Rs. 1 450 p. m. by way of pension. Ordinarily when the order of premature retirement is quashed and set aside in the absence of any evidence of gainful employment the authorities are directed to reinstate the employee with full backwages. In this case I find that the petitioner has received Rs. 35 235 by way of gratuity. Petitioner is also receiving amount of Rs. 1 450 p. m. being the amount of pension. Therefore interest of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to pay 70% of the backwages to the petitioner. This exception is made because of the fact that the petitioner has continued to receive almost 1/2 salary and he has received in lump sum the amount of gratuity on which possibly he could have earned interest. The petitioner earns this amount without actually rendering service to the Govt. Therefore to see that public exchequer is not unduly burdened by direction to pay full salary to the employee who is not working for it and at the same time to see that the grievance of the employee is vindicated I have worked out just balance of awarding 70% of backwages to the petitioner. ( 24 ) IN the result petition succeeds. The order dated 30th April 1987 retiring the petitioner prematurely (Annexure G to the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 1/04/1991. The respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner 70% backwages and to give him all other consequential benefits flowing from declaration of his continuance in service. It is declared that the petitioner shall be treated as in continuous service and he shall be entitled to benefits flowing from such declaration. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (ISS) Petition allowed. .