DODDAKALEGOWDA, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dated 30. 08. 1976 (Annexure-A) under which petitioner has been compulsorily retired from seivice is questioned mainly on two grounds, namely : (i) conclusion reached on uncommunicated confidential reports was illegal and void, and (ii) vitiated by malafides. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was working as Chief super isor from 9. 5. 1958 to 31. 8. 1976 in assembly and Overhaul Shop Section in the establishment ot the first respondent and later assigned to Stores Department from 21. 4. 1976 to 31. 8. 1976. Respondents contended that an order made in public inicrest cannot be interfered with, unless it was made lor collateral purposes or based on irrelevant consideration, in exercise ot power under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THOUGH there was very little controversy on facts considerable arguments were addressed at the Bar citing various decisions of the Supreme Court which prima facie looked irreconcilable. ( 4 ) SRI K. Subbarao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the latest decision ot the Supreme Court in BHIJMOHAN singh CHOPRA v STATE OF PUNJAB ( AIR 1987 SC 948 ) contended that an order of compulsory retirement based on uncommunicated confidential reports was illegal and void. His contention was that petitioner should have been informed of the adverse remarks in his service records and provided with an opportunity to make representations to get them expunged. As the petitioner has been denied of such an opportunity, decision based on such confidential reports was illegal and void. Per contra Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for respondents, contended that impugned order of compulsory retirement did not involve civil consequences, hence rule of audi alteram partem was inapplicable. ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with this vital aspect of source of power, about which there was some doubt, may be cleared. The Board of directors in its 99th meeting held on 27. 11. ( 5 ) BEFORE dealing with this vital aspect of source of power, about which there was some doubt, may be cleared. The Board of directors in its 99th meeting held on 27. 11. 1975 have decided to amend the rule pertaining to service conditions of its employees introducing a scheme for pre-mature retirement; rule reads thus:"the age of superannuation/retirement of HAL employees is ordinarily 58 years, subject to the provision that employees in grade-I and above, who have completed 50 years of age and who are found to have ceased to be useful to the company or whose integrity is questionable, as determined by the competent authority may be prematurely retired from the service in the interests of the company". By virtue of the amended rule impugned order has been passed. A committee under the Chairmanship of the General Manager, engine Division consisting of Sriyuths Ajay basu, Deputy General Manager, S. C. Kochhar, Senior Personnel Manager, HAL, head Office, K. P. Ramachandran, Factory manager, Group Capt. M. S. Rege, Chief production Engineer, as its members, was constituted to screen the performance of officers in Grades-I to III who had crossed the age of 50 years as on 10. 4. 1976. The committee on a consideration of confidential reports of the petitioner and three others, recommended to retire them compulsorily, and in case of eight others, opined to watch their performance for a period of 8 to 12 months. Based on the recommendation of this Committee, the Administrative Manager of the first respondent has passed the impungned order. ( 6 ) THE Committee on a review of performance of the petitioner for a period of 5 years, starting from 1970-71 to 1974-75 rated him as 'd' Grade indicating that official's performance in present grade was consistently poor despite efforts to improve him. ( 7 ) IN order to satisfy, whether conclusion was based on relevant factors or not, confidential reports for all these years, made available by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao were perused. ( 7 ) IN order to satisfy, whether conclusion was based on relevant factors or not, confidential reports for all these years, made available by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao were perused. Sri H. N. Soni, Reporting Officer, has reported that he does not evince interest in his job; always argumentative, non-co-operative from top to bottom; in one year he was even recommended to transfer him from one department to other; does not take initiation to complete the work/schedule; does not exercise control over men or materials; does not carry out instructions instead find fault with the management: behaviour with the superiors and juniors is not cordial and so on. This view has been endorsed. by Sri S. R. Choudhury, superintendent. Sri P. C. Raina, Chief superintendent, as a Reviewing Officer, has accepted their views. ( 8 ) RELYING on Annexure-D, Endorsement dated 11. 5. 1965 through which he was intimated that adverse remarks for the year1960-61 were expunged contended if the remarks for the relevant period had been communicated (except for the year 1973 where remarks was conveyed) he would have got them expunged, likewise by making necessary representation. Through annexure-U, he was communicated adverse remarks for the year ending with June 1973. It read thus :"you have been rated 'below average' in the performance, in the assigned work of Orphans Production engines and Overhaul, and defect investigation. Your confidential report shows that you do not take any interest in the work entrusted to you and your performance is not good. Now that the deficiency has been pointed out to you, we hope that you will improve upon your deficiency, and will earn better rating by the next report". ( 9 ) IT was submitted that representation made as per Annexures -V, W and X complaining irregularities in the functioning of the department and denial of equal opportunity in his recruitment and promotion, remain undecided. He contended that after providing an opportunity to make representation, if remarks remain unaltered, then respondents could have taken action as it deemed fit and proper. In fact, the Management in its letter, dated 22nd August 1975 has communicated his performance, thus :-"we have carefully reviewed your performance with reference with reference to your duties and responsibilities as a part and parcel of the working team. In fact, the Management in its letter, dated 22nd August 1975 has communicated his performance, thus :-"we have carefully reviewed your performance with reference with reference to your duties and responsibilities as a part and parcel of the working team. This analysis has revealed to us that your contribution in your capacity as Chief Supervisor/ Supervisor in the sphere of Planning/ guiding the operators in the day-to-day work or solving technical problems that arise from time to time, controlling of idle time and utilisation of machines to the optimum extent, etc. , has been unsatisfactory. On the shop floor you are generally found to be ineffective and thus unable to make any contribution whatsoever towards the group activity of increasing production by maximum utilisation of machines, manpower and material. In view of this there could be no doubt that your continuance in the service will not be in the best interest of the company. Notwithstanding the above general remarks about your performance, the management, in the interest of fairness, gives you one more chance to show all-round improvement in your performance so that your retention in the service of the company is worthwhile". ( 10 ) THE declaration in Brij Mohan Singh chopra's case (A. I. R. 1987 SC 948) which reads thus :-"these decisions lay down the principle that unless an adverse report is communicated and representation, if any, made by the employee is considered, it cannot be acted upon to deny promotion. We are of the opinion that the same consideration must apply to a case where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service. It would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a Government employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if communicated representations made against those entries are not considered and disposed of. " (Emphasis supplied) no doubt fully support the petitioner. ( 11 ) BUT Supreme Court in UNION OF india v J. N. SINHA and another (A. I. R. 1971 SC 40) dealing with similar contention has stated thus :-". . . . . . . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied) no doubt fully support the petitioner. ( 11 ) BUT Supreme Court in UNION OF india v J. N. SINHA and another (A. I. R. 1971 SC 40) dealing with similar contention has stated thus :-". . . . . . . . . . . But, if on the other hand, a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the rules of principles of natural justice then the Court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power. Now coming to the express words of fundamental Rule 56 (j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is , of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before Courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the Government of the ground of mala fide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. . The aforementioned Rule 56 (j) is not intended for taking any penal action against the Government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the 'pleasure' doctrine embodied in Art. 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the 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. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organisations and more so in Government organisations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same. Fundamental Rule 56 (j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a 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". This view was endorsed by a Constitution bench in R. L. BUTAIL v UNION OF india ( 1971 (2) SCR 55 ) and reinterated in union OF INDIA v M. E. REDDY AND another (A. I. R. 1980 SC 563), which read thus :-"17. . . . . . . . . . . . THE High Court has also laid great stress on the fact that as adverse entries had not been communicated to reddy, therefore, the order impugned is illegal. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court or argument put forward by learned Counsel for Reddy. . . . . . . . . . . THE High Court has also laid great stress on the fact that as adverse entries had not been communicated to reddy, therefore, the order impugned is illegal. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court or argument put forward by learned Counsel for Reddy. Moreover, the appellant had denied in their counter affidavit at page 59 vol. II that there was no adverse entry against the officer concerned prior to 1968. This averment is contained in para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by Under secretary to the Government of India in the High 'court. This aspect was considered by this Court in the case of r. L. Butail v Union of India, (1971) 2 scr 55 and the matter is concluded by the very apt observations made by hidayatullah, CJ. who spoke for the court and observed as follows :- "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 purposes 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. 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 appellant's entire service and confidential reports throughout the period of his service, upon which the appropriate authority may still decide to order appellant's retirement under F. R. 56 (j)". (emphasis supplied) supreme Court in Sinha's case, after referring to Binapani's case, and Kripak's case, has categorically declared that it was open to an appointing authority to rely on uncommunicated Confidential Reports to exercise power under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) and Note 1 to Rule 258 of KCSRs. Reason being compulsory retirement on completion of 25 years of service or an attaining 50 years in public interest was no punishment and consequently involved no civil consequences so as to attract principles of natural justice. There is neither reference to the decision of Constitutional Bench in r. L. Butail's case and other decision referred to in M. E. Reddy"s case nor consequences of retirement in public interest. The declaration in Brij Mohan singh Chopra's case, extracted above, is irreconcilable with the ratio enunciated in sinha's case as endorsed in R. L. Butail's and m. E. Reddy's cases. Under such circumstances, as the supreme Court itself has stated the decision of a larger Bench will have to be followed. To cite an instance Supreme Court in union OF INDIA v K. S. SUBRAMANI (A. I. R. 1976 SC 2433): has held thus :"the proper course for a High Court is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by larger benches of the supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the court. That is the practice followed by the Supreme Court itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. If however, the High Court is of opinion that the views expressed by larger benches of the Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the case it should say so giving reasons supporting its point of view". In this view, I find no merit in the first contention. ( 12 ) IN support of the second contention, it was submitted by Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had complained of supply of sub-standard parts and corrupt practice, inefficiency of his superiors including the denial of his promotion : as a result, his superiors had a rouse to victimise hence, hatched a scheme to rid of his services. Decision based on such confidential Reports was illegal and vitiated by mala fides. Decision based on such confidential Reports was illegal and vitiated by mala fides. Annexures-E, G, H, M, Q, R and S are various representations made, starting from 1972 to 1975 making grievance regarding denial of his promotion as well as irregular functioning of the division. The complaint was as against Sri. S. R. Choudhury, superintendent, Sri P. C. Raina, Chief superintendent and Kirthikar, General manager, Sri Kirthikar, in his affidavit, denied the allegations of mala fides. It is stated that P. C. Raina is dead and S. R. Choudhury has retired. As has already indicated, Confidential Reports, in the first instance were written by Sri H. N. Soni, his immediate superior, as against whom no malice or motives were attributed. S. R. Choudhury and P. C. Raina have only endorsed the views of Sri H. N. Soni. Hence, there was no substance in the plea that choudhury had a grouse against him and with a vindictive attitude wrote adverse confidential Reports. Respondents in their return have denied that on account of the supply of sub-standard parts, accidents occured in Air Flights. As per the return, those accidertts were due to mechanical defect or mechanical failure. ( 13 ) LASTLY, It was contended that impugned order suffered from arbitrariness and the grounds on which the Company has purported to retire petitioner from service will not fall within the ambit of amended rule. The remarks in Confidential Reports do establish that he was rated below average and was of no assistance; in other words a 'dead wood'. Hence, it is not possible to accept the plea that impugned order was based on extraneous consideration or vitiated by mala fides. ( 14 ) LASTLY relying on the certificate issued by General Manager of Engine Division, it was contended that the conclusion was inconsistent with the certificate. The certificates are issued as a matter of course and the certificates would not out-weigh the conclusion based on his performance for a period of successive five years as opined by the screening Committee and accepted by the Appointing Authority. ( 15 ) THE petitioner had filed O. S. NO. 346 of 1979 on the file of the Second Munsiff, bangalore, seeking more or less the same relief and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 30. 8. 1980. It is only thereafter, this writ petition has been filed. ( 15 ) THE petitioner had filed O. S. NO. 346 of 1979 on the file of the Second Munsiff, bangalore, seeking more or less the same relief and that suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 30. 8. 1980. It is only thereafter, this writ petition has been filed. On withdrawal of O. S. No. 346 of 1979 and after a lapse of nearly four years petitioner may not be entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .