JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit seeking to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement from service was dismissed. A few relevant facts leading to the filing of the said suit were that the plaintiff whose date of birth was 20th of December, 1921 was appointed Farm Supervisor under Milk Commissioner, Bombay on the 26th of September, 1950. He was confirmed to the said post on the 22nd of May, 1958. On the 8th of July, 1976 the plaintiff was served with a memorandum containing adverse remarks in his confidential report for the period for the period 1970-71 to 1975-76. The said memorandum which is Exhibit 'B' to the plaint, after intimating the adverse remarks, informed the plaintiff that no representation against the said adverse remarks would be entertained. By a notice dated the 25th of August, 1976 the plaintiff was compulsorily retired, with effect from the day immediately following, the date of expiry of the period of three months commencing from the date of the service of the notice whichever was later. The said notice is annexed at Exhibit 'C' to the plaint. The said notice was served upon the plaintiff on the 26th of August, 1976. However, the plaintiff was relieved from his service on the 24th of November, 1976. The plaintiff by his application dated 24th of November, 1976 applied for leave which was to his credit and the same was duly sanctioned for the period 23rd November, 1976 to 2nd of January, 1977. 2. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, the plaintiff after service of the statutory notice dated the 13th February, 1979 issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed the present suit seeking to challenge the said order of compulsory retirement. The plaintiff in the said suit, inter alia, contended that the adverse remarks for the period 1970-71 to 1975-76 were communicated to him at one stretch by the letter dated the 8th of July, 1976 with a rider that no representations against the said adverse remarks would be entertained. If the Special Review Committee had placed reliance on the said adverse remarks for arriving at the conclusion that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the plaintiff, the same was not justified and the impugned order was liable to be struck down. If the Special Review Committee had placed reliance on the said adverse remarks for arriving at the conclusion that it was in the public interest to compulsorily retire the plaintiff, the same was not justified and the impugned order was liable to be struck down. The plaintiff further contended that the notice of compulsory retirement was a short notice as it did not provide the requisite period contemplated for compulsory retirement. The plaintiff further contended that the notice was pre-mature. The plaintiff challenged the said order also on the ground that Dr. V.N. Patil who was the Chairman of the Special Review Committee had been stripped of his powers since prior to the passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement was thus issued by an authority not competent to issue the same and was thus liable to be quashed. 3. The aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff did not find favour with the learned Judge of the trial Court, with the result the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Taking exception to the aforesaid dismissal the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Desai, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has reagitated the aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff and has submitted that the decree of the trial Court was liable to be set aside and his suit decreed. Smt. Suhasini Mutalik, the Honorary Assistant Government Pleader supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. In my judgment, this appeal is liable to be allowed on the first contention raised by Shri Desai viz. that the adverse remarks communicated to the plaintiff vide memorandum dated 8th July, 1976 could not have been taken into account for the purpose of passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It needs to be stated that the object of communicating to the employee adverse remarks are aimed at achieving two purposes. It gives an opportunity to the employee to make a representation against the said adverse remarks and it provides an opportunity to him to improve in his performance of his Official Duties. If the adverse remarks are not communicated periodically the aforesaid objects are bound to be frustrated. It gives an opportunity to the employee to make a representation against the said adverse remarks and it provides an opportunity to him to improve in his performance of his Official Duties. If the adverse remarks are not communicated periodically the aforesaid objects are bound to be frustrated. In the present case, the adverse remarks extending for the period 1970-71 to 1975-76 were communicated to the plaintiff at one stage by the Memorandum dated the 8th of July, 1976 and the same contained a recital that no representation against the same would be entertained. The question which falls for consideration is whether the aforesaid adverse remarks could be taken into consideration by the Special Review Committee in forming the requisite opinion to retire prematurely the plaintiff from service. It has been held in the case of (Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab)1, reported in A.I.R 1987 Supreme Court 948, that there is no doubt that whenever an adverse entry is awarded to a Government servant it must be communicated to him. The object and purpose underlying the communication is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve his work and conduct and to make representation to the authority concerned against those entries. If such a representation is made it is imperative that the authority should consider the representation with a view to determine as to whether the contents of the adverse entries are justified or not. Making of a representation is a valuable right to a government employee and if the representation is not considered, it is bound to affect him in his service career, as in government service grant of increment, promotion and ultimately premature retirement all depend on the scrutiny of the service records. 6. In (Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab)2, reported in A.I.R 1979 S.C. page 1622, the appellant therein was denied promotion on account of certain adverse entries against which he had made representation to the Government but for some reason or the other those representations could not be considered or disposed of. 6. In (Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab)2, reported in A.I.R 1979 S.C. page 1622, the appellant therein was denied promotion on account of certain adverse entries against which he had made representation to the Government but for some reason or the other those representations could not be considered or disposed of. In view of those adverse entries he was not selected for promotion, and the Supreme Court while considering the effect of non-consideration of the representation observed “The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice an adverse report in confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for some reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified”. 7. In (Amar Kant Choudhary v. State of Bihar)3, reported in A.I.R 1984 S.C. 531 it was emphasized that adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Unless the representation against the adverse entry is considered and disposed of it is not just and fair to act upon those adverse entries. 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. In my judgment 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 representation made against those entries are not considered and disposed of. 8. 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 representation made against those entries are not considered and disposed of. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it will have to be held that the impugned order of premature retirement which had taken into account the adverse remarks communicated to the appellant vide Memorandum dated the 8th of July, 1976 is bad in law. It may be pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff by his notice dated the 14th November, 1980 addressed to the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the suit had called upon him to produce the material placed before the Review Committee including the confidential remarks in respect of the plaintiff and the endorsement made thereupon by the Chairman of the Review Committee. The learned Assistant Government Pleader by his reply dated the 5th of August, 1981 contended that the said material was confidential in nature and no one had a right to see the same. Moreover, the defendants were not relying on the said confidential documents and hence inspection of the said documents could not be given to the plaintiff. 9. It has been held in the case of (State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan)4, reported in A.I.R 1977 S.C. Page 2411 that when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide by making clear and specific allegations it will then be the duty of the Government to produce all the necessary material to rebut such pleas to satisfy the Court by producing such documents as will be a complete answer to the plea. 10. In the case of (Baldevraj Chaddha v. Union of India)5, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. Page 70, the Supreme Court emphasised that when an order of premature retirement is challenged the State Government must disclose the material so that the Court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material which to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law is sufficient to sustain the ground of 'public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant. The Supreme Court struck a note of caution by observing that Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the State or the authority concerned but they are not absolved from minimal review well settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. The Court's jurisdiction to consider the material is 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. In the order of compulsory retirement is based on irrelevant material or the vital material is ignored or that absolute material, less relevant to the decision is found to influence the decision, the order of premature retirement would be vitiated. 11. The plaintiff in addition has produced a certificate dated 23rd November, 1973 where the Dairy Development Commissioner was pleased to keep on record that during the recent strike of Licensees at the Aarey Milk Colony the plaintiff had worked day and night in the colony under great tension and helped the department to keep the discipline in colony. His work is appreciated and necessary note is taken in his C.R. file. One does not know whether the said meritorious certificate had been placed before the Special Review Committee which took the decision to compulsorily retire the plaintiff. It may be pertinent to note that in the Memorandum dated the 8th of July, 1976 though adverse remarks had been communicated to the plaintiff, nothing is mentioned regarding the period between 1972-73. If this vital material had not been placed before the Special Review Committee, a decision arrived at without any reference thereto is bound to be adversely effected. Since the defendants had failed to produce the material placed before the special Review Committee though called upon, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the defendants in that behalf. It will, therefore, have to be held that the order of compulsory retirement is liable to be quashed on the aforesaid grounds. 12. Miss Mutalik, the learned Honorary Assistant Government Pleader strenuously urged that the Government had an absolute right to retire a Government servant if it was of the opinion that it was in public interest and it was not open to a Court to sit in judgment over that order of compulsory retirement. 12. Miss Mutalik, the learned Honorary Assistant Government Pleader strenuously urged that the Government had an absolute right to retire a Government servant if it was of the opinion that it was in public interest and it was not open to a Court to sit in judgment over that order of compulsory retirement. She placed reliance on the decision of the (Union of India v. J.N. Sinha)6, reported in A.I.R 1971 S.C. Page 40 wherein it was held that where an appropriate authority bona fide forms opinion that a Government servant be retired in public interest, he can pass order of compulsory retirement. That opinion cannot be challenged before courts, nor Rule 56(j) requires that the opportunity to show cause against compulsory retirement must be given. Order of compulsory retirement can be challenged only on ground that either the requisite opinion was not formed or that the order was passed arbitrarily or on collateral grounds. Fundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum services is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energies its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. 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 Article 310 of the Constitution. 13. Planing reliance upon the aforesaid decision, Miss Mutalik contended that this was a case where the Government had taken a bona fide decision that it was in public interest that the plaintiff should be compulsorily retired. The said decision did not involve any civil consequences. Hence, the plaintiff cannot challenge the same on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been followed. It was also not open to the courts to come to a contrary decision as the said decision taken by the Government is not justifiable. This Court is not a Court of Appeal over the said decision of the Government. She further relied on the decision in the case of (N.C. Dalwadi v. State of Gujarat)7, reported in (1987)3 Supreme Court Cases page 611, wherein the power of the Government to compulsorily retire a public servant in public interest was reaffirmed. This Court is not a Court of Appeal over the said decision of the Government. She further relied on the decision in the case of (N.C. Dalwadi v. State of Gujarat)7, reported in (1987)3 Supreme Court Cases page 611, wherein the power of the Government to compulsorily retire a public servant in public interest was reaffirmed. 14. In my judgment, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by Miss Mutalik can have no bearing on the facts of the present case. In the first case cited the Court was concerned with the question whether the order of compulsory retirement should be quashed as the same had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and it was held that under Fundamental Rule 56(j) the Government had a right to compulsorily retire a Government servant if it had bona fide formed an opinion that it was in public interest to do so. Such a case did not involve civil consequences and hence, that order cannot be assailed on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice. In the latter case it was found that there was no material placed to show that compulsory retirement was necessary in public interest as the appellant in that case had an unblemished record and there was nothing against him to doubt his integrity, fitness and competence and the order of compulsory retirement was struck down as arbitrary. The challenge of the order of compulsory retirement in the present case is entirely on a different footing and are fairly covered by the decisions relied upon by Shri Desai and referred to hereinabove. Hence, it will have to be held that the impugned order of retirement is liable to be quashed. 15. The aforesaid discussion would ordinarily have been sufficient for the disposal of the appeal. However, a reference may be made to couple of submissions advanced by Shri Desai in support of his appeal. He submitted that the notice of compulsory retirement was premature as according to him such a notice could have been given only after the plaintiff had attained the age of 55 years. In the present case, the plaintiff was 54 years of age on the date of his compulsory retirement. The said order was liable to be set aside as premature. 16. In the present case, the plaintiff was 54 years of age on the date of his compulsory retirement. The said order was liable to be set aside as premature. 16. In my judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention in as much as under Rule 161(C-1)(ii) which is applicable to the plaintiff provided that any Government servant who holds the post in class - III service of the State, either pensionable or non-pensionable can be compulsorily retired after he attained the age of 50 years. Hence, the second contention of Shri Desai will have to be negatived. 17. Shri Desai further submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside on the ground that the notice of compulsory retirement was a short notice, i.e. it did not proved for a period of three months as contemplated in Rule 161(C-1) of the Bombay Civil Service Rules. The said notice was dated the 25th of August, 1976 but was served on the 26th August, 1976. By the said notice the plaintiff was retired from Government service with effect from the 25th of November, 1976. The plaintiff, however, was relieved from his service on the 24th of November, 1976. Thus, the said notice fell short of the period of three months requisite for compulsorily retiring the plaintiff from service. 18. In my judgment, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. The operative part of the said notice reads as under:- “……….. he shall stand retired from Government service on the 25th of November, 1976 or the day immediately following the date of expiry of the period of three months commencing on the date of service of this notice on him whichever is later. If Shri V.D. Damle, Farm Supervisor applies for the leave due to him and such leave is granted to him and the leave so granted extends beyond the day of 25th November, 1976, he shall stand retired on the day following the day of expiry of the leave or the date on which he attains the age of 58 years, whichever is earlier.” Now, it is true that the plaintiff was relieved from his duties with effect from 24-11-1976 (A.M.) vide order dated 24-11-1976. However, the plaintiff by his application of the same date i.e. 24-11-1976 applied for leave prior to retirement with effect from 26-11-1976 and the same was duly sanctioned. However, the plaintiff by his application of the same date i.e. 24-11-1976 applied for leave prior to retirement with effect from 26-11-1976 and the same was duly sanctioned. I am not impressed by the submission of Shri Desai that the Government had obtained the application of the plaintiff for leave subsequent to the 24th of November, 1976 after he had been relieved from his duties and had got the plaintiff to ante-date the said application as 24th November, 1976. In any event, the plaintiff having applied for leave by his application dated the 24th November, 1976, his retirement would stand postponed till the expiry of the period of the leave and hence it cannot be held that the said notice of compulsory retirement was invalid on account of it being a short notice. 19. Shri Desai lastly contended that the Government had withdrawn the powers granted to Dr. V.M. Patil who was the Chairman of the Special Review Committee that took the decision to compulsorily retire the plaintiff. Despite the withdrawal of the said powers, Dr. V.M. Patil participated in the proceedings of the Special Review Committee as a Chairman and even signed the order of compulsory retirement. On this account, Shri Desai submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement would stand vitiated. Reliance was placed on the Government decision which is to the following effect :- “Government has taken a decision (on file No. B.M.E.-1077 /1711/6-A.D.F.) that (the Confidential Reports written by Shri S.C. Phutane either in the capacity of Reporting Officer or in the reviewing officer) and the confidential reports endorsed by Dr. V.M. Patil as a reviewing officer wherever lacking objectively should be ignored. It should also be sured that the officer reported upon do not suffer because of adverse remarks made by above officers or do not get undue advantage because of the favourable remarks given by them.” In my judgment, the aforesaid decision of the Government cannot amount to the unconditional withdrawal of the powers of Dr. V.M. Patil as a member or as the Chairman of the Special Review Committee. It was only in cases where the confidential report endorsed by Dr. V.M. Patil were found lacking objectivity, the same were directed to be ignored. The decision to compulsorily retire the plaintiff was not the decision of Dr. V.M. Patil alone but was the decision of the Special Review Committee. It was only in cases where the confidential report endorsed by Dr. V.M. Patil were found lacking objectivity, the same were directed to be ignored. The decision to compulsorily retire the plaintiff was not the decision of Dr. V.M. Patil alone but was the decision of the Special Review Committee. No material has been placed on record to indicate that the same was as a result of the confidential reports having been endorsed by Dr. V.M. Patil as a Reviewing Officer which were lacking objectivity. In this view of the matter, this last contention of the plaintiff will have to be negatived. However, in view of my finding in favour of the plaintiff on the first submission advanced by Shri Desai the impugned order of compulsory retirement will have to be set aside and the appeal will have to be allowed. 20. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The plaintiff will be deemed to have continued in service till the date of his super-annuation and shall be entitled to receive all his emoluments and benefits that would have been due to him but for the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The plaintiff will also be entitled to interest at 6% per annum as also the costs of the suit and this appeal. Appeal allowed. -----