JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The order of compulsory retirement in exercise of the powers conferred under the first proyiso to Sub-rule (2) of Section 71 of the Orissa Service Code is under challenge in this writ application. The Petitioner is a J judicial Officer and was in the Orissa Judicial Service. Class II on the date of his retirement on 19th June, 1982. On that date he had attained the age of 52 Years and had completed 32 years of service out of which 14 years was as a Munsif. The Full Court of the Orissa High Court after reviewing the Petitioner's service career took the decision on 17th June, 1982 that the Petitioner should not continue in service and should in the public interest be retired with immediate effect with three month's pay and allowances in lieu of the notice. On the basis of the said decision of the Full. Court, and on receipt of the recommendation of the Court, the Government passed the impugned order on 19th June, 1982 which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This order was communicated to the Petitioner on 21st. of June 1982. It is this order against the Petitioner which is being assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner raises the following submissions in assailing the order of compulsory retirement: (i) The Petitioner having been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in November. 1980 and there being no adverse entry in the character roll of the Petitioner subsequent to the said order, the satisfaction of the competent authority that it is necessary to prematurely retire the Petitioner in public interest is vitiated and the impugned order on that score must be struck down and (ii) the adverse entries for the periods from 1976 to 1979 though had been communicated to the Petitioner and the Petitioner had submitted his representations for expunction of those entries without disposing of the representations, the competent authority was not authorised to act upon those entries and since the order of retirement is based primarily on those entries, the order cannot be sustained. 3. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand contends that the entire service career of the Petitioner having been considered by the Court to find out whether it is necessary in the public interest that the Petitioner should retire and the decision thereon being based on materials on record the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel further contends that when uncommunicated adverse entries can also be acted upon there is no legal bar in considering the adverse entries against which representation might have been filed before disposing of the representations. The rival submissions require a careful examination on the principles of the law on the subject. 4. Before examining the law, it would be appropriate to notice the stand taken by opposite party No. 2 in the counter affidavit filed in this Court. In paragraph 14 of the said counter affidavit sworn to by the Registrar of this Court, it has been stated that all the adverse entries recorded in the Confidential Character Roll of the Petitioner relating to the period between 1976 and 1979 were considered by the Court in March, May and June, 1981. The adverse entries were communicated to the Petitioner in April. August and September. 1981. After reviewing the service records and the performance the Court in the Full Court meeting decided that the Petitioner should, in public interest be retired with immediate effect with three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The aforesaid assertion unequivocally indicates that the Court did take into consideration the adverse entries in the Petitioner's character roll for the years 1976 to 1979. Though the Petitioner in his, writ application specifically averred that against the communication made to him with regard to the adverse entries of the years 1976 to 1979, the Petitioner bad bled representations to the Court no decision of the Court rejecting the representations had been communicated to the Petitioner, yet that tact has not been controverted m the counter affidavit. Thus it is clear that the adverse entries for the years 1976 to 1979 were considered without disposing of the Petitioner's representations against those entries. 5. The law with regard to the compulsory retirement is now concluded by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus it is clear that the adverse entries for the years 1976 to 1979 were considered without disposing of the Petitioner's representations against those entries. 5. The law with regard to the compulsory retirement is now concluded by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. It is now well settled that an order of compulsory retirement after an employee has put in a sufficient number of years of service, is not penal in nature. The power to retire a Government servant compulsory in public interest in terms of a service Rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms an opinion bona fide that it is necessary to pass such an order in public interest. If such decision is based on collateral grounds or if the decision is arbitrary, it is unable to be, interfered with by Courts. See Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Another, and J.D. Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Others, Coming now to the question whether the Petitioners having been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in the year 1980, the adverse entries prior to that must be taken to have been wiped up, there is no direct decision of the Supreme Court on the point. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, no doubt it has been observed by the Supreme Court: ... It is now settled that adverse entries if any, awarded to any employee lose their significance on or after his promotion to a higher post.... But the aforesaid observations have no application when a Government servant is allowed to cross the efficiency bar in as much as permitting a Government servant to cross the efficiency bar is rather a formal matter though a positive order has to be passed. In the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case, of S.S.B. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR 1974 Cut. 227 question of adverse entries visa-vis crossing of efficiency bar was considered and such a contention was directly negatived. In this connection it was observed: Efficiency bar has not been defined Rule 78 of the Orissa Service Code lays down that where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a time-scale, the increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments. In this connection it was observed: Efficiency bar has not been defined Rule 78 of the Orissa Service Code lays down that where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a time-scale, the increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments. It would thus be seen that an order allowing to cross the efficiency bar is to take into consideration the only factor whether the officer would get the next increment at that stage. The considerations weighing with the authority empowered to allow crossing of efficiency bar are of a very limited nature. Even if an officer's calibre is quite ordinary but no serious defects are noticed in him he may be allowed to cross the efficiency bar and that is what is exactly done in practice. The consideration when a question of inter se promotion cases is altogether different. There may not be anything adverse against an officer in particular but on a comparison of merits the officer below him may be much more superior to him in performances. It would be extremely unreasonable to say that merely because an officer has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar all adverse entries prior to that stage are not to be taken into consideration for other purposes. The personality of an officer cannot be disintegrated. Character Roll reflects the developments in his official career. Ordinarily superior authorities at the time of considering promotion place greater weight on the performances of the officer neat about the time of promotion. This does not, however mean that the earlier character roll can be ignored. The aforesaid observations no doubt were made in connection with the question whether adverse entries prior to crossing of efficiency bar can be considered for denying promotion to the Government servant or not. In our opinion the same principle should apply also to a case of compulsory retirement since while considering the question of premature retirement, it is desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's records though more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such considerations. In our opinion the same principle should apply also to a case of compulsory retirement since while considering the question of premature retirement, it is desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's records though more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such considerations. The decision of the Full Bench has later been affirmed by a still larger Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, through the Secretary to Government of Orissa Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department and Ors. 49 (1980) C.L.T. 442. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the first contention of Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that adverse entries for the periods 1976 to 1979 cannot be looked into as the Petitioner had been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in November. 1980. The first contention of Mr. Mohanty accordingly fails. 7. So far as the second submission is, concerned it appears that in the Full Bench decision of this Court referred, to supra, such a contention had been considered and negatived. After considering the entire law on the subject this Court summarised the position as below: (i) Maintenance of character roll is not enjoined by any statute or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Principles regarding record of confidential reports and communication of adverse remarks have been laid down in administrative instructions issued from time to time. The circular which holds the field at a particular point of time is to be followed in its entirety. (ii) Character rolls are maintained primarily for the benefit of the Government. Government as the master is to make its own estimate of the calibre of its servants and to exploit the talents of its servants for its own end. (iii) The instructions prescribe guide lines for subordinate officers in making assessment of worth and calibre of their subordinates. (iv) These circulars bind the departments under the administrative control of the Government. They have no binding force on the members of the subordinate Judicial Service who are under the administrative control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. (v) Action is taken on the basis of remarks in the character roll in the matter of allowing crossing of efficiency bar prosecution, supersession or reversion etc. They have no binding force on the members of the subordinate Judicial Service who are under the administrative control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. (v) Action is taken on the basis of remarks in the character roll in the matter of allowing crossing of efficiency bar prosecution, supersession or reversion etc. Adverse entries affect the service prospects of an employee and have civil consequences. (vi) At the time of record of confidential reports the employee is not entitled to any hearing. (vii) It is only after the record of the confidential reports and the communication thereof, he is given an opportunity to make a representation against the adverse entry. (viii) Time prescribed in the circular, for communication of the adverse entry is not mandatory but directory. If the adverse entry is not communicated in time it is not wiped out. (ix) If the employee does not make a representation against the adverse entry after communication, it becomes final. (x) Character roll can be acted upon before final disposal of the representation. There is no provision in the administrative instructions that action would await the final disposal of the representation. Such a view would militate against exigencies of public Service. (xi) If the representation is ultimately rejected the action taken on the basis of the confidential report would stand. (xii) If on representation, the adverse entry is set aside or substantially modified, the case is to be reconsidered and earlier action taken on such adverse entry is to be quashed if a different view is taken on representation and retrospective benefits are to be conferred. (xiii) If the adverse entry is not communicated at all for an unusually long period and action is taken on the basis of the adverse entry a Government servant can ask for appropriate writ directing the Government to communicate the adverse entry and to dispose of the representation, if any. In appropriate cases depending on facts and circumstances adverse action taken against the Government servant is liable to be quashed. Thus so far as this Court is concerned, it has been authoritatively pronounced by the aforesaid Full Bench decision that a character roll can be acted upon even before final disposal of there presentation made against the same and there is no provision in the administrative instructions that action would await final disposal of the representation. Thus so far as this Court is concerned, it has been authoritatively pronounced by the aforesaid Full Bench decision that a character roll can be acted upon even before final disposal of there presentation made against the same and there is no provision in the administrative instructions that action would await final disposal of the representation. This decision of the three Judges Bench of this Court has later been affirmed by a Five Judge Bench in Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra's case referred to supra. But the Supreme Court appears to have taken somewhat a different view. In the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and Others where a Government servant was denied promotion on account of certain adverse entries against which he made representations to the Government, but the same had not been considered or disposed of the Supreme Court observed: The principle is wen-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice an 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 circumstance 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 one 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. In the case of Amar Kant Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Others, the Supreme Court emphasised that adverse report in confidential character" 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. It was also held that unless the representations against the adverse entries are considered and disposed of, it is not just and fair to act upon those adverse entries. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. It was also held that unless the representations against the adverse entries are considered and disposed of, it is not just and fair to act upon those adverse entries. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court directly considered the question whether adverse entries against which a representation had been made but the same had not been disposed of can be considered for premature retirement of the Government servant the Supreme Court held: ... 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 The aforesaid decision applies with fun force to the facts and circumstances of the present case where against the adverse entries in Petitioner's character roll for the years 1976 to 1979 communicated to him the Petitioner had made representations and yet the same had not been considered or disposed of by the Court.... But those entries were considered for premature retirement of the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that the adverse entries for the years 1976 to 1979 against which admittedly representation had been filed but had not been considered or disposed of having been considered by the competent authority in forming an opinion the Petitioner's premature retirement was in public interest, the said opinion is not sustainable in law. The entire service records of the Petitioner were also produced before us. We found the character roll entries after the year 1982 were also not given, but that character roll was endorsed only on 25-4-1983 and was not there before the competent authority when the Petitioner's service records were/ scrutinised. Even the character roll of the year 1981 was endorsed on 13-7-1982 which is also after the date of compulsory retirement. We found the character roll entries after the year 1982 were also not given, but that character roll was endorsed only on 25-4-1983 and was not there before the competent authority when the Petitioner's service records were/ scrutinised. Even the character roll of the year 1981 was endorsed on 13-7-1982 which is also after the date of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the character roll of 1981 and 1982 had not been considered by the competent authority in assessing whether the Petitioner would be required to retire in public interest or not Apart from the character roll for the years 1976 to 1979 where adverse entries have been made but which could not have been considered by the competent authority on account of non-disposal of the representations of the Petitioner against them, as has been held by us we do not find any other material in the character roll to indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct and therefore, it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of the entries for the years 1976 to 1979. Accordingly the impugned order of premature retirement dated 19th June. 1982 annexed as Annexure-3 is hereby quashed. The Petitioner's date of birth is 27-3-1930 and therefore, be would have attained his 58th year on 31-3-1988 on which date be would have superannuated had be been permitted to continue in service. In view of our quashing the order of premature retirement, the Petitioner would be entitled to his salary and other dues on the basis that he was continuing in service till 31-3-1988 and we direct that his dues may be paid to him as expeditiously as possible. 8. The writ application is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances. there would be no order as to costs. V. Gopalaswamy, J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed