JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the Order Annexute-2 dated 21-12-1985 where by he was compulsorily retired from service. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are: that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate of Transport on 22-7-1985. He was, how ever, given appointment by promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspector on the recommendation of the D.P.C. vide Order Annexure-1 dated 15-11-1984. Almost 13 months after his promotion, he has been compulsorily retired from Service under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' here in after). 3. The case of the petitioner is that no adverse entries have been communicated to him for the past about five years. One adverse entry was communicated to him about five years back but on an appeal, that entry was was expunged. He has further submitted that no enquiry what so ever has ever been held against him and nothing has come on record which may construe as adverse, to the petitioner's service after his promotion. The petitioner preferred a review petition, which was treated as an appeal and that appeal too has been dismissed. This fact has been stated by the petitioner in the amended writ petition because the respondents raised objection that his appeal has also been dismissed and that fact has been suppressed by him in they writ petition. The petitioner has submitted, that he preferred a review petition which was treated as an appeal and its result has never been communicated to him. He has come to know about its result only after filing of the reply by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the Order Ann-2 dated 21-12-1985 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has submitted that it has been stated in the order Annexure-2 that it has been made in the public interest but his retirement is not in the public interest. The order has been made without fulfillment of the conditions Laid down under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, except one A.C.R. which was adverse to him and was communicated to him and which has been expunged, he has never been punished. The order has been made without fulfillment of the conditions Laid down under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, except one A.C.R. which was adverse to him and was communicated to him and which has been expunged, he has never been punished. On the contrary, only a year back, he was accorded promotion and thus, the punishment was penal in character and that too without holding any enquiry and there being no sufficient and good reasons and thus, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 4. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the return, a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order Annexure-2 dated 21-12-1985 and that appeal has been rejected by the appellate committee after considering the entire record of the case but the petitioner has suppressed this fact and therefore he is guilty of suppressing the material fact. According to the respondents, this writ petition was filed on 27-12-1985 where as the adequate, efficacious and alternative remedy was availed of by the petitioner even with in the prescribed period of limitation. It was submitted that the petitioner has also suppressed certain other material facts relating to the adverse entries already recorded all in his service record. Actually, the petitioner has been punished five times and a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17 of the Rules was still pending against him at the time of his compulsory retirement. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the order dated 17-2-1988 passed by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 5. In addition to these preliminary objections, the respondents No.1 and 2 have submitted that the petitioner has been rightly retired compulsorily from service in public interest. His case for compulsory retirement was properly and a lawfully considered by by the Internal Screening Committee constituted for this purpose by the Govt. After carefully scrutiny of his over all performance and his record, the Committees felt that his efficiency was impaired and he should be compulsorily retired from service in public interest under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. His case for compulsory retirement was properly and a lawfully considered by by the Internal Screening Committee constituted for this purpose by the Govt. After carefully scrutiny of his over all performance and his record, the Committees felt that his efficiency was impaired and he should be compulsorily retired from service in public interest under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. This report of the Screening Committee came to be reviewed by the Review Committee and the Review Committee upheld the report of the Screening Committee and held that the petitioner should be compulsory retired under the aforesaid Rules. It was further submitted that all that all the documents pertaining to the service of the petitioner are in possession of the respondents and they will be made available for kind perusal at the time of hearing arguments. According to the respondents, against the final order of the Review Committee, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate committee after considering the relevant record declined to interfere with the findings of the Review Committee and consequently, rejected the appeal. The copy of the appellate order has been filed at Annexure-1. According to the respondents, the contents of para 4 of the writ petition ate totally incorrect. The petitioner's services record was not found good and apart from that he has been awarded punishments on five occasions, the details of which are given below: [a] Vide Order No. Trans/Estb./21722 dated 28-9-1965 his one grade increment was stopped; [b] Vide Order No. Trans/Estb/Eng./73/1221 dated 12-1-1973, two grade increments were stepped with cumulative effect and he was ordered to be paid ⅓rd salary of the suspension period; [c] Vide Order No. Trans/Estb/Eng./73/3(3)32736 dated 28-7-1976, his three grade increments were stopped with cumulative effect and it was ordered that he will not be promoted for five years; [d] Vide Order No. 2368 dated 2-12-1978 of the RTO; Jodhpur, his two grade increments were stopped with cumulative effect; [e] Vide Order No. Trans/Estb./Enquiry/2(50)20645 dated 21-7-1984, he was reprimanded; and [f] At the time of his compulsory retirement, an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules was pending against him. It was contended that statistical report regarding course and outstanding recoveries were considered and his performance was found much below the prescribed norms. It was contended that statistical report regarding course and outstanding recoveries were considered and his performance was found much below the prescribed norms. The above punishments were also considered by the Committed and after careful scrutiny of overall performance and his record, the Committee took the aforementioned decision in the public interest, Although in para 4 of the reply to the writ petition, it has been stated that certain adverse entries were there but no details of the adverse en tried have been disclosed i.e. what type of those adverse entries were; whether they have been communicated to the petitioner cannot, and whether any action has been taken against the petitioner on the advance entries go has also been contended that he has concealed the fact of Disciplinary enquiry pending against him under Rule 17 of the Rules. It was therefore, prayed that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner is totally justified and was in public interest and hence this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. A rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that all the adverse entries referred to in the appellate order and the disciplinary action taken against him relate to the period anterior to his promotion. It was further submitted that after his promotion, an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules was initiated against him and that has never been conveyed to him. No statement of allegations has been served on him and, therefore, it cannot be used against him. According to the petitioner, his promotion has washed off the earlier punishments imposed against him and, therefore, the earlier punishments imposed against him cannot be taken into consideration. It was contended that no adverse entry has been conveyed to him after his promotion and when he was good enough to be promoted out of turn on ex-carde post before an year, how could he be treated as a dead wood within such a short period without any adverse entry being made against him. The petitioners hat, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be accepted. 7. I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, the learned Additional Government Advocate. Mr. R.P. Dave, the learned Additional Government. Advocate has produced for my perusal the confidential record of the petitioner. The petitioners hat, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be accepted. 7. I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Dave, the learned Additional Government Advocate. Mr. R.P. Dave, the learned Additional Government. Advocate has produced for my perusal the confidential record of the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. In the appellate order Annexure-R1, it has been mentioned that APRs of Shri Mathur for 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1976-77 are adverse and that for 1977-78 and 1978-79 are treated average through earlier these were adverse. His APRs for remaining period from 1974-75 to 1983-84 are either satisfactory or above average. It may be stated here that no details of these APRs have been mentioned in reply to the writ petition by the respondents and it has also not been made clear that these APRs were conveyed to the petitioner and whether any representation was obtained from him? 9. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the adverse entires made in the APRs which were not conveyed to him cr if conveyed and if any representation has been made in respect thereof and if that has not been considered and decided then these APRs cannot be used against him. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hansraj v. State of Punjab (1985 (1) SCC-134) , wherein it has been held that only a single stray adverse entry made three years prior to passing of the order was placed before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The records previous and subsequent to the year of making the entry were not shown and no record showing communication of the adverse entry to the concerned persons was placed. In those circumstances, it was held that the order was passed without due application of mind, and the order of compulsory retirement made on that basis was held to be invalid. 10. My attention was also drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar, IAS v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 Sc 2060 , where in it has been held that it is a settled principle that an communicated adverse report should not form the foundation to deny benefits to a Govt. 10. My attention was also drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar, IAS v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 Sc 2060 , where in it has been held that it is a settled principle that an communicated adverse report should not form the foundation to deny benefits to a Govt. servant when similar benefits are extended to his juniors. 11. In Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar (AIR 1975 SC 1966) , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there were some old adverse entries also against the respondent but they must be deemed to have been washed off by orders of his promotion, on an ad hoc or officiating basis. 12. Reliance was also placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1622 , where in it has been held that adverse entries were of course communicated to the petitioner and he made a representation against them but that has not been disposed of for one reason or the other and, therefore, those adverse entries cannot be used against the petitioner. 13. My attention was also drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Anr.(1989(3) Judgments Today (S.C.)360) , where in it has been observed that if the adverse remarks awarded to a Govt. Servant are communicated to him after several years, the object of communicating entries is defeated. It was further observed that if adverse entries are communicated and representation against it filed by the Officer is not considered and disposed of, the Govt. servant cannot be retired compulsorily on the basis of such adverse entries. 14. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 916 of 1980, decided on November 3, 1989) has observed that it would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a Govt. Employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if communicated, representations made against these entries are not considered and disposed of. 15. Employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if communicated, representations made against these entries are not considered and disposed of. 15. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that communicated adverse entries cannot be used against an employee by the Department for his compulsory retirement and it those adverse entries have been communicated and any representation has been made by the employee then such adverse entries can only be used against him if those representations have been decided and adverse remarks have not been expunged. How ever, a contrary view has been taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a recent decision in Jayanti Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 72 , where in it has been observed: Ordinarily when the entries relate to specific instances leading to adverse entries the communication thereof is sent to the officer concerned with a view to providing an opportunity for improvement of performance. More over, he was communicated years back the general disapproval of his method of working. The review proceedings-were in consonance with the guidelines framed by the Government. The post in which the Officer was working was a responsible one and poor performance could not be tolerated Further the record of the proceedings of the Review Committee showed that even at Government level after the recommendations of review committee, the report was duly scrutinized. In Jayanti Kumar's case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have approved the observations Laid down by a Constitution Bench in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and Union of India AIR 1954 SC 369 that compulsory retirement did not involve any stigma or implication of misbehavior or incapacity. Ever since then by a catena of decisions, the power of compulsory retirement and the procedure prescribed for taking of such action have been approved by this Court and it is unnecessary to refer to those cases. 16. In Jayanti Kumar's case, the petitioner has earned adverse ACRs in the years 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. 16. In Jayanti Kumar's case, the petitioner has earned adverse ACRs in the years 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. These adverse ACRs were not conveyed to him at all He was conveyed a general disapproval about his method of working How ever, their Lordships observed that these entries are mostly based on general assessment of the performance and do not relate to specific instances leading to adverse entries and moreover, they have been made by four Scientists, three of whom were Scientists of all India repute and they were unanimous in their view about the general assessment of the Officer and, therefore, their Lordships upheld the order of compulsory retirement of the concerned Officer on the basis of these ACRs, which were not communicated to him. 17. In a similar case of Rajasthan Judicial Officers, who were reverted on the basis of adverse ACRs which were not communicated to them, their reversion was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Writ No. 383 of 1986, Vasu Deo Vyas v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur decided on March 13, 1985. 18. It may, therefore, be stated that the rule is not inflexible that unless adverse ACRs are communicated, they cannot be utilised against the Officer. If the adverse ACRs or APRs are based on general assessment and if the highly placed Officers making the general assessment of the performance of an Officers are almost unanimous in their opinion about the work and conduct of that Govt. servant and if no allegation of bias or prejudice can be levelled against such senior Officers then even such communicated ACRs or APRs can be utilised against the Officer to retire him compulsorily or for that matter, to debar him from further promotions. It is true that usually; the adverse remarks given in the ACRs/APRs should be communicated to the Officer or Official concerned and he should be given an opportunity to represent against it and if he or she chooses to make a representation then that representation should be decided before those adverse remarks are used against him but this rule is not inflexible that unless adverse ACRs or APRs are communicated and if any representation is made and is not decided then such adverse APRs or ACRs cannot be used against the Officer under any circumstances. Actually, in rare but suitable cases, a departure is possible from this general rule. 19. However, I need not detain myself much on this point because actually, adverse entries have not been utilised in this case as the basis for compulsory retirement. In this case, actually, the grounds of compulsory retirement are mentioned in para 4 of the reply to the writ petition and they are six, which have been mentioned by me in detail above. 20. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC-948 . In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down general principles about compulsory retirement. Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court and if was observed that Rule 3 invests absolute right in the appropriate authority to retire an employee prematurely on bits completion of 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age. The rule does not lay down any criteria, guidelines for the exercise of power, although Public interest is specified in the rule, which means power has to be exercised in the public interest only The public interest in relation to public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and, dispensing the services of those who are inefficient dead wood or corrupt and dishonest. Therefore, the rule contemplates premature retirement of the in-efficient, corrupt or dead wood which would subserve the public interest. Similar is the Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeals) Rules, which provided that the Appointing Authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Govt. servant by giving him at least three months previous notice in writing, from service on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years or complete 25 years service, which ever is earlier, or on any date thereafter provided that such Govt. servant may be retired from service forthwith and on such retirement the Govt. servant shall be entitled to claim three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Thus, Rule 244(2) of the Rules is almost in pari-materia with Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. 21. servant may be retired from service forthwith and on such retirement the Govt. servant shall be entitled to claim three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Thus, Rule 244(2) of the Rules is almost in pari-materia with Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. 21. In Brijmohan Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that a single entry in the service record of an employee about his doubtful integrity can be sufficient to retire him in public interest. It was further observed that it is now well settled that while considering the question of premature retirement, it may be desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servants record, but while doing that, more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such considerations. It is possible that a new entrant to a service may have committed mistakes and for that reason, he may have earned adverse entries and if entries of early years of service are taken into consideration for prematurely retiring a Govt. employee then perhaps no employee would be safe even though he may have brilliant record of service in later years Old and stale entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of premature retirement instead the entries of recent past of five to ten years should be considered informing the requisite opinion to retire a Govt. employee in public interest. It would be unreasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and ignore the good entries of recent past. If entries for a period of more than 10 years past are taken into account, it would be an act of digging out past to get some material to make a order against the employee. It para 11 of that judgment, their Lordships further observed that though the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the question of his premature retirement but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service do not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period. 22. 22. In J.D. Shrivastava v. State of M.P. (1984 (I) SLR 342) , it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that any adverse entry/report in respect of an earlier period unless it had some connection with any event which took place subsequently cannot, therefore, reasonably form a basis for forming an opinion about the work of the appellant. Thus, there is a consistency in the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it would be unreasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and to ignore the good entries of recent past and with a good record for the past 10 years if entries for a period of more than 10 years past are taken into account it would be an act of digging out past to get some material to make an order against the employee. Though, the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the question of his premature retirement but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service do not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct, it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period. 23. It is, therefore, clear that to consider compulsory retirement of a man initially, has service record for the past 10 years has to be scrutinised and if there is nothing adverse against him in those years then such a man should not be prematurely retired but if there exists something against him regarding his work, integrity, conduct or any deficiency in his work during those last 10 years of his service then in that case even the past adverse service record which may or may not have some connection with his record of last 10 years should also be considered to make an overall assessment and then after taking into consideration his entire service record, a decision should be arrived at as to whether he is fit to be compulsorily retired or not? 24. Mr. 24. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has next invited my attention to a decision of this Court in Bahadur Singh v. State of Raj (1982 (2) SLR 582) , wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed: The object of compulsory retirement is only to reserve, such personnel from the Govt. service, who is found lax, corrupt and inefficient or not upto to the mark or has out lived his utility and the object of compulsory retirement is not to victimise the service personnel It may also be pointed put that it is an absolute power vested with the State Govt. or the Appointing Authority to resort to an action of compulsory retirement in all cases, which warrant such an action of compulsory retirement and it is equally well settled that the courts cannot sit upon the judgment of the administrative authority and the reasons for compulsory retirement are not justiciable. Sufficiency of material is not to be considered by the court and it will be for the authority taking action to form its opinion regarding the existence of the material But where there is no material or the competent authority has-proceeded on consideration of extraneous material or the material is for fetched and has no nexus with the object and purpose of the rule of compulsory retirement or where the action is arbitrary or some such similar grounds earliest, then the courts are certainly competent to strike down and quash such orders. The learned Single Judge further observed that adverse entries prior to promotion scared washed oft and compulsory retirement in public interest cannot be made on the basis of such entries. 25. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that promotion of the petitioner wases out his adverse APRs. In this case, certain punishments have been recorded against the petitioner before his promotion and adverse APRs against the petitioner have not been made the basis of his compulsory retirement. According to Mr. 25. Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that promotion of the petitioner wases out his adverse APRs. In this case, certain punishments have been recorded against the petitioner before his promotion and adverse APRs against the petitioner have not been made the basis of his compulsory retirement. According to Mr. Mridul, this old record was available with the competent authority at the time of his promotion and after considering it has granted has promotion and so, it will be deemed that his past record has been overlooked and he has been granted promotion inspite of this adverse record only in the year 1984, He has further submitted that after his promotion, there are no adverse APRs against the petitioner, and therefore, the past adverse entries have been washed out by granting him promotion only in the year 1984. In support of this contention, Mr. Mridul has further placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in D. Ramasawami v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1982 SC 793 , where the charges framed on basis of adverse entry in the confidential roll of an Officer were dropped and he was subsequently not only promoted to a selection post but was appointed to a very responsible post on such promotions. In such a situation, their Lordships observed that his compulsory retirement shortly after such promotion was invalid and unsustainable when there was nothing even mildly suggestive of insubordinate or inefficiency thereafter and there was entry in the service book to his discredit....that he had outlived his utility as a Govt servant. It was further observed that if....not wholly favourable to the officer after his promotion, one might bark back to similar or like entries in the past, read then all in conjunction and conclude that the tire had arrived for the Govt. servant to quit Govt service. 26. A some what similar view has been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Anr. (1989 (3) Judgments Today (SC) 36) , where in it has been observed that the purpose of the rule conferring power on the Govt. to retire Govt. servant to quit Govt service. 26. A some what similar view has been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and Anr. (1989 (3) Judgments Today (SC) 36) , where in it has been observed that the purpose of the rule conferring power on the Govt. to retire Govt. servants prematurely is to energize its machinery by chopping of the dead-wood as held by this Court in Union of India v. B.N. Sinha 1971 (1) SCR-791 but in doing so, the Govt. could not take into consideration the adverse entries of remote paste specially when the appellant had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in 1976 and he has further been permitted to cross efficiency bar in 1979. The adverse entries relating to the year 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1975-76 had lost all significance because in spite of, those entries the appellant was considered to be an intelligent and efficient Officer and in that view, he was, promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Their Lordships also held that if those entries did not reflect deficiency in appellant's work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it is difficult to comprehend as to how those adverse entries could be pressed into service for retiring him prematurely. When a Government Servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and those remain on Record as part of past history. It would be unjust to curtail the service career of Government Servant on the basis of those entries in the absence of any significant fill in his performance after his promotion. Thus, their Lordships are consistent in their view that adverse entries if any contained in the service record of an employee lose their significance and those remain on record as part of past history if a Government Servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection and those entries can be pressed into service after promotion if there is any significant fall in his performance after his promotion. 27. I may state here that usually in such cases the theory of wash-off or wash-out is canvassed before the Courts on the basis of these authorities by the lawyers on behalf of their clients. 27. I may state here that usually in such cases the theory of wash-off or wash-out is canvassed before the Courts on the basis of these authorities by the lawyers on behalf of their clients. Let me make it clear here and now that the theory of wash out or wash off is not equivalent to wipe-out or total extinction. It only means that effect of those entries is dimmed or becomes obscure or dull. It is only blotted out and not totally obliterated or effaced. If wash-off or wash-out was equivalent to wipe out, there was no necessity for their Lordships to observe in Baidya Nath Mahapatra's case (supra) that they will remain on record as part of past history. If a thing becomes extinct or is wiped put totally, it cannot remain on record as part of past history. More over, in such a case, their Lordships would not have observed in D. Ramaswami's case (supra) that if there was some thing not wholly favourable to the Officer after his promotion one way bark back to similar or like entries in the past, read them all in conjunction and conclude that time had arrived for the Government Servant to quit Government Service. If the past entries are totally wiped out or totally obliterated from record, how could they form part of past history or how could they be harked-back upon to read them in conjunction with the recent bad or adverse entries and be used to retire a man compulsorily. At times, promotions are given to superseded Officers on compassionate grounds or to give them a chance to improve so that their career may not be stagnated but that does hot mean that they become clean like the water of Ganges or acquire a status of milk bathed person overnight and their entire adverse service record is wiped out totally. That was never meant by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Even after promoting them if they misconduct themselves, earn adverse APRs as regards integrity, work or conduct, their past can certainly be taken into consideration to retire them compulsorily from service or to debar them from future promotions. That was never meant by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Even after promoting them if they misconduct themselves, earn adverse APRs as regards integrity, work or conduct, their past can certainly be taken into consideration to retire them compulsorily from service or to debar them from future promotions. How ever, if after promotion, they put in a clean service, earn no adverse APRs or no inquiry is instituted against them for any misconduct after promotion the neither such past record can be utilised to debar them from future promotions nor can it be used to retire them compulsorily from service. 28. It may also be stated here that there is a difference between adverse APRs and adverse service record based on departmental enquiries and punishments awarded as a result thereof. The adverse record based on punishments has neither to be communicated nor any representation has to be obtained from the Officer before using it against him because he is in know of entire facts about it. Only an adverse record based on a pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry can pose some difficulty but not an adverse record based on completed enquirers and punishments awarded, which has become final. Thus, adverse record of punishments stands on a totally different footing then the adverse record based on adverse APRs/ACRs. 29. Even in J.D. Srivastava's case (supra), it was observed that any adverse report in respect of an earlier period unless it had some connection with any event which took place subsequently cannot, therefore reasonably from a basis for forming an opinion about the work of the appellant. This view is very much in consonance with the view expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh's case (supra), wherein it has been observed that the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the question of his premature retirement but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service does not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct, it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period. 30. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion. 30. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion. I am firmly of the view that the theory of wash-off or wash-out is not equivalent to wipe out or extinction and such adverse record which is blotted out or becomes slightly obscure for a limited purpose, for the time being and can be used to debar a Government servant from future or further promotions or to retire him compulsorily if after the promotion he earns adverse ACRs of similar type or he is awarded punishments in departmental, proceedings after promotion. 31. Mr. Mridul has submitted that in this case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has earned some adverse remarks or adverse APRs after his promotion and, therefore, his past record which did not come in his way at the time of his promotion, cannot be held to be sufficient to retire him compulsorily from service and to this extent, the wash out theory should be pressed into service so far as the petitioner is concerned. I have seen the APRs of the petitioner. No confidential report of the year 1984-85 exists on record but prior to that, his APRs for the past 3 and 4 years are good and they do not show any deficiency in his performance of work. Of course, it has been contended that an enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner under r 17 of the Rules but the contention of Mr. Mridul is that the petitioner has no intimation of such an enquiry because no statement of allegation has been served on him and unless that is done, that material cannot be used against him. In this respect, Mr. Mridul has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kanhaiyalal Sharma's case (supra), where in a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed: that it may also be pointed out that the departmental enquiry commenced against him by the memorandum dated August 22, 1975 was not proceeded with an remained incomplete. It could not, therefore, be used against him. In the case on hand too, the memorandum of allegation was not served on the petitioner and therefore the material which has not been served on the petitioner and the enquiry based on that material has not been concluded against him it can not be used against him to retire him compulsorily from service. In the case on hand too, the memorandum of allegation was not served on the petitioner and therefore the material which has not been served on the petitioner and the enquiry based on that material has not been concluded against him it can not be used against him to retire him compulsorily from service. May be after conclusion of the enquiry, he may be exonerated. Even the perusal of the service record of the petitioner shows that an enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules was initiated against him for not realising the old dues while issuing the stock ens. This fact needs some explanation or clarification from the petitioner and, therefore, unless that enquiry and conducted against him, it cannot be used against the petitioner to retire him compulsorily from service. The earlier adverse material of course was held good to debar him from promotion, and when be was considered for promotion despite this old record that this old record of punishments cannot be used against him to retire him compulsorily from service. Only 18 months neither his ex-cadre promotion based on merit specially when he has not earned any adverse entry after promotion and in the alleged enquiry initiated against him under Rule 17 of the Rules, no statement of allegation has been served on him and the enquiry has also not been concluded against him. 32. The upshot of the entire discussion is that to retire a Govt. servant compulsorily, an over all assessment based on his entire service record has to be taken into consideration. How ever, in doing so, if there is nothing adverse against him in the record of past 10 years of his service then old and stale record should not be dug put to chop him off from service as dead wood. Initially, his service record of post 10 years should be looked into and if it is satisfactory then one should not go beyond that to consider the case of a Govt. servant for compulsory retirement. How ever, if there are some adverse entries existing against the Govt. Initially, his service record of post 10 years should be looked into and if it is satisfactory then one should not go beyond that to consider the case of a Govt. servant for compulsory retirement. How ever, if there are some adverse entries existing against the Govt. servant in these last 10 years of his service or he has been punished in this period of last 10 years in departmental proceedings then his earlier record has also to be taken into consideration to find out if his earlier record also shows that he is dishonest corrupt or inefficient lax or not upto the mark in order to decide or conclude as to whether he has outlived his utility as a Govt. servant and time has come to get rid of him. Even a single entry about dishonesty or corruption in the past 10 years of his service is sufficient enough to retire him compulsorily. A promotion inspite of adverse record washes off the earlier adverse record but it does not wipe it out or make it extinct. It remains on record as past history and cannot be pressed into service against that Govt. servant to debar him from future promotions or to give him premature retirement if after that promotion, his record remains clean. How ever, if he earns and like or similar adverse entries in ACRs as regards his work, conduct, efficiency, honesty or integrity as were earned by him in the past or is punished in departmental proceedings then that past record can safely be utilised against him to debar him from future promotions or to give him compulsory retirement. 33. In this case, the petitioner did not earn any adverse ACRs or APRs after his promotion. Even the statement of allegation regarding his alleged enquiry has not been served on him and, therefore, in this view of the matter, there was no material on record to retire the petitioner from service compulsorily only after 13 months of his promotion. 34. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure-2 dated 21-2-1985 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service is quashed. The order Annexure-R-1 passed by the appellate committee is also quashed and the petitioners is ordered to be reinstated in service from the date he was compulsorily retired. 34. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure-2 dated 21-2-1985 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service is quashed. The order Annexure-R-1 passed by the appellate committee is also quashed and the petitioners is ordered to be reinstated in service from the date he was compulsorily retired. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits minus the amount that has been paid to him as three month's notice pay. There will be no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******