JUDGMENT Om Prakash 1. Sri Syed Amjad Ali, an A.S.I. (M) in the Uttar Pradesh Police was retired compulsorily by the order dated 19-3-1976, (Annexure 3 to the petition) by the Superintendent of Police, Etah (S.P) respondent no. 4 which is sought to be quashed by the former in this petition. The petitioner was retired compulsorily when he completed the age of 51 years on the ground of his poor performance which was inferred by the respondent no. 4 from the facts : (1) that the petitioner was visited with petty punishments for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959 ; (2) that his character roll entries for the years 1960, 1961, 1969 to 1972 and 1975 were not satisfactory ; (3) that proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act were initiated against him for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 for having remained absent from duty unauthorisedly ; and (4) that this over all performance was unsatisfactory and showed misconduct. 2. Before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, the petitioner made submissions that all the adverse entries were not communicated to him ; that whatever entries were communicated to him, representations had been made against them by the petitioner but they were not considered and remained undisposed of; that the Tribunal was not right in having relied on such adverse entries ; that whatever adverse entries were there upto October, 1974 they lost the character of adversity and were rendered ineffective, inasmuch as the recommendation made by the S.P. for his compulsory retirement, was disapproved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.) by the order dated 31-10-74 ; and that as the recommendation of the S.P. for retiring the petitioner compulsorily was not accepted by the D.I.G on 31-10-1974, the same material could not have been pressed into service by the S.P. in October, 1975 recommending his compulsory retirement again to the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), who eventually accepted the recommendation giving rise to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 19th March, 1976. The Tribunal considered these submissions of the petitioner and concluded that all the adverse entries had been communicated to the petitioner ; that no representation made by the petitioner against adverse entries remained undisposed of; that the petitioner deserved compulsory retirement on account of his misconduct and inefficiency as reflected in the character roll entries relating to the consecutive years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 coupled with the factors that the petitioner had been visited with petty punishments for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959 and that proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act had been initiated against him for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 for having remained absent unauthorisedly. The Tribunal nowever, accepted that the adverse entry relating to the year 1975 which was awarded subsequently on 23-6-1976 could not have been made the basis of compulsory retirement and, therefore, the Tribunal read the remaining materials for compulsory retirement. The Tribunal held that the disapproval dated 31-10-1974 by the D.T.G. of the S.P's recommendation for compulsorily retiring the petitioner was of no consequence, as he was neither an appointing authority of the petitioner nor a member of the screening committee which found the petitioner fit for compulsory retirement on account of inefficiency and misconduct. 3. The petitioner aggrieved of the Tribunal's order seeks quashing thereof. At the very out-set, Sri V. B. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order deserved to be quashed as that was passed by the S.P. Etah, respondent no. 4, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. The petioner was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on ministerial duties (for short, the A.S.I. (M)). His duties were confined to the office work and thus he was not equated with the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who discharged regular police duties maintaining law and order. No clear provision was shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointing authority of the petitioner was D.I.G. as he is in the case of Sub-Inspectors of Police, when the impugned order was passed. No clear provision was shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointing authority of the petitioner was D.I.G. as he is in the case of Sub-Inspectors of Police, when the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on a circular dated 17-4-1986, para 2 of which states that controversy relating to the appointing authority of A.S.I, (M) arose before the Public Service Tribunal in two petitions and then the Tribunal by the orders dated 27-3-1981 and 22-5-1981 decided that the D.I.G. would be the appointing authority of the A.S.I. (M) as he is in the case of the Sub-Inspectors of Police. It is worth noticing that the Public Service Tribunal rendered decisions on much subsequent dates and the Police Department issued the circular on the basis of those decisions on 17-4-86. Ordinarily such circular will operate only prospectively. There is nothing on record to show that similar position obtained on 19-3-1976, when the petitioner was compulsorily retired. It is, however, clear from the circular itself that the D.I.G. was not the appointing authority of the A.S.I. (M) 19-3-1976 as he was in the case of the Sub-Inspectors of Police. If he were so, than there would have been no need to issue such circular and to raise such controversy before the Public Service Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner's contention in this behalf is wholly unsustainable. 4. Raiterating the view expressed in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 , the Supreme Court held in C. D. Allahabad v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1001, that order of compulsory retirement can be challenged on the grounds :- (1) that requisite opinion has not been formed ; (2) that the decision is bad on collateral grounds ; and (3) that the decision is arbitrary It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the respondent no, 4 who is appointing authority of the petitioner, formed requisite opinion for compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the basis of adverse entries for the years, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 and the proceedings havings been initiated under section 7 of the Police Act for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972. Besides these materials, the Tribunal also adverted to petty punishments awarded to the petitioner for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959. Besides these materials, the Tribunal also adverted to petty punishments awarded to the petitioner for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959. Adverting to several authorities, the Supreme Court enunciated in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 948 , that old and stale entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of premature retirement instead the entries of recent post of 5 to 10 years should be considered in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government employee in public interest It will be unreasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and to ignore the good entries of recent past. The respondent no. 4 having recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 31-10-1974 to the D.I.G consecutive adverse entries relating to the years 1969 to 1972 and the proceedings initiated under section 7 of the Police Act for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 all falling within 10 years could have been legitimately considered by the respondent no. 4 to form the requisite opinion regarding inefficiency and misconduct of the petitioner. The law is settled by now that a Government servant can be retired compulsorily if he is proved to be a dead wood on account of inefficiency, misconduct, dishonesty or corruption, What is to be seen is whether from the materials having been considered by the Tribunal, requisite opinion could have been formed by the respondent no. 4 to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Surely, the Tribunal was not right in considering the petty punishments awarded to the petitioner for the years 1951, 1958 and 1959. But then the question will remain whether shorn of these petty punishments, the respondent no. 4 could have formed bonafide opinion regarding the inefficiency and misconduct of the petitioner to retire him compulsorily from service. The Tribunal itself excluded from consideration the adverse entry relating to the year 1975 which was considered by the screening committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner deserved compulsory retirement, as that was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd June, 1976, that is, after he was compulsorily retired on 19th March, 1976. The Tribunal itself excluded from consideration the adverse entry relating to the year 1975 which was considered by the screening committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner deserved compulsory retirement, as that was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd June, 1976, that is, after he was compulsorily retired on 19th March, 1976. Adverse entries relating to the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 and the proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act initiated for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 falling within ten years will constiture a good basis to form requisite opinion if they really established inefficiency or misconduct of the petitioner. The Tribunal extensively reproduced the -aforesaid adverse character roll entries in its order and found that they had been duly communicated to the petitioner. The record shows that the petitioner was severely warned for having overstayed leave twice in the year 1969. Besides that it is stated by the Tribunal that the date of birth of Bansi Dhar Constable was altered with a view to make him eligible for the test to the post of Head Constable. At the material time, the petitioner and J. P. Kulsrestha, another A.S I. (M) were Character-roll Keepers and both of them handled the character rolls of the police personnels, ft is stated that though manipulation was very obvious but none of them pointed out. Therefore, the authorities had reason to believe that the failure to point out the discrepancy in the record was deliberate and. therefore, the petitioner was severely warned for such misconduct. The respondent no. 4 while making the character roll entry for the year 1969 clearly stated that the petitioner was awarded three misconduct entries, two for over-staying leave period and one for not detecting an interpolation in the character roll, 5. For the year 1971, again misconduct entry was made on 10-6-1976 in the character roll of the petitioner which after modification in appeal runs as follows : "While posted as C. R. K. in this unit he lost or misplaced the joint photographs of retired constable Chob Singh causing monetary loss to the constable. Severely reprimanded." For the year 1970, the entry runs as follows : "Remained under suspension from 23-10-70 to 20-12-71 to face departmental proceedings for absence and other lapses in his work Also earned a misconduct entry for a lapse. Severely reprimanded." For the year 1970, the entry runs as follows : "Remained under suspension from 23-10-70 to 20-12-71 to face departmental proceedings for absence and other lapses in his work Also earned a misconduct entry for a lapse. This entry reflects on his work and conduct, which were poor. Integrity certified." For the year 1912, the entry which is said to have been issued to the petitioner on 23-6-1973 is thus : "An experienced and hard working ASI (M) but needs constant and strict supervision to make him do something useful. He cannot be relied upon. He is in the habit of overstaying leave on mainly pretext of illness and manages to obtain medical certificates from local doctors belonging to his home district. Conduct satisfactory. Integrity certified" Besides the aforesaid adverse entries, the proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act had been initiated against the petitioner for the years 1969, 1971 and 1972 for having remained absent unauthorisedly. 6. The question for consideration is whether on these materials, the respondent no 4 could have formed requisite opinion for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The aforesaid materials sufficiently proved the petitioner's inefficiency and misconduct, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the requisite opinion formed by the respondent no: 4 was based on collateral grounds or was arbitrary in any way. When there is sufficient material enabling a competent authority to form bonafide opinion to retire a Government servant compulsorily, the Court will be loath to interfere under Article 226. The scope of scrutiny in such matters by the Court under Article 226 is narrow and limited If a competent authority has sufficient material to form reasonable and bonafide opinion for compulsorily retiring a Government servant and if there is nothing to show on record that such opinion was arbitrary or formed on collateral grounds, no interference is warranted under Article 226. "Adverse character roll entries for consecutive four sears and the fact that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for three years under section 7 of the Police Act in close proximity to the date when compulsory retirement of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent no. 4 on 31-10-1974, sufficiently established the inefficiency and misconduct of the petitioner. "Adverse character roll entries for consecutive four sears and the fact that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for three years under section 7 of the Police Act in close proximity to the date when compulsory retirement of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent no. 4 on 31-10-1974, sufficiently established the inefficiency and misconduct of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal which wrongly alluded to the petty punishments having been awarded to the petitioner for the years 1951, 1959 and 1959 falling beyond the period of ten years, is not vitiated, as the misconduct is clearly proved even without such petty punishments. The impugned order of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be upheld.- 7. Then Sri V B. Singh' learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the recommendation of the respondent no 4 made on 31-10-1974 to the D I.G was based out all these materials and that was disapproved by the D.I,G. The submission is that when the D.I G disapproved the recommendation made by the respondent no. 4 to retire the petitioner compulsorily, then the respondent no. 4 was not justified in recommending compulsory retirement of the petitioner to the SS P after a year on 26-10-1975 on the basis of the same material. The submission proceeds on the principle of official hierarchy that when the material on the basis of which the respondent no. 4 formed the requisite opinion was disapproved by the D.I.G., a superior authority, then it was not open to the respondent no. 4 to take any action on that very material The submission is that disapproval by the D.I.G. means that there was no sufficient material to form requisite opinion. When the superior authority was not satisfied on the basis of the same materials, then Sri Singh argued, the respondent no 4 could not have taken a contrary view and he could not have formed opinion on the basis of the material already discarded by the D. I.G 8. No doubt, to maintain discipline in the services and more so in the police department, official hierarchy plays a vital role and if the junior authorities do not follow and abide by the views of the superior authorities then that would not only lead to indiscipline in the Government services but that would create chaos and uncertainty in the public administration. Therefore, there could not be a dispute that official hierarchy demands that an inferior authority should abide by the views of the superior authority and the breach of this principle may expose the former to the risk of punishment for insubordination But the principle of official hierarchy cannot permit a superior authority to transgress or overstep the limit circumscribed by the law. In the instant case requisite opinion has to be formed by the respondent no. 4 being the appointing authority of the petitioner. It is he who has to have the satisfaction that the petitioner proved to be a dead- wood on account of inefficiency or misconduct and, therefore, he was not fit to be retained in service any more and deserved to be compulsorily retired. The D.I.G., no doubt a superior authority, cannot substitute his own opinion for the opinion of the respondent no. 4 If the jurisdiction to do a thing is vested in a lower authority and particularly when that authority is required to form requisite opinion on the basis of legitimate materials, then it is that authority alone who can exercise that jurisdiction and no one else. 9. It is not uncommon that before superior authorities vested with the supervisory jurisdiction, the papers are sent for perusal by the inferior authorities even in the matters which exclusively fall within the latters jurisdiction, but in such cases also the superior authorities are not supposed to exercise jurisdiction whimsically while approving or disapproving the view of the inferior authority. In the instant case, the D.I.G. could have disapproved the recommendation of the respondent no 4 only if that was based on collateral brounds and if that appeared to be arbitrary. As already held the opinion formed by the respondent no. 4 oh the basis of the materials reproduced here- in- before, cannot be said to be malafide, arbitrary or unreasonable. It is not known as to how the DIG. differred from the recommendation made by the respondent no 4. An opinion of the 'superior authority unsupported by the reasons, does not constitute any guideline to the subordinate authority on the basis of principle of official hierarchy; rather that if permitted to be effectuated, would tantamount to making inroad into the area or the jurisdiction circumscribed by law for the inferior authority. 10. An opinion of the 'superior authority unsupported by the reasons, does not constitute any guideline to the subordinate authority on the basis of principle of official hierarchy; rather that if permitted to be effectuated, would tantamount to making inroad into the area or the jurisdiction circumscribed by law for the inferior authority. 10. It is not the case where statutory approval is necessary from the D.I.G. Therefore, ignorance of disapproval recorded by the D.I.G. does not violate any law. The order of the respondent no. 4 retiring the petitioner compulsorily cannot be said to be vitiated owing to violation of principle of official hierarchy. The disapproval by the D.I.G. does not mean deletion of the adverse character roll entries that factually existed. So long as the adverse character roll entries stand, it is the duty of the competent authority to initiate action and form requisite opinion if warranted by such entries. If he does not form his opinion on the adverse entries which remained intact and unexpunged then he will be failing in his duties. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the view canvassed by Sri Singh that once the recommendation made by the respondent no 4 was disapproved by the D.I.G., the former was not competent to proceed again on the basis of the same material. The argument of Sri Singh appeared to be very attractive at the first blush, but on a profound analysis and deeper scrutiny, it appears that there is no substance in the submissions of Sri Singh, and they have to be rejected for the foregoing reasons. 11. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.