DAVE, J. — When the State or Corporation of the Boards created by the Statute who have also the legal departments to advise and panel of lawyers to advise and act, on their behalf, prefer appeals in cases which are squarely covered by a catena of cases decided by the High Court and the Apex Court of country namely, Honble the Supreme Court of India it shocks the conscience of the court as the money spent on litigations, which is Tax payees money can better be utilized in development works. It is all the more disgusting when it is manifest from the record of the case that several counsel have been changed in the case at appellate stage for reasons best known as if, that is either going to improve the case or would change the settled law. The present case is not an exception to this. (2). Appellant filed this Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 2nd August 1984, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent and set aside the order of his compulsory retirement, dated 24.10.1975. (3). The respondent joined the service in terstwhile Electrical and Mechanical Department of the Government of Rajasthan (now Rajasthan State Electricity Board) as a Meter-Reader on 26.08.1949. He was thereafter promoted as Lower Division Clerk on 24.08.1955 and further promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 28.10.1956. On 28.03.1959 he was promoted as Head Clerk and in the same year he was appointed as an Accountant. After another five years he was promoted as Asstt. Accounts Officer on 27.04.1964 and finally as Accounts Officer on 23.05.1970. Thus he had been given promotions due to him as and when he earned the same. Though the Electricity Board was formed in the year 1957 but the services of the respondent were absorbed in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board by Notification dated 21.01.1975 as Accounts Officer and since after that he became the regular employee of the Board. An order No. RSEB/PAS/D. 178, dated 24.10.1975 retiring the respondent compulsorily from service on the expiry of three calendar months from the date of service of the notice, was issued which was received by the respondent on 25.10.1975. The petitioner was actually retired w.e.f. forenoon of 24.01.1976. (4). An order No. RSEB/PAS/D. 178, dated 24.10.1975 retiring the respondent compulsorily from service on the expiry of three calendar months from the date of service of the notice, was issued which was received by the respondent on 25.10.1975. The petitioner was actually retired w.e.f. forenoon of 24.01.1976. (4). The respondent challenged this order of compulsory retirement on several grounds including that he has not been retired in the public interest. His case was that he had excellent record of service and he has not been communicated any adverse A.C.R. The respondents grievance is that he was served with a charge-sheet on 29.05.1975 and was also placed under suspension vide order dated 22.04.1975 in contemplation of the enquiry and the present order of compulsory retirement has been passed as a measure of punishment without completing the enquiry. His submission is that during the pendency of the enquiry when he was under suspension he could not have been compulsorily retired by circumventing the regular process of law. His further case is that he has not completed 25 years of service as was contemplated by law and, therefore, he should not also have been compulsorily retired. (5). The Board in its reply submitted that the respondent has not been compulsorily retired because of the pendency of the enquiry against him. The submission is that the Board constituted a Screening Committee to scrutinise the record of the officials and thereafter a High Power Committee was constituted to further consider the cases about compulsory retirement and after that the whole process was lawfully completed and the respondent was placed under suspension. It is submitted that the Board considered all the material pertaining to the respondent for considering his case for compulsory retirement and it has reached the conclusion after careful perusal of the entire record containing facts, circumstances, merits, performance ability, capability, efficiency etc. of the respondent. Further submission is that it was unanimous decision of the Screening Committee as well as of the Board which was not actuated without malice therefore, the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent does not call for any interference. (6). It may be mentioned here that when this writ petition was pending an identical writ petition in the case of one Chand Ratan was filed before this court where similar points were agitated. (6). It may be mentioned here that when this writ petition was pending an identical writ petition in the case of one Chand Ratan was filed before this court where similar points were agitated. The said writ petition after marathon arguments was decided by the Bench of Honble the Chief Justice, Mr. P.K. Benerji on August 1, 1984. When this case came up on 2.08.1984, it was brought to his notice that this case is squarely covered by the case of Chand Ratan. However, Mr. H.P. Gupta representing the Electricity Board raised certain arguments and he emphasized that the suspension and the charge-sheet were not the foundation of the passing of the order of compulsory retirement but that was only the back-ground of the order. It was further argued that the petitioner was under suspension and was charge-sheeted but before his reply could be obtained he was compulsorily retired. The court held that under the facts and circumstances of the case the entire order of compulsory retirement was by way of punishment to punish the respondent for a charge which was pending against him at the time the order was made and because of suspension order made against the petitioner and the enquiry. Aggrieved by this order the present appeal was filed. (7). Mr. R.M. Lodha appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board before us vehemently argued that the order passed by Honble Chief Justice, Mr. P.K. Benerjee is pervrse in as much as he has not gone into the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition and further that he failed to appreciate that two High Power Committees considered the case of the respondent before the order of compulsory retirement was passed and in such circumstances no interference should have been done. It is submitted that against the respondent there were criminal cases pending and he was also facing charge-sheet which are very material circumstances for consideration of passing the order of compulsory retirement. His submission is that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be based as a punishment without holding the enquiry but when it is passed in public interest under the provisions of the regulations, the considerations arc different. His submission is that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be based as a punishment without holding the enquiry but when it is passed in public interest under the provisions of the regulations, the considerations arc different. The Board in exercise of its powers given under Regulation 18 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964, considered his previous service record and came to the finding that his continuation in service was not in nature of public interest and, therefore, he should be retired compulsorily. Learned counsel further submitted that the suspension order and the charge-sheet were not the basis of passing of the order of compulsory retirement and further that mere pendency of departmental enquiry would not debar the department from passing an order of retirement on an overall assessment of the retiring officials record. It is submitted that the order dated 24.10.1975 neither contained any stigma nor was by way of punishment. Neither the proceedings of the Screening Committee nor Committees meeting of official members contained any reference which is subject matter of the departmental enquiry or the criminal cases but the order was passed on examination of personal files and confidential reports of the concerned officials. Learned counsel, relied on The State of Bombay vs. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi (1), Madan Gopal vs. The State of Punjab & others (2), Tara Singh etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and others (3), The State of U.P. Vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi (4), Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs. State of Punjab (5), Bihar Rajya Vidhyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union vs. State of Bihar & others (6) and Shyamlal Vs. State of U.P. (7). (8). It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the order in Chand Ratans case stands confirmed by the Division Bench of this court and, therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this case as the judgment was based on Chand Ratans case and there is no infirmity in the same. It is further submitted that there is not a single entry in the service record of the petitioner which could be adverse to him or which might have been communicated to him much less five years preceding the order of compulsory retirement. His submission is that he has wrongly been charge-sheeted and a false case was made against him in police which has resulted in the final report. His submission is that he has wrongly been charge-sheeted and a false case was made against him in police which has resulted in the final report. But when the department knew that nothing could come out in the departmental enquiry they camouflaged and circumventing due process of law passed the order of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that this order of compulsory retirement is in nature of stigma as it is mentioned therein that the respondent was under suspension at the time when the order has been passed. Ex facie if any body would read the order he would make out that the order of compulsory retirement is by way of punishment. Learned counsel submits that there is catena of cases to support his contention that during the pendency of the enquiry, there being nothing adverse in the service record of the respondent, he cannot be compulsorily retired. He has relied on V.P. Gidroniya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (8), Jethmal Vs. State of Raj.(9), Union of India vs. Abdul Manan Khan (10), decided by this Honble Court and R.S.E.B. vs. Chand Ratan (11), decided on 12.9.1990. (9). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record. (10). We may mention here that due to allegation that there was absolutely no material on record, we thought it proper to ask learned counsel for the Board to produce the personal record of respondent before us. We went through the A.C.Rs of the respondent for our personal satisfaction and could not lay our hands on any such report for any year which could be called adverse to the petitioner except that in one year it was mentioned about pendency of certain criminal cases (where the F.R. has already been given in the case) and this A.C.R. has not been communicated to the respondent according to the record, therefore, could not have been considered against him.Thus, as a matter of fact no decision retiring him compulsorily could have been taken, had not the departmental proceedings and the criminal cases been pending against him. (11). The question therefore is whether an order of compulsory retirement passed in anticipation of finalisation of the enquiry or in anticipation of finalisation of criminal cases could be passed under Regulation 18 of Regulations and where there are no adverse A.C. Rs. (11). The question therefore is whether an order of compulsory retirement passed in anticipation of finalisation of the enquiry or in anticipation of finalisation of criminal cases could be passed under Regulation 18 of Regulations and where there are no adverse A.C. Rs. and such an order can be called an order passed in public interest? We have no hesitation in accepting the contention that pendency of criminal cases or pendency of enquiry may be a relevant consideration for ordering compulsory retirement, provided there is other material available on the personal file and service record of the respondent to arrive at a conclusion that the efficiency of the employee has been impaired or that he has otherwise become unfit for being continued in Government Service in public interest. Considerations of compulsory retirement i.e. in other words, directing the premature retirement is never by way of punishment though consequences of such compulsory retirement may be the same as that of compulsory retirement as a punishment under the conduct rules, but considerations for both are totally different. (12). Before we come to the merits of the present case we deem it proper to deal with the scheme of compulsory retirement of the employees serving under the Board and the relevant provisions thereof, because the Board is a statutory body which has been constituted under the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and is empowered to make regulations for governing the service of its employees under S. 79 (c) of the said Act. The Board has framed Rules and Regulations covering all the employees and the relevant provisions are contained in Regulation No. 18 (4) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964. To trace the short history of the regulation as it stands today, it will be pertinent to mention that it was on 10.9.1975 and 11.9.1975 that the Board issued circulars and the orders deciding to amend the regulation and to make the provisions for compulsory retirement of an employee who has completed 20 years of service or has attained the age of 50 years. The petitioner who had opted for the service of the Board at that time the amended Regulation was not in force but it is abundently clear from the note 3 that all those employees who have opted for Boards service for pensionary benefits will be governed by the amended Regulations. The petitioner who had opted for the service of the Board at that time the amended Regulation was not in force but it is abundently clear from the note 3 that all those employees who have opted for Boards service for pensionary benefits will be governed by the amended Regulations. Since the petitioner opted for the service of the Board he was absorbed in the main schem and he was governed by the amended Regulations. Thus, the Regulation which governs the case of the respondent reads as under: — "Regulation 18 (4) : The Boa.05.after giving him three months previous notice in writing require a Board employee to retire from the service on the date on which he completes 20 years of service or attains the age of 50 years or on any other date thereafter to be specified in the notice. Note : 1. The right conferred by Regulation 18 (4) is intended to be exercised only against a Board employee whose efficiency is imparled, but against whom it is not desirable to make formal charges of inefficiency or who has ceased to be fully efficient but not to such a degree as to warrant his retirement on compassionate allowance. It is not the intention to use this rule as a financial weapon, that is to say, the provision should be used only in the case of Board employees who are considered unfit for retention on personal as opposed to financial grounds. 2. Compulsory retirement under this rule does not attract the provisions of clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution because such retirement is not conveived as a penalty but as the exercise of a right reserved to Board of retiring a Board employee after he has served for a certain length of time. Accordingly, the procedure laid down in the RSEB (CCA Regulations), for formal proceedings against Board employees before removing them from service is not meant to apply to such cases. 3. This rule shall be applicable both to the Board employees who are members of the CPF Scheme and those employees of the erstwhile E & M Department, have opted for Boards service with pensionary benefits." (13). 3. This rule shall be applicable both to the Board employees who are members of the CPF Scheme and those employees of the erstwhile E & M Department, have opted for Boards service with pensionary benefits." (13). A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation along with Notes leave no manner of doubt that Board has power to compulsorily retire its employees in case it is of the opinion that the employees efficiency is impaired and it is not desirable to continue him in service, in other words when on consideration of the entire service record the Board is of the opinion that continuation of the employee in service is not in public interest as his efficiency is impaired he can be retired compulsorily in the manner provided by the Regulation. It may also be mentioned that the Board for reviewing the case of its employees constituted a Screening Committee which reviewed the case consisted of Member (Accounts and Finance), the Secretary of the Board and the Financial Advisor and Controller of Accounts. This Committee after holding the meeting recommended the names of eight officials including the name of the petitioner that they may not be retained in the Boards Service in public interest. Thereafter cases were considered by yet another Committec,headed by the Chairman, the Technical Member, Accounts and Finance Member and the Power Commissioner and in doing so the Board considered all the material pertaining to the petitioner for coming to its conclusion and the merits, performance, ability, capability, effeciency etc. of the respondent were alleged to have taken note of. Compulsory retirement thus, in Regulation 18 (4) is through the process mentioned aforesaid. Compulsory retirement is also by way of punishment incorporated in the service rules which amounts to major penalty and which punishment can never be imposed after an enquiry as contemplated by law is concluded. Thus, there is distinction between compulsory retirement by way of penalty and compulsory retirement in public interest. The parameters within which the consideration has to be made in both the cases are totally different. In case of compulsory retirement as punishment as mentioned above an enquiry is contemplated and the charge for which the enquiry is to be held must be one of the misconducts under the Service Rules, therefore, misconduct, charge-sheet and enquiry and notice of proposed punishment are conditions precedent to order of retirement as a penalty. In case of compulsory retirement as punishment as mentioned above an enquiry is contemplated and the charge for which the enquiry is to be held must be one of the misconducts under the Service Rules, therefore, misconduct, charge-sheet and enquiry and notice of proposed punishment are conditions precedent to order of retirement as a penalty. While the consideration for compulsory retirement on completion of qualifying service mentioned in the rules is in cases were the employees retention in service is not in public interest. There may be several factors for coming to this conclusion. In Union of India vs. J.N. Sinha and another (12) their Lordships used the following phraseology. There is no denying the fact that in all organisations and moreso in Government Organisations there is good deal of dead-wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same, and for that a Review Committee has to be appointed which has to consider over all performance of the employee and for coming to a conclusion that the Review Committee is under an obligation to look into the service record which may include the Annual Appraisal Reports, Confidential Reports or the Special Reports in respect of the employee concerned and that it should then come to a conclusion that retention of the employee in service is not in public interest. Thus, the foundation of passing the order of compulsory retirement under the Regulation is over-all assessment of the employee to be considered by the Review Committee to examine the service record and to ensure that if it is on the basis of adverse entries they have been communicated to the employee, representations, if any, against them have been considered and disposed of and it is otherwise in public interest. Question as to what is public interest and how it has to be construed in cases of compulsory retirement, has been elaborately discussed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Baldeoraj Chadhdha vs. Union of India (13). It has repeatedly been considered in case of Swami Saran Saxena vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (14), Brij Behari Lal Agarwal Vs. Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others (15), decisions of this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Narendra Mal (16), Prem Chand Sanghi vs. State of Raj. (17), Jethmal vs. State of Raj. (Supra) and several other cases. (14). Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others (15), decisions of this court in State of Rajasthan vs. Narendra Mal (16), Prem Chand Sanghi vs. State of Raj. (17), Jethmal vs. State of Raj. (Supra) and several other cases. (14). On a careful consideration of the aforesaid cases it is clearly borne out that the authority ordering compulsory retirement must form its opinion not on subjective satisfaction but on objective and bonafide considerations based on relevant material. That such consideration should be in public interest and this public interest should not be such which may lead the court to a conclusion, it appears to be personal, political or extraneous interest, it should appear to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in law that the order is sufficient to sustain the ground to be in public interest, justifying the forced retirement of the concerned public servant. That the Screening Committee or the authority competent to issue orders must not base its decision on irrelevant extraneous considerations and if the order passes all these tests then it is not for the court to substitute its own judgment for that of the authority and the court would do minimal review based on administrative law. However, if the court otherwise comes to the conclusion that order of compulsory retirement is neither in public interest nor is based on legal relevant material or if the material on perusal is found inadequate to come to a conclusion, it is bound to interfere with such an order and would not be silent spectator commit illegality. The order of compulsory retirement therefore, has to be tested on the touch-stone of the rational and the law laid down by this court and by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in cases referred to above. (15). Before we examine the present case in light of the above position of law we would like to mention that few facts have been brought to our knowledge by placing before us the photostat copies. On 19.06.1971, the Secretary to the Government, Power Department, vide his letter No. F.4 (18) POW/71 informed the Secretary, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur that on careful examination of the papers no sufficient grounds were available on record for launching prosecution against Manoharlal, respondent, for alleged forged bills. On 19.06.1971, the Secretary to the Government, Power Department, vide his letter No. F.4 (18) POW/71 informed the Secretary, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur that on careful examination of the papers no sufficient grounds were available on record for launching prosecution against Manoharlal, respondent, for alleged forged bills. The Secretary, R.S.E.B. wrote back to the Government and the vigilance department also asked the Government to reconsider its decision and the Government again by its letter No. F. 4 (18) POW/72, dated 18.08.1972, stuck to its earlier opinion after seeking the opinion of the law department, that the D.I.G. of police. Anticorruption Department also recommended final report in the case which had been filed in the court. The Government however, served a notice under Rule 17 of the CCA. Rules on the respondent. It is also pertinent to mention here that for certain irregularities committed by the respondent in purchase cases of Beawar Division (Ajmer Circle) in the year 1975 as Accounts Officer he was placed under suspesion by order dated 22.4.1975 and he continued to be under suspension till the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 24.10.75 and he was made to retire w.e.f. 24.1.1976. It is pertinent to mention here that it is not only that he was under suspension till 24.1.1976 as both the orders dated 24.10.1975 and 24.1.1976 indicate but he was also facing a charge-sheet, memorandum whereof was given to him on 29.5.1975 and it was subsequent to the date of retirement of the petitioner dated 24.1.1976 that the Board in its 230th Meeting held on 27.1.1976 decided to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent. Thus, it is amply clear that the respondent was facing a departmental enquiry and was under suspension on the date the Screening Committee considered his case and the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was passed. This has the relevancy for the purpose of testing the bonafides of the order of compulsory retirement having been passed. The reply of the Board submitted in the writ petition in para 12 stated, "Enquiry against the petitioner was pending, but the Board instead of pursuing the enquiry throught it expedient to retire the petitioner compulsorily. This has the relevancy for the purpose of testing the bonafides of the order of compulsory retirement having been passed. The reply of the Board submitted in the writ petition in para 12 stated, "Enquiry against the petitioner was pending, but the Board instead of pursuing the enquiry throught it expedient to retire the petitioner compulsorily. In these circumstances, it was not necessary to withdraw the suspension order before retiring the petitioner compulsorily." The Board has further stated in its reply, "There is nothing in law which prohibits the employer to compulsorily retire an employee during the pendency of the enquiry since the petitioner has been made to retire compulsorily the Board did not like to be vindictive and pursue the enquiry to bring the petitioner to book. The Board was satisfied by retiring the respondent compulsorily irrespective of conclusion of the enquiry." The reply of the Board is very specific that pendency of the enquiry was not taken note of by the Screening Committee and the authorities had any such material before them which could be sufficient to consider that the petitioner was no longer useful for the Board. The Boards contention that it considered all the material pertaining to the respondent for coming to its conclusion and the Board reached to this unanimous conclusion after consideration of all the facts, circumstances, merits, performance, ability, capability, efficiency etc. of the employees. We are unable to find anything on record which could substantiate the aforesaid contention of the Board. We asked the learned counsel for the Board to produce the record which has been considered by the Screening Committee before recommending the case of compulsory retirement of the respondent. The entire confidential reports were produced before us. It was contended that there was an A.C.R. against the respondent in the year 1968-69 wherein it is mentioned that criminal proceedings are pending against the respondent. The only entry about pendency of the criminal case and nothing beyond it. We have already mentioned above that in this criminal case not only the Government refused to grant sanction but the D.I.G. of Police also after through enquiry filed final report in the Court and that too in November, 1973, which is much prior to passing of the order of compulsory retirement. We have already mentioned above that in this criminal case not only the Government refused to grant sanction but the D.I.G. of Police also after through enquiry filed final report in the Court and that too in November, 1973, which is much prior to passing of the order of compulsory retirement. There is another adverse entry regarding year 1974-75 but that entry has been made after he has already been compulsorily retired and, therefore, is hardly of any significance. Besides this, there is nothing in service record of the respondent which is against him. On the contrary we find that there are several entries in service record wherein it is mentioned that he is a hardworking intelligent honest worker and knows his job well. There is not a single remark against him in the entire service record which may be considered adverse and may lead to the conclusion that he has outlived his utility to work in the department or in terms of the judgment of Honble Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer he is dead-wood which requires to be choppd off or that his efficiency is impaired. Thus, there is no material on record except the pending enquiry which could be taken note of by the Screening Committee on the date of taking decision to retire him compulsorily. We are convinced on perusal of the service record that the contention of the respondent that the order of his compulsory retirement has been passed to circumvent the enquiry pending against him and the order of compulsory retirement therefore, cannot be termed as an order passed in public interest. The case is squarely covered by catena of judgments of this court and the Honble Supreme Court wherein court has set aside the order of compulsory retirement as the same is not based on relevant material indicating that in the preceding five years efficiency of the employee has been impaired and we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent is bad in law. (16). There is yet another aspect of looking into the case that when the order of compulsory retirement was passed the respondent was under suspension and the fact of his being under suspension was written in the order of his compulsory retirement. It was never revoked. (16). There is yet another aspect of looking into the case that when the order of compulsory retirement was passed the respondent was under suspension and the fact of his being under suspension was written in the order of his compulsory retirement. It was never revoked. On the contrary the respondent was compulsorily retired and after that the enquiry was dropped, no order could be passed against the respondent when he is first being reinstated in service as held by this court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 188/83 Union of India vs. Shri Abdul Maddal Khan wherein this court has held, "Before passing an order of termination it was obligatory on the part of the employer to revoke the order of suspension even if it is assumed that separate order was not necessary." Once it is mentioned in the order of termination that the respondent was under suspension it amounts to stigma as employee endangers his future employment and may even amount to punishment and attract Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. (17). For the discussions made above, we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs.