JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - The petitioner, who' was employed as a peon in the Office of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation),. Sitapur, by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order dated 2621990 contained in annexure 1 by which he has been retired from service compulsorily in public interest under fundamental Rule 56(,c). 2. It is stated in the petition that in the character roll there was not even a single adverse entry recorded against the petitioner, who all along has been performing his duties satisfactorily inspite of his having met an accident about a year ago. Since he had an unblemished career, his retirement from service under Fundamental Rule 56 was not, it is claimed, in public interest but was an arbitrary action on the part of the opposite parties, as the element of public interest which is an essential component of an order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(c), was not established by any material available on the service record of the petitioner. 3. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit and in para 19 of the counter affidavit they have stated as under: 4. By an order passed in this case, the Standing Counsel was required to produce service record of the petitioner, which having not been done on several occasions, an order was passed requiring the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sitapur to appear in person before the court with the service record of the petitioner. This order was passed on 1041991. It is pointed out by the Standing Counsel that Sri R. C. Gupta, Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has since retired from service and in his place no other Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has yet been appointed. It is pointed out that the service record of the petitioner has been brought by the Head Clerk of the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the same is available for the perusal of the court. The service record of the petitioner including the proceedings of the screening committee have been placed before me, 5. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner, it appears that only one adverse entry was given to the petitioner and that too in the year 198687. This adverse entry reads as under: 6. The service record of the petitioner including the proceedings of the screening committee have been placed before me, 5. From a perusal of the service record of the petitioner, it appears that only one adverse entry was given to the petitioner and that too in the year 198687. This adverse entry reads as under: 6. There is no material available on the record to indicate that this entry was ever communicated to the petitioner or that he was given an opportunity of making representation against this entry. As a matter of fact, the record produced before me indicates that Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), kadipur had written a fetter No. 465/R. K. dated 281090 to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sitapur indicating that there was no1 material available in the office' to indicate whether or not the adverse entry for the year 198687 was communicated to the petitioner. It will be noticed that at the relevant time when the adverse entry for the year 198687 was recorded in the petitioner's character roll, he was posted in district Sultanpur. 7. The screening committee had met on 1611990 and had reviewed the case of the petitioner and it was on the recommendation of the screening committee that the petitioner has been retired from service compulsorily. The recommendation of the screening committee is to the following effect: 8. It will be noticed that the screening committee has recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the ground of physical incapacity. The opposite parties, in the counter affidavit, have also made the allegation of physical incapacity but they do not mention the nature of the physical Incapacity not is there any medical report on the record to support it. It is not stated in the counter affidavit nor is there any indication in the recommendation of the screening committee 'that the petitioner on account of so called incapacity Was not being able to perform his duties as a Peon in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The latest character roll entry of the petitioner available in his service record is for the period from December, 1989 to 3rd March, 1990 in which the petitioner is reported to be performing his duties with responsibility and dedication. 9. The latest character roll entry of the petitioner available in his service record is for the period from December, 1989 to 3rd March, 1990 in which the petitioner is reported to be performing his duties with responsibility and dedication. 9. In the face of the entries available in the character roll of the petitioner, it is difficult to sustain the order of compulsory retirement particularly on the basis of only one adverse entry (for the year,198687) which too does not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner nor can it be sustained on the ground of physical in capacity. 10. It is well settled by a Series of Supreme Court decisions including the decisions in Gur Dayal Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622 , A. K. Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, 1984(2) SLR 299 and Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) SLR 54 that uncommunicated adverse entry cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of compulsorily retiring an employee from service. 11. Even under the amended provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 as available in U.P., an adverse entry against which a representation has been made can be taken into consideration only when the representation is also simultaneously taken into consideration. The implication of this requirement is that an opportunity is to be given to the employee to make a representation against the adverse entry. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order contained in annexure 1 by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service is hereby quashed with the further direction that the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs.