JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dated June 24, 1988, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order of compulsory retirement dated February 3, 1986 was set aside, and the writ petitioner was directed to be treated as on duty for the entire period and he was to be paid all service benefits, including the monetary benefits, within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. 2. FACTS stated in the writ petition are as follows:- The writ petitioner joined the service under Central Warehousing corporation (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Corporation) on or about April 1, 1960 and was in employment till February 3, 1986, when the services of the writ petitioner was sought to be terminated by reason of the order of premature retirement. The service condition of the employees of the respondent corporation, at the time when the writ petitioner was superannuated, were governed and guided by the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1966 and thereafter with effect from February 28, 1985, were governed and guided by the Central Warehousing Corporation (staff) Regulation, 1986. The Rules relating to the matter superannuation as specified in Regulation 11 of Staff Regulation 1966 and Regulation 21 of the Staff Regulation, 986 are as follows:- "Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1966. 11. Superannuation, Extension of service and Invalidation.-- 1) Every employee shall retire on attaining the age of fifty year. Provided that the Board of Directors may, if satisfied that the interests of the corporation so require and in consideration of the outstanding nature of the work done by he employee extend by order in writing, the period of service of any employee beyond the age of superannuation for any period not exceeding two years in the aggregate. 2) Nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to effect the powers of the corporation to extend any period of service of an employee beyond the age of fifty years in exceptional cases, or to employ on contract any person above the age of fifty eight years of the interests, of the Corporation so require. 2) Nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to effect the powers of the corporation to extend any period of service of an employee beyond the age of fifty years in exceptional cases, or to employ on contract any person above the age of fifty eight years of the interests, of the Corporation so require. 3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-regulations (1) and (2), an employee shall in invalidation, by the appropriate medical authority specified in regulation 8 cease to be in service on account of complete and permanent incapaciation determined in accordance with the relevant rules of the Central Government in force from time to time. 4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-regulations (1) and (2) the appropriate authority shall "if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the corporation so to do, have the absolute right to are an employee belonging to group "a" Group "b" Group "c" and Group "d" after he has notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation 1980. 21. Superannuation and Retirement- i) Every employee appointed to the service of the Corporation shall retire on the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 58 years. Provided that an employee whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 58 years. ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (i) above the appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so, have the absolute right to retire a Group "a" B, C and D employee if he has attained the age of 50 years by giving him a notice of not less than three clear months in writing or three months pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Provided that an employee belonging to the above Groups may, by giving a notice of not less than three clear months in writing to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire from attained the age of 50 years. Explanation : 1. Provided that an employee belonging to the above Groups may, by giving a notice of not less than three clear months in writing to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire from attained the age of 50 years. Explanation : 1. Notice given under Sub-regulation (ii) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority provided that in the absent of any refusal of permission for voluntary retirement the same shall become effective from the date of the expiry of the period of notice Explanation: 2. An employee who has elected to voluntarily retire and has given a notice under sub-regulation (ii) shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of the appointing authority (iii) Nothing contained in clauses (i) and (ii) above shall effect the right of the competent authority to retire an employee with due notice or pay in lieu thereof on his being certified by a Medical Examiner to be nominated for the purpose by such authority as being incapacitated for a further period of continuous service due to his continued illness or accident. (iv) An employee may be permitted to retire on his own request on the appointing authority being satisfied that such an employee is incapacitated for a further period of continuous service due to his continued illness or accident. " 3. ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, since his employment with the respondent Corporation, he has almost clean and meritorious service during the tenure of his service for 26 years barring on two occasions, there was no adverse remarks whatsoever in the Annual Confidential Report. 4. FURTHER, according to the writ petitioner, at the time when the petitioner was prematurely retired, he had been working as Superintendent, at the respondent Corporation at Shyamnagar in the district of North 24-Parganas. The petitioner was initially appointed for the post of Technical Assistant and was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the year 1964 and he continued his employment in the said post of Superintendent, till his service was illegally terminated by the impugned order dated February 3, 1986. The said order of compulsory retirement was passed by Sri V. K. Partha Sarathy, which is annexure "e" to the writ petition is set out below :- "in terms of provisions contained in sub-Regulation 4 of Regulation 11 of the (staff) Regulation 1966, the Managing Director hereby retires compulsorily Shri P. K. Guha, Supdt. CW. The said order of compulsory retirement was passed by Sri V. K. Partha Sarathy, which is annexure "e" to the writ petition is set out below :- "in terms of provisions contained in sub-Regulation 4 of Regulation 11 of the (staff) Regulation 1966, the Managing Director hereby retires compulsorily Shri P. K. Guha, Supdt. CW. Shyamnagar from the service of this Corporation with immediate effect with 3 months pay in lieu of 3 months notice required thereunder. On compulsory retirement. Shri P. K. Guha will be entitled to retirement benefits as would admissible to him had he retired from the service of the corporation in the ordinary course." 5. IT is the admitted case of both the parties that before passing the order of compulsory retirement dated February 3, 1986, a departmental proceeding was initiated under Regulations is read with Regulation 17 (1) of the Central warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1966. 6. BEFORE initiation of the departmental proceeding, a preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner on August 28, 1984 at the Regional Office of the respondent Corporation and the final proceeding of the inquiry was held on September 21, 1984, wherein Shri P. N. Prasad SAM (G), Regional Office, calcutta appeared as presenting officer in the said case and Shri J. C. Pankar, warehousing Manager. Central Warehouse Jagatdal, Calcutta appeared as assistant Counsel in the said proceeding. The articles of charges against the writ petitioner in the departmental proceeding are as follows:- That the said Shri P. K. Guha while functioning as Warehousing manager, Central Warehouse Kankinarah in March, 83, committed gross mis-conduct, negligence and dereliction of duty and failed to follow the office instructions as detailed in the attached statement. He is thus charged with gross mis-conduct and dereliction of duty and contravention of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which have been made applicable to the employees of the corporation in terms of Regulation 16 (2) of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1966. You Shri P. K. Guha, Superintendent (under suspension) Central warehouse, Kankinarah were functioning as Warehouse Manager at central Warehouse, Kankinarah during the month of March, 1983. A fire had broken out at Central Warehouse, Kankinarah at about 10.10 P.M. on 11.3.1983. Shri Viswanath Bajpai, Chowkidar who noticed the smoke and fire immediately tried to conduct the nearest Fire brigade but the telephone line was disrupted. A fire had broken out at Central Warehouse, Kankinarah at about 10.10 P.M. on 11.3.1983. Shri Viswanath Bajpai, Chowkidar who noticed the smoke and fire immediately tried to conduct the nearest Fire brigade but the telephone line was disrupted. The Chowkidar thereafter ran to the nearest Fire Station and a fire tender arrived at about 10.45 P.M. The Watchman also informed the local police post who immediately deputed four constables to the Warehouse. The fire was brought under control about 8.00 P.M. on 12.3.1983. The General Manager, Central Warehouse Corporation visited Calcutta on the evening at 12.3.1983 to take stock of the situation and to make preliminary inquiry in this fire incident. In the course of this preliminary inquiry, you Shri P. K. Guha had informed the General Management that you came to know of this fire incident only from Shri R. C. Agarwal. Senior Assistant Manager, Shyamnager I and had reached the site of the incident at about 5.30 a.m. on 12.3.1983 i.e. about 8 hours after the fire broken out. It has also stated by Shri S. N. Tiwari. Joint Manager that you had not informed either the warehouse staff or the Regional Officer about your residential address. It was further stated that the Regional office, Calcutta had issued a circular on 4.1.1983 asking all the warehouse Manager to intimate their residential address but you had not complied with these instructions. Since the Chowkidar on duty was not aware of your residential address, it was not possible for him to inform you about this fire incident and he was left alone to face the critical situation. As per standing instructions, warehouse Manager is required to stay at a station where the warehouse is located. Kankinarah is a separate municipality and is fairly thickly populated with facilities as are normal available in the suburbs of Calcutta. Notwithstanding this, you staying at Shyamnagar which is at a considerable distance from your warehouse and that too without informing your address to the Regional. Office and the Warehouse Staff. You were also not taking periodical rounds of the warehouse at off hours to check the security arrangements in accordance with the standing instructions. Notwithstanding this, you staying at Shyamnagar which is at a considerable distance from your warehouse and that too without informing your address to the Regional. Office and the Warehouse Staff. You were also not taking periodical rounds of the warehouse at off hours to check the security arrangements in accordance with the standing instructions. During the visit to Kanktnarah Warehouse, the General Manager had observed that the jute stocks and the wood dunnage had been stored/stocked in a highly improper manner and loose jute was tying about posing a grave threat of similar fire incident. It was also observed that this was the second serious fire incident at this Warehouse while you were functioning as the warehouse Manager. It was also noticed that out of the six Fire extinguishers, 4 had been charged nearly two years back and one had not been fixed at appropriate points, three were kept in the store room away from the go downs where jute, a highly combustible material had been stored. It was evident that you were highly careless and negligent in the performance of your duties as Warehouse Manager, thereby exposing the Corporation to grave financial risks and security hazards. You are thus guilty of gross negligence. dereliction of duty, carelessness and violation of Regional office instruction in as much as (i) you failed to intimate your residential address to the Regional Office and the warehouse Staff (ii) stayed at a place far away from the Warehouse against the standing instructions and (iii) failed to carry out surprise round of the Warehouse at odd hours to check the security arrangements" 7. THE writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Single judge and the learned Single Judge by his Judgment dated June 24, 1988, having referred to the facts of the writ petition, also referred to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which runs as follows:- "I say that the service records of the petitioner from the year 1969 to 1985 contained adverse remarks of serious nature and the petitioner remained under suspension from May 3, 1983 to June 13, 1985. I further say that the Screening Committee consisting of senior officers of the Corporation screened and observed his poor performance and thereafter recommended his compulsory retirement. I further say that the Screening Committee consisting of senior officers of the Corporation screened and observed his poor performance and thereafter recommended his compulsory retirement. The Competent authority after applying his mind and being bona fide of the opinion that it was in the interest of the Corporation to retire the petitioner accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee and ordered the compulsory retirement of the petitioner in terms of sub-regulation (4) of regulation 11 of the (staff) Regulations 1966. I further say that the adverse remarks in the confidential reports were communicated to the petitioner more than a dozen of times but he failed to show any improvement. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in terms of regulation 11 (4) of the (staff) Regulation 1966 for his consistent poor performance and in the interest of the Corporation." 8. THE learned Judge also referred to regulation 11 (4) of the (Staff)Regulation, 1966, which runs as follows:- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (1) and (2), the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that is in the interest of the Corporation so to do, have the absolute right to retire an employee belonging to Group 'a', Group 'b', Group 'c' and Group 'd' after he has attained the age of fifty years, by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice." Thereafter, the learned single Judge, proceeded to refer to the case of the respondent, which runs as follows:- "in order to strengthen the administration of the Corporation it was decided that the cases of employees should be reviewed and such of those who were found unfit for retention should be retired from service on attaining the age of 50 years. The said regulation of the Central warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation) was amended and sub-regulation 4 was inserted in Regulation 11 after the same was published in the Gazette of India. Apart from publication of the notification in the Gazette of India, the amendment of the said Regulation was circulated amongst the employees of the corporation by circular dated December 19, 1983." 9. Apart from publication of the notification in the Gazette of India, the amendment of the said Regulation was circulated amongst the employees of the corporation by circular dated December 19, 1983." 9. THE learned single Judge also referred to the affidavit, that after the amendment in the Regulation a "review Committee" was set up for reviewing the work and conduct of the employees who had attained or were shortly going to attain the age of 50 years. The Review Committee screened the work and conduct of all the employees of the Corporation falling within the above age requirement including Group 'b' and 'c' officers. Since the writ petitioner's a Group 'b' officer, his case was reviewed along with other 18 Group 'b' officer and one Group 'c officer. 10. ACCORDING to the respondents, the writ petitioner joined the Corporation as Technical Assistant on February 29, 1960. Subsequently, the writ petitioner was appointed as superintendent with effect from June 20, 1963, and the service records of the writ petitioner from 1969 contained adverse remarks. The entries in the confidential reports from 1969 to 1985 were all communicated to the writ Petitioner. It was also alleged that the "review Committee" in its meeting held on January 1, 1986 screened the work and conduct of the writ petitioner along with 17 other employees. The said "review Committee" consisted of the general Manager of the Corporation, Financial Adviser, Regional Manager, Chandigarh and personnel Manager. The said "review Committee" after carefully reviewing the entire service records and the Confidential Reports, came to the conclusion that the petitioner despite opportunities had not shown any improvement at all in his performance. It was further found by the "review committee" that the petitioner was consistently reported upon adversely year after year and he was under suspension for a long spell on two occasions. The review Committee found the writ petitioner, to be a fit case for compulsory retirement of service from the corporation. The said Review Committee made such recommendations in the case of another five officers of the Corporation. The managing Director of the Corporation also agreed with the recommendations of the Review Committee that the writ petitioner compulsorily retired from service in terms of Regulation 11 (4) of the Regulations, upon attaining the age of 50 years. Accordingly, the impugned order dated February 3, 1986 was passed. 11. The managing Director of the Corporation also agreed with the recommendations of the Review Committee that the writ petitioner compulsorily retired from service in terms of Regulation 11 (4) of the Regulations, upon attaining the age of 50 years. Accordingly, the impugned order dated February 3, 1986 was passed. 11. THE learned Single Judge also referred to the fact that the writ petitioner was to cross the efficiency bar with effect from January 1, 1976. The Regional director at Madras, where the petitioner was working reported that his work was not found satisfactory and he was not fit to cross the efficiency bar. Accordingly, he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar. His case was again reviewed in January 1977. The certificate was called for from the Regional director, Madras, regarding the work and conduct of the writ petitioner and the certificate whether he was fit to cross the efficiency bar with effect from January 1, 1977. The Regional Director, Madras, recommended that the writ petitioner was fit to cross the efficiency bar at the state of Rs. 750/- with effect from. January 1977 and in view of the said recommendation and after considering his annual confidential reports for the years 1975 and 1976, the writ petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. As indicated earlier, the review Committee held a meeting on January 1, 1986 to review the case of 18 group 'b' officers, including the petitioner and one Group 'c' officer for compulsory retirement. Out of 18 Group 'b' officers, in respect 6, recommendation was made for compulsory retirement by the Review Committee. 12. MR. M. K. Garg, who considered the recommendations of the Review committee once again also held that only the writ petitioner should be compulsorily retired and he excluded all other cases. He gave his opinion on 10th January, 1986. The relevant recommendations of the Review Committee in respect of the writ petitioner and the remarks of Mr. M.K. Garg are set out below:- "recommendation of the Review committee Sri P.K. Guha, Superintendent:- The Committee after a careful review of his entire service record and ACRs has come to the conclusion that Shri. P.K. Guha has despite opportunities given, had not shown any improvement at all in his performance. M.K. Garg are set out below:- "recommendation of the Review committee Sri P.K. Guha, Superintendent:- The Committee after a careful review of his entire service record and ACRs has come to the conclusion that Shri. P.K. Guha has despite opportunities given, had not shown any improvement at all in his performance. On the other hand it has been found that he was consistently reported upon adversely year after year and he was under suspension for long spells on two occasions. The committee has found him to be a fit case for compulsory retirement from the service of the Corporation in terms of the Sub-Regulation (4) of the Regulation 11 of the CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1966." recommendations of Mr. M.K. Garg:-Apart from his service record I also find that Shri. P. K. Guha's ACRs from 1979 onwards till his suspension from 3.5.83 to 14.6.85 contain adverse remarks of serious nature and I therefore consider this a fit case in terms of the criteria laid down. I agree with the recommendation of the review Committee that Shri. P.K. Guha be compulsorily retired from service in terms of Sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation (11) of the CWC (staff) Regulations 1966. His compulsory retirement will take effect only after he actually attains the age of 50 years." 13. THE grounds which have been taken by the Review Committee for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner, are as follows:- "(a) He had not shown any improvement at all in his performance. (b) He was consistently reported upon adversely year after year. (c) He was under suspension for a long spell on two occasions." 14. MR. M. K. Garg has not accepted the recommendation in respect of the other officers but so far as the writ petitioner was concerned, he gave further reasonings. According to him, Annual Confidential Reports from 1979 on wards till the suspension of the writ petitioner contained adverse remarks of serious nature and, therefore, he considered it to be a fit case for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner. A chronological history of the work and conduct of the writ petitioner is set out hereunder:- "shri Guha has passed B. Sc. (Agr.) and he has completed 40 years of age as on 1.2.1976 (his date of birth is 1.2.1976 ). Sri Guha joined CWC as Technical Assistant on February 29, 1960. A chronological history of the work and conduct of the writ petitioner is set out hereunder:- "shri Guha has passed B. Sc. (Agr.) and he has completed 40 years of age as on 1.2.1976 (his date of birth is 1.2.1976 ). Sri Guha joined CWC as Technical Assistant on February 29, 1960. He was appointed as Superintendent in the Corporation on June 20, 1963 in response to the advertisement issued in the newspapers. As superintendence Sri Guha has worked at the following places: 15. THEREAFTER, the Review Committee after a careful review of the entire service records of the writ petitioner and Annual Confidential Reports of him, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner, despite opportunities given, had not shown any improvement at all in his performance. On the other hand, it has been found that he was consistently reported upon adversely year after year and he was under suspension for long spells on two occasions. 16. THE Committee has found him to be a fit case for compulsory retirement from the service of the Corporation in terms of the Sub-Regulation (4) of the regulation 11 of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1966, and passed the order of compulsory retirement, which has been impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has referred to the several decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of scrutinising the validity of the one of compulsory retirement. 17. THE first of such decision is in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra -vs- State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. page 948, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Review Committee should consider the service records of at least five years and urn-communicated confidential reports cannot be considered by the Review Committee. 18. THEREAFTER, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. -vs- Chandra Mohan, reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. page 2422, where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rule 16 (3) being a rigorous rule vis-a-vis a Government servant not himself willing to retire under Rule 16 (2) has to be invoked in a fair and reasonable manner, since Rule 16 (3) itself does not contain any guideline, directions or criteria, the instructions issued by the Government furnish unessential and statutory procedure for the purpose of second uniformity in application of the rule. These instructions realty fill up the running gap in the provisions and are embedded in the condition of the surprise are binding on the Government and cannot be violated to the prejudged of the Government servant. In the next, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the supreme Court In the case of M. C. Gargi -vs-State of Haryana, reported in air 1987 S.C. page 65 wherein the Supreme Court held that it does not appear that there was any material on the basis of which the State Government could have formed an opinion that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the appellant at the age of 57 years. There was really no justification for his compulsory retirement of the appellant under rule 3.25 (d) of the Rules must therefore be struck down as being arbitrary. 19. THEREAFTER, the learned Single Judge referred to the case of Hans Raj -vs- State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 69 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:- "in para (d) it is stated that the order retiring the petitioner permanently was passed in public interest. The attempt seems to be to merely reproduce the language of the rule without any attempt at bringing the case within the parameters of the relevant rule. If the power was exercised in public interest, one would have expected some whisper about it in the impugned order. However when a specific contention was taken that the power was not exercised in public Interest, a routine averment was made that it was exercised in public interest. When this contention was canvassed before this Court, the respondents tried to repel it by saying that in the annual confidential report for the year 1971-72, an entry has been made that the conduct of the appellant was unsatisfactory and his integrity was found doubtful. This is the only entry relied upon to substantiate the charge that the appellant had rendered himself undesirable for further continuance in service and therefore power to compulsorily retire him was exercised in public interest. We remain un-convinced for two reasons : (i) That no record was placed before us to show as to whether the adverse entry was ever communicated to the appellant and (ii) his record previous and subsequent to the year 1971-72 was not placed before us. Thus there remains a stray entry only. We remain un-convinced for two reasons : (i) That no record was placed before us to show as to whether the adverse entry was ever communicated to the appellant and (ii) his record previous and subsequent to the year 1971-72 was not placed before us. Thus there remains a stray entry only. The material for making the entry three years prior to the date of the impugned order has not been placed before us. And the more disturbing part that the entries in the subsequent years have not been shown to us. it therefore appears that reference to public interest in the return was an attempt in paying sympathy to the provision of the relevant rule rather than a serious application of mind while dealing with the career and the consequent starvation heaped upon the appellant by the impugned order. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order also staffers from the vice of non-application of mind." 20. THEREAFTER, the learned single Judge also referred to the case of Brij Behari Lal -vs- High Court, M. P., reported in AIR 1981 S.C. Page 594, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that when considering the question of compulsory retirement while it is no doubt desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's record, more than ordinary value should be attached to the confidential report pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. Whatever value the confidential reports of earlier years may possess, those pertaining to the later years are not only of direct relevant but also of most importance. The learned Single Judge also referred to the case of J. D. Srivastava vs. State of M. P. reported in AIR 1984 page 630 Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the confidential reports relating to a remote period would not be relevant for the purpose of determining whether a person should be retired compulsory or not. In that case reports far the earlier period of ten years were scrutinised. It was further held by the Supreme Court that it would be arbitrary to base the decision to compulsorily retire a person on the entries that were made many years before the date on which the decision was taken. Dependence on such stale entries cannot be placed for retiring a person compulsorily particularly when the officer concerned has been promoted subsequent to such enties. 21. Dependence on such stale entries cannot be placed for retiring a person compulsorily particularly when the officer concerned has been promoted subsequent to such enties. 21. THEREAFTER, the learned Single Judge also referred to the case of A. C. Bose vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1974 CLJ page 8, wherein the division Bench of this Court, inter alia, held that before an order for compulsory retirement is made, the appropriate authority must form an opinion that it is in public interest to make the order. The opinion cannot be formed arbitrarily. It cannot be based on collateral ground. It must be dependent on some ground or material germane to the issue of compulsory retirement, and when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged in a court of law the Court has the right to examine whether some ground or material germane to the issue exists although the Court is not interested in the sufficiency of those materials. 22. AFTER citing the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge observed that the factual perspective in the instant case presents a course of action followed by the authority, which cannot be supported by law. The learned Single Judge further observed as the writ petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar, as laid down in the guidelines, no order of compulsory retirement could be passed on the ground of ineffectiveness or inefficiency and accordingly, set aside the order of compulsory retirement dated February 3, 1986. 23. WE have heard the submissions of Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Gupta, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Samar Banerjee with Mr. Saurindra Mahapatra, learned Advocates for the respondent/writ petitioner. 24. AFTER carefully considering the rival submissions of both the parties, are of the view that there is no baron the part of the Screening Committee to review the work and conduct of an employee, who attains or is shortly going to attain the age of 50 years. But compulsory order of retirement cannot be made till the employee attains the age of 50 years, which he enjoys within his own right. But compulsory order of retirement cannot be made till the employee attains the age of 50 years, which he enjoys within his own right. The review Committee having reviewed the case of the respondent/writ petitioner on January 1, 1986 along with 17 other officers of the Corporation and found that the respondent/writ petitioner did not show any improvement, in his performance, the order of compulsory retirement dated February 3, 1986, which was passed after the respondent/writ petitioner attained the age of 50 years, cannot be called in question by this Court in the case of Union of India vs. J. N. Sinha and Another, reported in A. I. R. 1971, page 40. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, Justice K. S. Hegde, speaking for the Supreme Court, observed as follows: - "now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56 (i), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. The 1st respondent challenged the opinion formed by the Government on the ground of malafide. But that ground has failed. The High Court did not accept that plea. The same was not pressed before us. The impugned order was not attacked on the ground that the required opinion was not formed or that the opinion formed was an arbitrary one. One of the conditions of the 1st respondent's service is that the Government can choose to retire him any time after he completes fifty years if it thinks that it is in public interest to do so. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. Because of his compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement. Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. The aforementioned Rule 56 (i) is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servants. That rule merely embodies one of the facets of the "pleasure" doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organisations and more so in Government organisations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is a public interest same. Fundamental Rule 56 (i) holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interests of the public, while a minimum service is guaranteed to the Government servant, the Government is given power to energise ills machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest." 25. FURTHER, we are of the view that since the adverse remarks in the Annual confidential Report have duly communicated to the respondent/writ petitioner, referred to in the affidavit-in-opposition and the Review Committee having scrutinised the said adverse remarks in the matter of forming "an opinion" for compulsory retirement, it is not for this Court to re-apprise the sufficiency of the material, sitting in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction. 26. FURTHER, in our view, the decision referred to in the case of J. D. Srivastava vs. State of M. P. (Supra), cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case before us, as not only the adverse remarks prior to 1977 were looked into by the Review Committee, but the adverse remarks of the subsequent period were also taken into consideration, which was of recent past. Further, in our view the order of compulsory retirement was made not to by-pass the departmental proceeding but the said order of compulsory retirement was passed for bringing probity in the administration and a government servant is entitled to remain in his service within his right upto 50 years and beyond that period, subject to the periodical review of his candidature by the Review Committee. 27. FURTHER, we are of the opinion that the guideline of the Ministry of Home affairs relating to premature retirement of Government servant having provided that no employee should ordinarily be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness if his service during the preceding 5 years has been found satisfactory, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner should not be retired compulsorily, in view of the aforesaid guideline, was erroneous and in our view should be set aside. 28. BEFORE parting, we may refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Another vs. Chief District Medical officer, Baripada and Another, reported in AIR 1992 S.C. Page 1020, wherein Supreme Court had held that an order of compulsory retirement "is not a punishment". It implied no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. The order has to be passed by the Government, on forming "the opinion" that is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. The principles of natures justice does not apply in passing an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the high Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide or (b) that it is based on no. evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no in able person would form the requisite opinion on the given materials, in she found to be a perverse order. We are in agreement with the latest view expressed by the Supreme court in its aforesaid judgment and we are also of the view that the appeal is entitled to be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 29. IN the result, the appeal is allowed. We are in agreement with the latest view expressed by the Supreme court in its aforesaid judgment and we are also of the view that the appeal is entitled to be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 29. IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated June 24, 1986, is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. In the facts of the present case, there will be however, no order as to costs. 30. IN the facts of the present case, the prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and order, made on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner is considered and refused. All parties will be entitled to have a xerox signed copy of the judgment in usual undertaking. Appeal allowed.