ARUN MADAN ( 1 ) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was employed with the respondents (Central Reserve Police Force) on 8th November, 1962 as Constable. He was firstly posted at Tripura but subsequently applied for transfer to Delhi for the reason that he got two minor daughters who were studying in the school treated at Delhi who were physically handicapped being deaf and dumb. For this purpose the department acceded to the request of the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the entire period of 27 years of service, the petitioner was never charge- sheeted. He did not avail a single casual leave during 1988-89. He never absented and attending to his duties diligently. The petitioner was surprised to receive retirement order dated 14th September, 1989 compulsorily retiring him from service under Rule 43-C (i) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 read with Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the Commandant, CRPF giving him three months notice computed from the date of service of the notice on him. The petitioner received the said notice on 22nd September, 1989. Soon thereafter he received letter dated 18th September, 1989 communicating him adverse re- marks by the Commandant 68th Battalion CRPF, New Delhi. These remarks were only for the period of one year i. e. from 1. 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89. It will be pertinent to mention the said communication, which Beads as follows:- "in your confindential card for the period from 1. 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89 your overall performance has been assessed as satisfactory. However, it has been mentioned in the confidential card that :- "mentally disturbed NCO due to family affairs and is more concerned with that work and conduct just satis- factory". 2. Representation against above remarks if any should be submitted within 15 days of receipt of this communication through proper channel. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner made a representation dated 1st October, 1989 in which he had specifically mentioned that had the case of the petitioner been reviewed timely i. e. before the intended date of retirement there would have been no adverse remarks to debar him from earning approval of further service till he attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner further mentioned in his representa- tion that only one adverse remarks which was communicated, reads as follows:- "mentally disturbed NCO due to family affairs and is more concerned with that work and conduct just satisfactory". ( 4 ) IT will be pertinent to mentioned that the said adverse entry pertains only to one year i. e. 1. 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89. From the above remarks it is very clear that no specific incident regarding overall performance of the petitioner regarding his adverse entry has been communicated to the petitioner, the only incident being that he was mentally dis- turbed due to family affairs. Naturally so, because he has two deaf and dumb daughters who are grown up and he has to incur considerable expenses for their treatment besides they are required to be married in near future. This fact is revealed from the representations of the petitioner and it is quite natural that any person at this stage would not be able to devote full attention to his duties properly because he was mentally disturbed due to disturbed family conditions. My attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the parties to the proceedings of the review committee for the period 1984-85 to 1988-89 i. e. the period of four years. It will be pertinent to refer to the proceedings of the review committee for the aforesaid period:- Year Remarks of Coy Commander Remarks of Comdt. 1984-85 An average NK. He is highly dis- turbed due to continuous illness of his children, except short duration I agree normal duty, he can not be as- Sd/-9/3 signed to any time consuming job. Comdt. GC, Work and conduct satisfactory. CRPF Sd/-4/4/85 N/delhi-72 (A-B. Dobhal Dy. SP) 1985-86 An average NK. He is deeply disturbed mainly on account of hisfamily troubles. However, during I agree this period his work and conduct Sd/-6/3/86 was satisfactory. Addl. DIGP, GC Sd/-12/3/86 CRPF N/delhi-72. Coy Commander (HQ) GC. CRPF N/delhi-72 1986-87 An average HC. He is deeply men- tally disturbed. Does not under- Mentally not sound stand task easily. Conduct just and can be satisfactory, indisplined. Sd/-9/5/87 Sd/-12/3/87 Addl. DIGP Coy Commander (HQ) GC, CRPF GC, CRPF N/delhi-72 New Delhi-72 He has met with D. G. directly on 11/3/83 in his chamber for donation to construct an house. Sd/-20/3/87 Addl. He is deeply men- tally disturbed. Does not under- Mentally not sound stand task easily. Conduct just and can be satisfactory, indisplined. Sd/-9/5/87 Sd/-12/3/87 Addl. DIGP Coy Commander (HQ) GC, CRPF GC, CRPF N/delhi-72 New Delhi-72 He has met with D. G. directly on 11/3/83 in his chamber for donation to construct an house. Sd/-20/3/87 Addl. DIGP, GC, CRPF New Delhi-72 1988-89 Mentally disturbed N. C. O. due to family affairs and is more concerned with that Work and conduct just satisfactory. I agree Sd/- Sd/-l/4/89 Commandant 68 BN Coy Commander CRPF N/delhi. C/68 Bn CRPF ( 5 ) IT is thus clear from the above that the work and conduct of the petitioner during the aforesaid period of four years was found satisfac- tory by the Disciplinary Authority. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the Government of India Instructions (G. I. Cabnet Sectt. Deptt. of Personnel and Admn. Reforms Memo No. 35014/2/76 Estt. (A) dated 19th October, 1976) which reads as follows:- "it is once again impressed upon all authorities con- cerned that the review should be based on an assess- ment of the entire service record of a Government ser- vant, in an objective manner. Care should be taken to ensure that premature retirements are not ordered solely on grounds of specific acts of misconduct or misdemeanour but only on grounds of public interest with reference to the entire record of service of the officer concerned. " ( 7 ) ON this basis it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the overall performance of the petitioner during his entire service career has been found satisfactory by the Reviewing/ Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed under FR 56 (J) was not justified on the basis of confidential card for just one year i. e. 1. 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89 since overall performance should have been taken into account. ( 8 ) MR. Shali, learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in thematter of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1020 . 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89 since overall performance should have been taken into account. ( 8 ) MR. Shali, learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in thematter of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1020 . The ratio of the said decision is that the order of compulsory retirement has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Government or the Review Committee shall have to consider he entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The records to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. ( 9 ) ADVANCING his arguments on the ratio of the sad decision of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that no particular assessment for a particular period is to be taken into consideration but the entire assessment of the entire period of service and this was so done by the Review Committee in the present case, and therefore, the order of Compulsory retirement of the petitioner is justified. ( 10 ) THE case of the petitioner is based entirely on the ground of non- communication of the adverse entries relating to the aforesaid period before passing of the impugned order which has not only resulted in deprivation of a opportunity to make representation but has seriously jeopardised his defence in gross violation of principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner well in advance by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner would not have been deprived of opportunity of making a representa- tion against the said adverse entries which could not be done in the presented case. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner well in advance by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner would not have been deprived of opportunity of making a representa- tion against the said adverse entries which could not be done in the presented case. ( 11 ) IN this case what has happened is that the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed on 14th September, 1989 whereas the adverse remarks for the period from 1. 4. 88 to 31. 3. 89 were communicated to him on 18th September, 1989 i. e. four days after the passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of this the impugned order of compulsory retirement is deemed to have been withdrawn and the doctrine of waiver is attracted to the facts of the case. I am not inclined to accept this argument of the learned counsel in view of the fact that the order of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned after fully reviewing the case of the petitioner which is very clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the Review Committee recommended that the work and conduct of the petitioner be watched for one year and after that his case be reviewed again by a Reviewing Committee. The case of the petitioner was again reviewed in 1989 by the Reviewing Committee but the Reviewing Committee did not consider it suitable to retain the petitioner in service and recommended that the petitioner be retired from service as per rules. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has further argued that the representation made by the petitioner dated 1st October, 1989 was considered by the appropriate authority and was rejected after careful consideration of the entire material and it was thereafter found him not suitable to continue in service and had recommended his compulsory retirement under FR 56 (J ). ( 14 ) A reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. ( 14 ) A reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, 1987 (2) SCC 188 , wherein the Apex Court held that while considering the question of premature retirement it maybe desirable to make an overall assessment of the government servant record, but while doing that, more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. ( 15 ) LOOKING to the interest of justice and humantarian aspect of the matter, more particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has two grown up daughters both deaf and dumb and also that their treatment is going on, I am inclined to adopt compassionate approach to the matter. The petitioner was mentally disturbed though performing his duties satisfactorily, which is also revealed from the report of the Review Committee for the period from 1984-85 to 1988-89 and also the aspect that the petitioner had eleven months more to continue in service in order to complete the period of 28 years of service for being entitled to get full pensionary benefits if the petitioner was not made to retire on 14th September, 1989 i. e. eleven months before the intended date of retirement which was otherwise due in November, 1990. ( 16 ) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the remarks of the Review Committee that the petitioner was mentally disturbed N. C. O. due to family affairs, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice would be fully met if the impugned order dated 14th September, 1989 (it will not be desirable in the interests of the force to retain the petitioner in service he will not be able to perform his duties efficiently as is required in the interest of the Force) is modified. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is modified with the directions that it shall bedeemed to have become operative w. e. f. November, 1990 instead of 14th September, 1989. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of eleven months of service which he was falling short of and which he would have otherwise completed in November, 1990 thereby entitling him to the full pensionary benefits after completing 28 years of service. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of eleven months of service which he was falling short of and which he would have otherwise completed in November, 1990 thereby entitling him to the full pensionary benefits after completing 28 years of service. ( 18 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.