U. L. BHATT, C. J. ( 1 ) FIRST respondent, is a District Co-operative Land Development bank Limited. Petitioner was appointed in the services of the bank in 1934 as a clerk. He received successive promotions and finally was promoted to the post of Assistant Branch Manager in 1967. Subsequently, the designation of the post was changed as Branch Manager. By order dated 30. 4. 1988, the bank retired him compulsorily on his completing 25 years of service and attaining 55 years of age. This order is now challenged along with the Rules which provide for compulsory retirement. ( 2 ) THERE is no reason to hold that the Rule enabling compulsory retirement is unconstitutional. See : Baikunth Nath Das and another v. Chief district Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1020 . As such, the challenge against the vires of the Rule must necessarily fail. ( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that he has been an honest and diligent officer through out his career and the order of compulsory retirement is not based on any relevant material. Return shows that he was punished in two departmental enquiries on very serious charge and he had received serious adverse for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and it was on consideration of his service record for the past several years that the action was taken. ( 4 ) THE first departmental enquiry ended on 25. 7. 1987 with imposition of punishmentof deduction of Rs. 10/- every month from his salary. The other D, B, led to a similsu order on 10. 10. 1985, The charges the first departmental enquiry related to fraud in the matter of disbursement of loans by showing an amount in the papers higher than the amount actually paid to the borrower, suppression of facts and bribery. The charges in the second departmental enquiry related to violation of the requirement of joint signature in the matter of disbursement of loans and violation of norms relating to disbursement entitled as also unauthorised interpolation in the letters sent by the head office. ( 5 ) THE A. C. R. for 1984-85 indicated that the petitioner was consistently violating and suppressing the order and directions of the superiors. The A. C. Rs. of 1985-86 showed equally serious remarks besides the remark that his integrity was doubtful. ( 5 ) THE A. C. R. for 1984-85 indicated that the petitioner was consistently violating and suppressing the order and directions of the superiors. The A. C. Rs. of 1985-86 showed equally serious remarks besides the remark that his integrity was doubtful. ( 6 ) IT was on a consideration of all these materials that the employer came to the conclusion that the petitiones's continuance in employment was not in public interest and in the interest of the Bank. This is not a case of absence of adequate materials in support of the decision of compulsory retirement. The materials referred to above are certainly relevant, adequate and are of a serious nature. If in these circumstances the employer took a decision that the petitioner's continuance in the service is not in the interest of the bank and he had become dead wood required to be weeded out, it cannot be said that the decision is vitiated. ( 7 ) WE find no ground to interfere. We dismiss the petition, but without costs. Security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .