Petitioner was serving as Secretary to the Chairman NERMC Society (now RIMS). He was compulsorily retire from service in public interest by an order dated 8th March, 1991 purportedly in exercise of the power under FR 56 (j) with effect from the forenoon of 11.3.1991. The order was later modified to be effective from 1.4.1991. The impugned order reads : "Order by the Chairman Imphal, the 8th March, 1991 No.B/1044/83-MC. Whereas the Chairman, NERMC Society Manipur is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the Chairman, NERMC Society, Manipur hereby give notice to Shri L. Debenkumar Singh, Private Secretary to Chairman, NERMC Society, Manipur that he, having on attaining the age more than fifty five years shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 11.3.91 or from the date of service of this notice on him, whichever is later. Further, the Chairman, NERMC Society, Manipur is pleased to allow him to draw 3 (three) months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. By order and in the name of the Chairman. Sd/-(C.Das) North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, Manipur." 2. The aforesaid impugned order has been assailed in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The order impugned has been assailed on the ground that criteria and procedures regarding premature retirement of a Govt. servant has not been followed. In this connection, Mr. Y. Imo Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to me to clause (5) (a) and (b) of Instructions Regarding Premature Retirement of Central Government Servants at Appendix 10 of Swamy' s Pension Compilation incorporating CCS Pension Rules. Clause (5) reads: "(5) The rales relating to premature retirement should not be used : (a) to retire a Government servant on grounds of specific acts of misconduct, as a short-cut to initiating formal disciplinary proceeding; or (b) for reduction of surplus staff or as a measure of effecting general economy without following the rules and instructions relating to retirement." It has also been urged in ground No. (a) of paragraph 10 of the petition as under: "10. (a) There is not a single blemish in the service record of the petitioner and he has maintained an excellent service record throughout, and this fact can be verified by this Hon'ble Court by calling and scrutinising the service record of the petitioner. The exercise of power for compulsory retirement of an employee must be bonafide and promote public interest. Here, in the instant case, the said power has been exercised whimsically, capriciously and quite vindictively, for the petitioner's filing the said CR No. 176 of 1990 against the above respondents. In other words, the impugned order dated 8.3.91 issued by respondent No.3 is tained with malafide and at the same time it is violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is null and void." Mr. Y. Imo Singh has also contended that the petitioner has been made compulsory retired without constituting a Committee as enjoined in clause (2) of the criteria, procedures and guidelines. 5. FR 56 (j) read as under : "FR. 56 (j): Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice." The sole object of FR 56 is to get rid of the Government servant who is becoming deadwood. The order is made only to do away with the service of the employees who have lost their utilities, become useless and whose further continuance in service is considered not to be in public interest. 6. By now it is well settled principles of law that compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is a prerogative of the Govt. but such order should be based on materials and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the a authority. In absence of any malafide or arbitrariness, the order passed under FR 56 (j) is held to be valid, (see Union of India & others vs. Dulal Dutta, (1993) 2 SCC 179 ). 7. but such order should be based on materials and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the a authority. In absence of any malafide or arbitrariness, the order passed under FR 56 (j) is held to be valid, (see Union of India & others vs. Dulal Dutta, (1993) 2 SCC 179 ). 7. In Baikuntha Nath Das & another vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & another reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 it has been held : "The order of compulsory retirement 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 Govt. or the Review Committee shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of an performance during the later years. The record 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." In State of UP & another vs. Bihari Lal reported in AIR 1995 SC 1161 it has been held : "Entire service record should be considered before taking a decision to compulsorily retire a Govt. servant exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary that adverse remarks should be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorised as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the Govt. servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of office built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a Govt. servant. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of office built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a Govt. servant. The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expugned on appeal or revision/What is needed to be looked into is the bonafide decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any malafide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise, of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by the Court/Tribunal in exercise of its judicial review." In S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1995 SC 111 , the same view was taken. 8. In order to lift the veil, the Court has called for the records. Unfortunately .the character rolls and confidential report maintained by the Department have not been produced before the Court, however, relevant file pertaining to this case has been produced by Mr. BP Sahu in a sealed cover and the same has been perused. The only material available on record on the basis of which the petitioner has been compulsorily retire is Note No.48 at page 48 of the file bearing No. B/ 1044/83-MC (personal file of the petitioner). Note No.48 of the file is dated 21.2 91 which is reproduced below in extenso : "Note No.48 : Transfer of Sri DK Singh, PS to Hon'ble Chairman to Principal's Office was done vide order No.B/699/80-RMC dated 21.4.90 as his service were not very useful to Hon'ble Chairman vide his UO No. 1/32/90-CM/2 dated 17.3.90. More so, his service are absolutely not required in Principal's office. Further he has not been attending office most of the time. Therefore his pay was held up from January, 1991. In this office letter No.1/Misc/85-RMC dated 7.2.91 he was asked to produce his Matric Certificate in original as the date of birth recorded in his service book 1.3.35 is very doubtful since he must be more than 58 years by now. Therefore his pay was held up from January, 1991. In this office letter No.1/Misc/85-RMC dated 7.2.91 he was asked to produce his Matric Certificate in original as the date of birth recorded in his service book 1.3.35 is very doubtful since he must be more than 58 years by now. In reply to this letter, he said, the Matric Certificate is untraceable and he has to ask for it from the University which is nothing but a pretext to gain more time for service. Therefore in view of the above facts, it is recommended that he be given compulsory retirement with effect from 1st February, 1991. Sd/- 21.2.91 Admn. Officer." 9. A bare perusal of the note dated 21.2.91 which forms the materials on the basis of which the petitioner has been compulsorily retire by the authority would clearly show that the entire service records including the ACRs of the petitioner has not been considered before issuing the order making the petitioner compulsorily retired in public interest. From the aforesaid note, it appears the ground on which the petitioner has been made compulsorily retired are : (i) his service is not very useful to Hon'ble Chairman; (ii) service is not required in Principal's Office; (iii) he has been absenting himself from attending office most of the time; (iv) he was asked to produce Matric Certificate in original as his date of birth recorded in the service book is doubtful, but he did not submit the certificate as untraceable in order to gain more time for service. 10. The above circumstances appearing against the petitioner in Note No.48 are undoubtedly the circumstances which may lead the competent authority in initiating formal disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, instead of retiring him compulsorily. I am, therefore, of the view that there was no materials before the competent authority for compulsory retiring the petitioner from service at the time the impugned order is passed, but power has been exercised arbitrarily. The impugned order dated 8.3.91 being arbitrary is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. This left me to consider as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. Petitioner has now been superannuated wef 28.2.93, on attaining the age of supernnuation. He shall, therefore, be entitled to his back wages wef 1.4.91 to 28.2.1993. The impugned order dated 8.3.91 being arbitrary is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. This left me to consider as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. Petitioner has now been superannuated wef 28.2.93, on attaining the age of supernnuation. He shall, therefore, be entitled to his back wages wef 1.4.91 to 28.2.1993. Respondents are directed to pay the back wages of the petitioner and any unpaid salary within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order. If the payments are not made within the stipulated time, it shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment is due till the payment is made. 12. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. No costs.