This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ben filed challenging the legality and validity of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The order is dated 11.4.94 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Personnel, Dispur and that order is Annexure 1 to the writ application which is quoted below : “Order by the Governor Dated Dispur, the 11th April, 1994 No. AAP 78/94/22 : In exercise of the powers conferred under FR 56 (b), the Governor of Assam hereby requires Shri Taranath Gogoi, a Member of the Assam Civil Service, who has already attained the age of 50 years, to retire from service with immediate effect, in public interest. A Bank Draft bearing No.MBC/28'181271' dated 11.4.1994 for Rs.22,374/-(Rupees twenty two thousand three hundred seventy four) being three months gross salary which is admissible to Shri Taranath Gogoi in lieu of 3 (three) months' notice as provided under FR 56 (b) is enclosed.” 2. FR 56 (b) is quoted below : “(b) Not withstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire a 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 after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.” 3. That the petitioner at the relevant time was the Managing Director, Assam Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. and before that he served as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department with effect from 2.8.91 to 25.11.92 and during this period, the petitioner issued a number of LOCs and the case of the petitioner is that he issued LOCs as per procedure and as per instruction from the Secretary and Minister of the Department and it is claimed by the petitioner that this LOCs issued by the petitioner were perfectly in accordance with the Rules and procedures and there was no defects in these LOCs. In paragraph 9 of the writ application it is stated as follows : “That the petitioner states that it appears that there were large-scale manipulations and forgery in the Veterinary Department which was widely reported in the press and the press reports pointed towards involvement of higher ups in the administration including political heavy weights. The anomalies came to be known as LOC scandal. There was pressure from opposition parties, for enquiries including an All-party Enquiry Committee. The Government of Assam, ultimately appointed a one man committee namely Rao Committee to go into the matter and to submit the report, but before the submission of the report and one eve of the holding of the State Assembly, fearing that the opposition might haul up the Government for inaction, the Government of Assam issued an order on 5.8.93 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension on the alleged involvement in the LOG scandal which the petitioner states was only an attempt to take the heat off from the actual culprits. The petitioner challenged the said suspension order in this Hon'ble Court being Civil Rule No.2199 of 1993 and the said order was quashed by the judgment and order dated 26.11.93. Be it mentioned herein that 2 other officers namely Dwipen Konwar and Ziauddin Ahmed were also placed under suspension on similar grounds and their suspension orders were also quashed by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. In paragraph 14 of the writ application it is stated as follows : “That after the suspension order was quashed the respondent issued a charge sheet on 13.1.94 framing some charges in respect of issuance of LOG. The petitioner is innocent and during his period no excess LOG were issued. He prayed for inspection of the documents and during inspection 21 photocopies of the LOG were made available to him out of which 19 LOC signatures were forged. On the basis of such forged LOC, amount were withdrawn by some other persons for which the petitioner cannot he held responsible. Further the respondents have failed to produce various important and relevant documents on the basis of which charges were framed. In fact the respondents failed to produce any valid supporting documents in respect of the charges in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner. Further the respondents have failed to produce various important and relevant documents on the basis of which charges were framed. In fact the respondents failed to produce any valid supporting documents in respect of the charges in spite of repeated demands made by the petitioner. Your petitioner states that the suspension and submission of the charge sheet was only an eye wash and the Government did not want to take the proceedings to the logical and as the Government was aware of the fact that the petitioner is innocent and there was no evidence against him which is also fortified by the fact the Government failed to produce the most important documents which purportedly established the complicity of the petitioner. By this time the Government was put a tight corner and to avoid exposure of the culprits, who are influential people, the Govt with malafide intention passed an order to compulsory retire the petitioner from service under FR 56 (b). Be it mentioned that the order was passed on 11.4.94 and bankers cheque was obtained on the same day and the notice was served or the petitioner on the same day too. With this stroke, the respondent absolved itself from the responsibility of completing the departmental proceeding.” 5. In paragraph 14 of the writ application it stated as follows : “That the petitioner states that there is no adverse remarks against the petitioner all through out his service career. It is apparent that Government took the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner as the petitioner is indicted by the one man Rao Committee and it is also apparent that Rao Committee has submitted report indicating the petitioner on the basis of forged LOCs for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible and this was to the full knowledge of the respondents as the petitioner challenged the LOCs wherein his signatures appeared as forged before the Enquiry Committee as well as at the time of inspection.” Hence the writ application. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 wherein the paragraphr5, 9 and 12 stated as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 7. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed wherein paragraph 9, 10 and 12 it is stated as Follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 8. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 wherein the paragraphr5, 9 and 12 stated as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 7. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed wherein paragraph 9, 10 and 12 it is stated as Follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 8. In Civil Rule No. 1578 of 1994, the petitioner was compulsorily retire with effect from 11.4.94 and the Annexure is the same as quoted above in other Civil Rule. The petitioner herein at the time of order was the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department with effect from 6.1.92. In paragraph 9,10, 11,12and 14 of the writ application, it is stated as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 9. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein paragraph 5,9,12,13,15 and 16 it is stated as follows: xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 10. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed wherein paragraph 9 it is stated as follows : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 11.1 have heard Shri NM Lahiri, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri DP Chaliha, learned Advocate for the respondents in both in Civil Rules. The record has been produced and the records shows as follows : A note dated 6.4.94 from the Secretary, Personnel which is quoted below: “Chef Secretary may kindly consider referring to the verbal instruction issued for undertaking a screening with reference to FR 56 (b) of the officers indicated in the Rao Committee Report on Veterinary LOG scandal. In respect of Personnel Department the officers so indicated are (1) Shri Taranath Gogoi, ACS, (2) Shri Jiauddin Ahmed, ACS and (3) Shri Dwipen Konwar, ACS. Relevant particulars of the three officers are given at page 3/N. Copies of departmental proceedings with charges and statement of allegations are also placed in the file. The screening of these officers come under the purview of the committee indicated at portion marked 'A' of page Ic ie SL 5c.” 12. Thereafter, there was an office memorandum dated 6th April, 1994 regarding review of the cases under FR 56 (b). The screening of these officers come under the purview of the committee indicated at portion marked 'A' of page Ic ie SL 5c.” 12. Thereafter, there was an office memorandum dated 6th April, 1994 regarding review of the cases under FR 56 (b). That is quoted below : “Procedures have been laid down by the State Government with reference to FR 56 (b) and by the Central Government under the relevant rules relating to All India Service, for screening of officers after attaining a particular age or completing a particular period of service to weed out from administration those officers who have outlived their utility or who are of doubtful integrity. Screening Committee for this purpose have been constituted for Secretaries not belonging to All India Services and Heads/Additional Heads of Departments vide OM No. APP. 156.88.13 of 29.9.1988 (copy enclosed). Another Screening Committee has also been constituted for officers below the rank of Additional Heads of Departments who do not belong to All India Services vide OM No. APP. 156/88/PI/3 of 4.4.1994 (copy enclosed). But no such Committee has been constituted for the Non Gazetted/Technical Non Technical staff of the District administration. Government, after careful consideration have decided that regular screening should be made in respect of those Non-Gazetted Technical/Non-Technical staff of the District Administration who have attained 50 years of age or have rendered 25 years of service and have outlived their utility or who are of doubtful integrity, with a view to weeding out from administration. For this purpose, a Screening Committee is constituted as, outlived below. The Committee shall do screening normally twice in a year in January and July. The Department/Office concerned shall place the cases of staff under their control due for review before the Screening Committee which shall do the screening with reference to FR 56 (b) after going through the service records and other relevant information in respect of Technical and Non-Technical Non-Gazetted staff of the District Administration and submit its report to the concerned appointing authorities for taking appropriate action. Composition of the Committee 1. Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District - Chairman 2. District Head of Office of the concerned Department - Member 3. A representative of the Personnel Department be nominated by the Secretary, Personnel Department - Member Sd/- Niranjan Ghose Secretary to the Government of Assam Personnel, etc. Department, Dispur.” 13. Composition of the Committee 1. Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District - Chairman 2. District Head of Office of the concerned Department - Member 3. A representative of the Personnel Department be nominated by the Secretary, Personnel Department - Member Sd/- Niranjan Ghose Secretary to the Government of Assam Personnel, etc. Department, Dispur.” 13. There was an amendment subsequently and that is quoted below : “ Office Memorandum Date Dispur, the 6th April, 1994 Separate Screening Committee have been constituted for screening of officer/ staff of different categories, who have outlived their utility or who are of doubtful integrity, with a view to weeding out from administration vide OM No.APP.156/ 88/13 of 29.9.1988. OMNo.APP.156/88/Pt/3 of 4.4.94 andOMNo.APP.156/88/ Pt/4 of 6.4.94. In partial modification of the aforesaid office memorandum, Government have decided that the screening of the officers borne in Assam Civil Service/Assam Forest Service/Assam Police Service and officers of the rank of Under Secretary and above borne in Assam Secretariat Services will come under the purview of the Screening Committee comprised of : 1. Chief Secretary, Assam - Chairman 2. Secretary, Judicial - Member 3. Secretary of the Department concerned - Member The Committee will follow the same procedure as outlived in earlier office memorandum. Sd/- Niranjan Ghose Secretary to the Government of Assam. 14. The Committee thereafter met on 8.4.94 and the report of the Committee is as follows : “Minutes of the Meeting of the Screening Committee constituted by the State Government in the Department of Personnel vide OM No.APP. 156/88/8, dated 6.4.94 read with APP/156/88/13, dated 29.9.88, held on April 8, 1994 at 4 PM in the Office Chamber of the Chief Secretary. Present: 1. Shri HN Das, IAS, Chief Secretary, Assam - Chairman 2. Shri B. Chutia, Secretary Judicial Department - Member 3. Shri Niranjan Ghose, IAS, Secretary, Personnel Department - Member The Committee took into consideration the cases of officers of the Assam Civil Service below the rank of Secretary, who were indicated in the report of the KS Rao Committee on the LOC scandal of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The names of these officers and their date of birth and date of joining Government service/Assam Civil Service are mentioned below : Name of Officer Date of birth Date of joining Govt. Service 1. Shri Taranath Gogoi, ACS 1.7.39 August, 1965 2. The names of these officers and their date of birth and date of joining Government service/Assam Civil Service are mentioned below : Name of Officer Date of birth Date of joining Govt. Service 1. Shri Taranath Gogoi, ACS 1.7.39 August, 1965 2. Shri Dwipen Konwar, ACS 1.3.44 September, 1970 The Committee noted that the above two officers have crossed the age of fifty years irrespectively of their period of service in the Government. The Committee perused the records made available by the department in respect of the above mentioned two officers and has reason to view that these two officers have indulged in serious malpractices in undertaking fraudulent transactions constituting the LOC scandal of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department and were indicated in the report of the KS Rao Committee constituted to enquire into the said LOC scandal. The Committee is also convinced that the officers have substantially contributed in bringing disrepute to the Government with their fraudulent actions and doubtful integrity. The Committee, therefore, is of the opinion that the above mentioned two officers both outlived their utility and are of doubtful integrity and their continuance in Government service any further would be detrimental to public interest. In consideration of what has been stated above, the Committee recommends that the above mentioned two officers, namely, (1) Shri Taranath Gogoi, ACS and (2) Shri Dwipen Konwar, ACS, being of doubtful integrity and having outlived their utility for continuance in Government service in public interest, may be treated to retire as provided under FR 56 (b).” 15. After receipt of the report of the Committee the order under FR 56 (b) impugned herein was issued. The power of the authority to retire a Govt servant compulsorily came up for considerations before the Apex Court of the land in a number of cases and the law that has emerged is that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Govt 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 and that power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule and one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one and that power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule and 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 baonfidely forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot challenged before Courts. The only grounds on which these actions can be challegned is that the requisite opinion has not been formed or that the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary action. The Govt in forming the opinion may feel that in certain key post public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. The Govt has the power to give a better shape to its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those whose opinion should not be there in public interest. Merely saying that the order is malafide is not sufficient. Sufficient materials must be placed before the Court to establish these allegations of malafide, whether or not the retirement of the person was in the public interest is a matter for the authority to consider and that generally cannot be challenged in a writ application. 116. The authority must from the requisite opinion, not subjective but objective and bonafide passed on relevant materials. The requisite opinion is that the retirement is in the public interest, not personal, political or other interest but sc iely governed by the interest of public service. The right to retire is challenged and its validity being not supported by public interest, the State must disclose the material so that the Court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any materials, which a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law is sufficient to sustain the grounds of public interest justifying compulsory retirement of the public servant. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that or the administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review, well settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligation. The Court is confined to an examination of the materials merely to see whether rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary for public interest. The Court is confined to an examination of the materials merely to see whether rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary for public interest. An appropriate authority not the Court makes the decision but even so a caveat is necessary to avoid misuse (see AIR 1981 SC 70 BR Chadha vs. Union of India). 17. Even if an order of compulsory retirement is caused without making any imputation against the Govt servant who is directed to compulsorily retire from service, the Court if challenged in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on misconduct of the Govt servant or the order has been made bonafide without the oblique or extraneous purpose. Mere form of the order in such case cannot bar the Court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the concerned Govt servant but at the same time the law was enunciated by the Supreme Court in IM Saxena vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1264 that where an order require a Govt servant to retire compulsorily contains expressed words from which a stigma can be inferred that an order will amount to removal within the meaning of Article 311 but where there are no express words in the order itself which would throw a stigma on the Govt order, the Court cannot delve in the secret files to discover whether some amount of stigma is-there. The report of the Scrutiny Committee quoted above in the instant case certain stigma has been cast on the officers but in the impugned order it does not find place. 18. In (1992) 2 SCC 299 (Baikuntha Nath Das & another vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & another) the Supreme Court laid down the law as follows : “The following principles emerge from the above discussions : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of 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 (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.” 19. In (1993) 2 SCC 179 (Union of India & others vs. Dulal Dutt) the Supreme Court pointed out as follows : “This Court, has been repeatedly emphasising right from the case RL Butail vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. JN Sinha that an order of a compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government.” 20. On the basis of the law laid down in the case of BN Das, I find that this order of compulsory retirement of these two officers were passed by the authority on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire these two officers compulsorily. I find from the materials that the order was passed on subjective satisfaction of the authority. The order which was passed is not malafide. It was based on evidence and it was not arbitrary and perverse. 21. In AIR 1995 SC 111 (S. Ramchandra Raju vs. State of Orissa), the Supreme Court after considering the earlier cases has pointed out in paragraph 8 and 9 inter alia as follows : “8.... The order which was passed is not malafide. It was based on evidence and it was not arbitrary and perverse. 21. In AIR 1995 SC 111 (S. Ramchandra Raju vs. State of Orissa), the Supreme Court after considering the earlier cases has pointed out in paragraph 8 and 9 inter alia as follows : “8.... Though the Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is malafide or passed on no evidence or that it is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given materials in short, if it is found to be a perverse order, the remedy under Article 226 is an important safeguard, since the remedy is an effective check against arbitrary, malafide or perverse actions. 9. It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the Government employee is entitled to draw all retire benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a hunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential report maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the Government should form the opinion that the Government officer needs to be compulsory retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer. Therefore, the entire service record more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evolution of the entire record of service if the Government or the Governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the Court may not interfere with the exercise of such bonafide exercise of power but the Court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a Court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by malafide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the Government officer compulsorily from service.” 22. Accordingly, I find that there is no merit in these two writ applications and they are dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.