JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner viz, the State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment, dated 21.8.1991 passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal'), in Appeal No. 214/86 on the grounds inter-alia that the appellant-respondent was appointed as L.D.C. by the. Director Colonisation Rajasthan, Bikaner vide order, dated 31.8.1959 and he joined his duties on the said post w.e.f. 5.9.1959. The respondent was subsequently confirmed as L.D.C. by the department w.e.f. 1.3.1968, since the respondent was found fit and suitable to discharge his duties on the said post. It has further been contended that vide order, dated 11.9.1973 the respondent was promoted on the-post of U.D.C. in view of his satisfactory performance and good service record. 2. It is in view of the aforesaid position that the respondent was given promotion to the selection grade vide order, dated 31.5.1985 passed by the department. 3. However, to the surprise of the respondent an order was passed on 3.2.1986 by the petitioner directing premature retirement of the respondent and as a result of which he was relieved of his post w.e.f. 5.2.1986 which order was challenged in appeal before learned Tribunal at Jaipur by the appellant-respondent. 4. Learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide its order, dated 21.8.1991 set aside the impugned order, dated 3.2.1.986 issued by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner .compulsorily retiring the respondent from service and further directed that the appellant-respondent shall be deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits. 5. The petitioner, State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved by the foresaid order dated 21.8.1991 has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia . (a) because learned Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the respondent did not exhaust the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the Secretary Revenue (Colonisation Department) against the impugned order, dated 5.2.1986 and instead preferred an appeal before the said Tribunal which was not Maintainable. (b) because the ACRs. (a) because learned Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the respondent did not exhaust the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the Secretary Revenue (Colonisation Department) against the impugned order, dated 5.2.1986 and instead preferred an appeal before the said Tribunal which was not Maintainable. (b) because the ACRs. of the respondent for the years 1961-62, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1970-71, 1979-80 and 1984-85 contain adverse entries and the respondent remained under suspension in 1980-81 and 1981-82, the respondent was punished by withholding of 3 grade increments vide order, dated 13.7.1979, and he was further punished by stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect vide order, dated 20.4.81 and his 3 grade increments were with held vide order, dated 10.5.1982 and the adverse entries against the respondent are still in operation though it has not been disputed that the respondent has already submitted his clarification to the department by filing his representation against the adverse entries. (c) that the respondent was not given any selection grade promotion as the same was not prescribed in the rules. (d) because there was sufficient material against the respondent for arriving at the conclusion that his services deserve to be terminated in public interest. (e) that it has not been disputed that the respondent had completed his qualifying service of 25 years and hence his suitability for further retention was not considered by the screening committee under Rule 244(2) of the R.S.R. 6. During the course of hearing Shri Man Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the grounds inter-alia that the judgment of the learned Tribunal contains well reasoned findings which do not call for any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended by the learned counsel that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It was further contended by the learned counsel that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has imphatically placed reliance upon the proposition that in matters of compulsorily retiring a public servant from service, the appropriate authority should not travel beyond the service record of five years immediately preceding the date of passing such order under Rule 244(2) of the R.S.R. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the Government Circular dated 13.9.1985 para 5 of which reads as under : "The internal Screening Committee should prepare brief on the perusal of the entire service record of a Govt. Servant. However the Screening may ordinarily be confined to the preceding five years or to the period in the higher post, in case of promotion within the period of five years, where retirement is sought to be made for ineffectiveness. There is no such stipulation where the Government servant is to be retired on grounds of doubtful integrity and effectiveness in the job should be scrutinised specially by the Screening Committee." 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the adverse entries which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions were neither communicated to the respondent nor he was informed about the same and hence in absence of communication of the adverse entries and as a consequence of which the respondent was deprived of fair opportunity of making representation to the competent authority could not be made the basis of impugned order compulsorily retiring the respondent from service as the same was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair. play. He has further contended that the impugned order of compulsory retirement could not be passed against the respondent in view of the fact that there was a departmental enquiry pending against him under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules.' Hence when the enquiry itself had not been completed and in absence of any enquiry report, it was not proper for the competent authority to have passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the respondent from service as the same was not in bonafide exercise of power and it tant amounts to imposing major penalty in the garb of retirement. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments : Brij Mohan Chopra v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) ATLT 528 (SC) , Baldeoraj Chandhdha v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70 . H.C. Gargi v. State of Haryana, 1987 ATLT (SC) 81 , Jethmal v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 (1) SLR 68 , Bahadur Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 (2) SLR 617 , R.C. Malik v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SLR Delhi 139 (Delhi), Vaid Ganpatlal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) WLC (Raj.) 178 , Gurdayal Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, 1979 (1) SLR 805 , B.R. Kulkarni v. State of Gujarat, 1978 (2) SLR 682 and Chandmal Mittal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 LR 574 .In the matter of Brij Mohan v. State of Punjab (supra) while dealing with a case of compulsory retirement of a Government servant the apex court held as under "It would not be desirable to scrutinise the entire service record of an employee for premature retirement and premature retirement should not be ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the employee have been good" "In this view the Government's decision to retire the appellant prematurely in exercise of the power under Rule 3 is not sustainable in law" The apex court further held that the purpose and.object of premature or compulsory retirement of Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest or dead wood from the Govt. service. This right of the Government is well established which is generally exercised in accordance with relevant service Rules. The scope and ambit of exercise of this absolute power depends on the provisions of Rules and it is always subject to constitutional limitation.Likewise in the matter of Baldeoraj Chandha v. Union of India (supra) the apex court held that while scrutinising the service record of the delinquent it, is not desirable for the competent authority to scrutinise the entire service record if during the preceding five years the work and the conduct of the employee has been good.In the matter of H.C. Gargi v. State of Haryana (supra) the appellant who was an Excise and Taxation Officer, Haryana was directed to be compulsorily retired from service in public interest by the State of Haryana. The said employee challenged the impugned order in appeal before the apex court on the grounds inter-alia that when he was just on the break of retirement, the State Government directed his compulsory retirement under the relevant rules on the basis of two adverse entries made against him by the then Excise and Taxation Commissioner, while the representation against the adverse entries was pending before the competent authority, the State Govt. passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement and thereafter rejected his representation. In appeal preferred by the delinquent before the apex court against the impugned order of the High Court, it was held by the apex court 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 employee at the age of 57 years. There was really no justification for his compulsory retirement in public interest.In the matter of Jethmal v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the question which had arisen before this court for consideration was as to whether the order of compulsory retirement passed against the delinquent employee could be sustained particularly when the same was passed by the competent authority in violation of Rule 21=1(2) of the R.S.R. which reads as under : "Compulsory retirement after completion of 25 years of service (i) The Appointing Authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Government servant, by giving him at least three month's previous notice in writing, from service on the date on which he completed 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter : Provided that such Government servant may be retired from service forthwith, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim three months to pay and allowances in lieu of notice. (ii) The Government may publish the order of such retirement in Rajasthan .~ajpatra, and the Government servant shall be deemed to have retired on such publication if he has not been served with the retirement order earlier." Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid rule, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the pendency of the departmental enquiry against the respondent on the purported charge of alleged misconduct, the same could not be made the basis for compulsorily retiring the respondent from service before the conclusion of the said enquiry and the impugned order is thus not sustainable in law. In the above matter this court while setting aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement held that the said order was grossly unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same was passed not. only in violation of rule 244(2) of the RSR but also in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.In the matter of Bahadur Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the impugned order of compulsory retirement was assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the grounds inter-alia that in the background of pendency of charge-sheets, on the basis of which the enquiry was initiated and pending against the delinquent, it was held by this court that the order of compulsory retirement which was passed during the pendency of the enquiry, cannot be sustained as the same should be construed as "disguised dismissal" order and the true nature and character of the order of compulsory retirement is nothing to penal and punatic attracting Article 311(2) of the constitution of India and hence the said order deserves to he quashed and set aside. Likewise if any representation against such adverse remarks is pending, in that event also such adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration. Likewise if any representation against such adverse remarks is pending, in that event also such adverse remarks cannot be taken into consideration. It was further held that adverse entries prior ;o promotion stand washed off and the order of compulsory retirement in public interest cannot be made .,on the basis of such entries.In the matter of Gurdayal Singh Fuji v. State of Punjab (supra) the apex court held that uncommunicated adverse remarks in the confidential reports cannot be formed the basis for compulsorily retiring a public servant unless communicated to him and for which he should have a fair opportunity of making representation to the competent authority.Likewise in the matter of B.R. Kulkarni v. State of Gujarat (supra) the apex Court held that the impugned order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained, since the adverse remarks made in the confidential reports of the delinquent for the preceding years were not communicated to him and for which he was deprived of an opportunity to make representation against the same and hence the said adverse remarks which were not communicated, could not be utilised against him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also examined the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Prima-facie, I am in full agreement with the observations of the learned Tribunal and in my considered opinion the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the respondent from service dated 3.2.1986 passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner, petitioner No. 2, deserves to be quashed and set aside. I am further of the opinion that the findings recorded by the - learned Tribunal in its impugned order dated 21.8.1991 are well reasoned and in accordance with law and there is no perversity, illegality or impropriety committed by the learned Tribunal in recording its findings in favour of the respondent. 10. As a result of the above discussions, this writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order, dated 21.8.1991 passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly confirmed. Since the respondent has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of completion of 58 years w.e.f. 31.7.1993, the question of reinstatement in service does not arise as the same has become academic. Since the respondent has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation of completion of 58 years w.e.f. 31.7.1993, the question of reinstatement in service does not arise as the same has become academic. The intervening period between the date of compulsory retirement and the date of superannuation shall be deemed to be the period on actual continuous duty and the respondent will be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he had not been compulsorily retired. The respondent will further be entitled to the benefit of arrears of salary for the aforesaid period w.e.f. 3.2.1986 treating the respondent as on duty with all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules if not already paid to him. There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******