ORDER : S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 19-11-1991 dismissing CWP No. 14625 of 1991 filed by the appellant challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 22-8-1991 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The said rules enable compulsory retirement of a Class II Officer who has attained the age of 50 years, if he was appointed before the age of 35 years and at the age of 55 years if he was appointed after attaining the age of 35 years. 2. The appellant was born on 14-1-1935. He joined service on 16-11-1956 as Junior Engineer/Section Officer in PWD (B&R) Branch in the State of Punjab. On reorganisation of the State of Punjab, the appellant was allocated to the State of Haryana on 1-11-1966. He was appointed to Class II service on 6-6-1980, and in Class II service he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 8-11-1989 with effect from 1-4-1987. On 22-8-1991, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed which reads as under: "Whereas the Governor of Haryana is of the opinion that it is in public interest to retire Shri Satya Prakash Gupta, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Haryana, PWD (B&R) Branch, from service after his attaining the age of 56 years by giving him three months' notice; 2. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, the Governor of Haryana, in the public interest, hereby serves Shri Satya Prakash Gupta Sub-Divisional Engineer, with three months' notice. He will retire from Government service on the expiry of three months' period from the date of the receipt of this notice by him." 3. The writ petition filed by the appellant to challenge the said order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 19-11-1991. He will retire from Government service on the expiry of three months' period from the date of the receipt of this notice by him." 3. The writ petition filed by the appellant to challenge the said order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 19-11-1991. The High Court has held that the record of the appellant discloses sufficient material to hold that he was only an average officer and, therefore, although physically fit, he was barely competent to hold the post and that on the basis of such service record the order directing him to retire prematurely is perfectly justified. 4. We have also perused the service record of the appellant. During the period 1979 to 1990, the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were recorded for 10 years as no ACR was recorded in the year 1982-83. Out of these ACRs for 10 years the appellant was graded as "average" in the ACR for the period from 1-4-1979 to 21-8-1979 and in the ACRs for the years 1983-84, 1986-87 and 1987-88. In respect of other ACRs he was graded good. In addition, three punishments had been imposed on the appellant. One was a recorded warning on 6-1-1988 in respect of lapses in respect of the period 1976-77 to 1979-80. The other was a warning under order dated 28-12-1989 in respect of lapses for the period 1986-87. The third was a warning and recovery of Rs 254.50 under order dated 11-3-1991 in respect of lapses for the period 1983-84. 5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on the basis of the circular dated 16-8-1983 which prescribes that in respect of officials/officers extension beyond the age of 55 years will be granted in cases where more than 70% of the last 10 years' confidential reports are good or above. It is urged that the said circular has been quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by judgment dated 1-11-1989 in K.K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, (1990) 1 SLR 1 (P&H), and that in view of the said judgment of the High Court the said circular could not be relied upon for the purpose of compulsory retirement of the appellant. We, however, find that, apart from the said circular, the record of service of the appellant, as noticed earlier, indicates that the performance of the appellant has been graded as "average" and three punishments had been imposed on him. In C.D. Ailawadi v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 328 , this Court has upheld an order of compulsory retirement in respect of an employee who was graded as "average" in his confidential reports. Having regard to the service record of the appellant, the order for compulsory retirement of the appellant cannot be held to be vitiated so as to call for interference. 6. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.