O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 12. 3. 1996 passed by respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of district Jail, Meerut, compulsory retiring the petitioner from service. Annexure-6 to the writ petition, be quashed and the respondents, be commanded to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel. ( 4 ) THE petitioner Madan Mohan Lal Gupta was appointed as a Constable in Jail Department in the year 1959. His correct date of birth is 10. 9. 1941. At the relevant time, he was working as Jail warder (Bandi Rakshak) in District Jail, Muzaffarnagar. He was not found fit for promotion to the post of Chief Jail Warder (Mukhya Bandi Rakshak) and ultimately by order dated 12. 3. 1996 on the basis of the report of the Screening Committee, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by invoking the provisions of amended Fundamental Rule 56 (c; Chapter IV of the financial Hand Book Vol. II. Part II to IV, which provides as follows : " (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at the time after attaining the age of fifty years or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. " ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he has made direct allegations against the Superintendent of district Jail. Muzaffanagar and other authorities for not providing him the work which was being entrusted to other Jail Warders and the concerned authorities having felt annoyed and incensed on account of the complaint made against them, illegally passed the impugned order by way of punishment. ( 6 ) IT is also stated that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Superintendent of District jail, Muzaffarnagar while the impugned order has been passed by the Senior Superintendent, district Jail, Meerut, and. therefore. ( 6 ) IT is also stated that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Superintendent of District jail, Muzaffarnagar while the impugned order has been passed by the Senior Superintendent, district Jail, Meerut, and. therefore. the order passed by the authority not competent to do so is illegal and Invalid. ( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit the plea taken is that the petitioner has earned an adverse entry in the year 1991-92 and his official grading, (. e. , categorisation was bad. that he had grown weak and was not in a position to perform his duties. It is also alleged that the petitioner was not in a position to perform onerous duty. to control the Inmates of the Jail in the barracks and consequently looking to his condition, he was deputed to keep vigil by the side of the main wall of the Jail but even this light duty could not be performed by the petitioner as on Intermittent checking, he was found to be sitting here and there and inspite of warnings did not improve. The various entries made in the order book of the Superintendent of District Jail, Muzaffarnagar have been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner also denied the promotion by the Committee constituted for the purpose, as would be evident from the proceedings of the committee, Annexure-C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. Ultimately, the case of the petitioner was screened by the Screening Committee which was chaired by the Senior Superintendent of Jail. Meerut and the Superintendents of Bulandshahr and Muzaffamagar Jails, The Screening committee recommended for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner has been compulsory retired on insufficient grounds and only on the basis of single adverse entry in the year 1991-92. the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by way of punishment and therefore it cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Meerut is the appointing authority of the petitioner and. therefore. had the power and competence to compulsory retire the petitioner. ( 9 ) NOW the question is whether the order of compulsory retirement in the present case has been passed by way of punishment or it was the natural consequence of the fact that the petitioner has outlived his utility in the department. therefore. had the power and competence to compulsory retire the petitioner. ( 9 ) NOW the question is whether the order of compulsory retirement in the present case has been passed by way of punishment or it was the natural consequence of the fact that the petitioner has outlived his utility in the department. ( 10 ) THE provisions of compulsory retirement has been made with a view to get rid of those government servants whose efficiency has been impaired and who are considered to be a bad lot. Those who have become incorrigible and whose services are no longer useful for the department have to be weeded out in the public Interest. The power of compulsory retirement is exercisable in the public Interest and is beyond the pale of challenge if it has been exercised on some tangible and concrete material. public interest in relation of public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employee and in dispensing with the services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood or corrupt and dishonest. Therefore, the rule, as quoted above, contemplates premature/compulsory retirement of the inefficient, corrupt or dead-wood as the continuance of such employee is not likely to subserve the public interest. This aspect of the matter was dealt with by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . ( 11 ) BESIDES the above aspect, there is another side of the pip1 cture. Broadly speaking the termination of service is of three types-- (i) dismissal or removal from service of a permanent or temporary Government servant ; (ii) termination of the services of temporary Government servant, and (iii) compulsory retirement. In all these three cases, the services of a Government servant are brought to a pre-mature end. Dismissal or removal from service is always by way of punishment. Termination of the services of a temporary Government servant and compulsory retirement of a Government servant under the terms of the contract of service or under the relevant rules do not normally amount to punishment. But if an. order of such termination or compulsory retirement is made by way of punishment, it will amount to dismissal or removal from service and wilt attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. But if an. order of such termination or compulsory retirement is made by way of punishment, it will amount to dismissal or removal from service and wilt attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 1305 , the Supreme Court observed that its earlier decisions had laid down two tests for ascertaining whether a termination of service by compulsory retirement amounted to removal or dismissal and one of such tests was whether the order was made by way of punishment. When can such an order be held to have been made by way of punishment? The supreme Court has laid down that where the order by it self casts stigma on the Government servant and where the order deprives the Government Servant of an accrued benefit, an order of compulsory retirement would be treated as having been passed by way of punishment. In this connection, a reference may be made to the various decisions of the Supreme Court, namely. State of U. P. v. Modem Mohon Nagar, AIR 1966 SC 1260 and Smt. S, R. Venkatoraman v. Union of India and another, (1979) 2 SCC 491 ; State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, air 1967 SC 892 ; Moti Ram Deka and others v. General Manager, N. E. F. Railway and others. AIR 1964 SC 600 : State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089 ; Dry Mohan Singh chopra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948 . ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the past service antecedents of the petitioner have not been neat. The petitioner was earlier suspended and he was taken back on the job in July, 1995 on reinstatement. The petitioner was not promoted to the post of Chief Warder and was superseded for valid reasons as are contained in Annexure-C. A. 3, There is ample evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was having ill health and on account of extreme weakness, he was physically unable to perform his duties. The duty of the petitioner as Jail Warder was to keep a vigil and watch over the undertrials, accused and inmates of the Jail for at least 12 hours but the petitioner was not in a position to perform his duties even for four hours. The duty of the petitioner as Jail Warder was to keep a vigil and watch over the undertrials, accused and inmates of the Jail for at least 12 hours but the petitioner was not in a position to perform his duties even for four hours. He was not in a position to count the number of undertrials in the barracks. Consequently, he was put on a light charge to keep an eye on the main wall of the jail. He could not perform even this light duty and was censured on a number of occasions but he did not show any sign of Improvement. In this context, a reference may be made to the various entries made in the order book of the jail, relevant extract of which is annexure-C. A. 4. On 30. 8. 1995 the petitioner was administered a stern warning as he was found sitting at a particular place though he was required to move about by the side of the main wall of the jail. Similarly on 22. 9. 1995, 1. 10. 1995, 11. 10. 1995 and 2. 12. 1995, he was found to be negligent and careless in the performance of his duty to keep vigil over the main wall of the Jail as on random checking he was found seated at Post No. 6 or different places. The annual confidential remarks of the petitioner for the year 1991-92 (Annexure-C. A. 1) as said above, clearly incorporate the fact that the petitioner is not capable of performing any type of his duties. All these facts indicate that the petitioner has become a dead-wood for the department. ( 13 ) THE provision of compulsory retirement is resorted to get rid of all those Government servants, whose efficiency has been impaired and who are considered to be bad lot. The petitioner has become incorrigible and certainly his services were no longer useful for the department. It is a case where the petitioner has outlived his utility and. therefore, he was required to be weeded out by invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of the financial Hand Book, Volume II. Part II to IV. As a matter of fact, the retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest. On the other hand, the public interest is better served by getting rid of the petitioner who has grown weak, incompetent, inefficient and incorrigible. Part II to IV. As a matter of fact, the retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest. On the other hand, the public interest is better served by getting rid of the petitioner who has grown weak, incompetent, inefficient and incorrigible. ( 14 ) THE allegation that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired as the authorities were actuated by mala fide is not based on firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has unnecessarily made insinuations and vague allegations against his superiors with an avowed object to give fillip to the allegations in the present petition. The vague allegation of mala fide is not sustainable. ( 15 ) IN the result, I find that the petitioner has been rightly compulsorily retired from service and that the impugned order has not been passed by way of punishment. No interference in the matter is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. .