JUDGMENT Petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 24.11.95 passed by Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps under provisions of Rule 42(1) (b) of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 after having completed 25 years continuous service. He assails this order in O.A.No. 99/96 before the State Administrative Tribunal on the ground that it was passed arbitrarily, in malaflde exercise of power and in disregard of his service record and the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject matter. It was also alleged that impugned order was not in public interest as it did not indicate that it was passed on the recommendation of the screening committee. It was further contended that the order passed by way of punishment on the basis of the pending departmental enquiries and without any consideration being accorded to his whole service record. All this was resisted by the respondents by asserting that petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in public interest after his case was recommended by the screening committee. It was also submitted that the committee had not taken the pending departmental enquiries in regard and had considered the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of law by looking at the petitioner's service record, more particularly the record of last five years as envisaged by government circular, dated 7.11.1985. On consideration of the matter tribunal examined the proceedings of the screening committee dated 14.2.1995 and found that it had made its recommendation only on the confidential service records of the petitioner, more particularly for the last five years from 1988-93 which disclosed that petitioner's working was not of 'good category'. He had also received one poor adverse remark for 1991 which was maintained after his representation against it was rejected. There was noting to show that the committee had taken into consideration departmental enquiries pending against petitioner. The tribunal after appreciation of rival contentions and in the light of various judgments of the Supreme Court referred by the parties concluded that petitioner's order of compulsory retirement was passed in accordance with law and in public interest and did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the tribunal and by and large on the same grounds he had taken before tribunal. Petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the tribunal and by and large on the same grounds he had taken before tribunal. According to his counsel Shri Nigam, impugned order of compulsory retirement was invalid and illegal and it did not specify that it was passed in public interest and that it was so passed on the recommendation of the screening committee. He also attacked the order on the ground that screening committee had not taken in regard the whole service record of the petitioner while recommending for his compulsory retirement but had done so on the basis of last five years record. He placed reliance on AIR 1995 SC 111 to argue that an adverse entry here or there in the confidential service record of the employee could not institute the sole basis for his compulsory retirement and thus examined, it would emerge that petitioner's record was throughout good barring one single entry in 1991 grading him (below average), which was recorded by respondent No.3 against him on extraneous consideration. It is well settled that compulsory retirement is not a punishment because the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, etc. All that was required in passing such an order was that the competant Authority in terms of Rules must form an opinion that it was in public interest to retire the employee compulsorily and the object was to chop off the dead wood from the service and to augment its efficiency. The formation of such opinion would depend upon a number of factors including examination of the employee's service record and it fell wholly within the domain of the Authority to derive satisfaction from all relevant and proximale factors and 10 form an opinion whether the employee deserved to be compulsorily retired from service. Such formation of opinion was not open to question save otherwise if it was shown to be perverse or a malafide exercise of power. The scope for judicial review was limited and the Courts had not competence to substitute the opinion for that of the Authority or to embark on a fishing expedition into governmental archives to trace the real reason for the action. The scope for judicial review was limited and the Courts had not competence to substitute the opinion for that of the Authority or to embark on a fishing expedition into governmental archives to trace the real reason for the action. It is true that examination of the service record of the employee proposed to be compulsority retired would constitute a crucial consideration but that was not the sole factor to be taken into account and it was for the employer to survey the whole gamot of employee's conduct, his reputation and other relevant factors related to his service. Therefore, an order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be merely vitiated on the plea that the Competent Authority had failed to look into the whole service record of the employee. Nor is it necessary that the order of compulsory retirement should satisfy and indicate that it was passed in public interest, so long as it transpires from the materials taken into consideration that it was so passed. It would be unnecessary to burden this judgment by quoting from various judgments of the Supreme Court on the point in issue. Suffice it to say that going by the reasoning of the tribunal and the satisfaction it had reached on examining the record impugned order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted and does not warrant any interference. We accordingly find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken and conclusions reached by the State Administrative Tribunal in the matter. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.