R. H. ZAIDI, J. In both these writ petitions, common question of law and fact are involved. Parties are also the same, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this Common judgment. 2. By means of this Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS)of 1993, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-1-1993 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the post of Lekhpal by the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation, Faizabad. Prayer for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for a direction la the respondents to allow the petitioner to work and pay his salary till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation, has also been made. Writ Petition No. 4633 (SS) of 1998 has been filed challenging the validity of order dated 18-11-1989 whereby petitioner was awarded minor punishment of permanent stoppage of one annual in crement. In the said petition, prayer for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary of the petitioner with effect from 26-4-1987 when he was suspended from service, has also been made. 3. The brief and relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid writ peti tions are that the petitioner was appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal in the year 1968. His services on the said post were con firmed in 1985. It was on 26-4-1987, the petitioner was suspended from service while he was posted at Shahzadpur Circle district Faizabad (Now Ambedkar Nagar) challenging the validity of the order of suspension he filed Writ Petition No. 1025 (SS) of. 1989, the said petition was deposed of finally by judgment and order dated 2-2-1989 by this Court, with the directions to the respondents to issue charge-sheet within the lime specified by this Court and to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously preferably within 3 months, failing which the suspension order was directed to be revoked. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner on 9-8-1989. Thereafter, another additional charge-sheet was served upon him on 23-9-1989. It was on 19-10-1989 that the petitioner submitted his explanation before the Consolidation Officer, Jalalpur district Ambedkar Nagar who was ap pointed as Enquiry Officer in this case. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner on 9-8-1989. Thereafter, another additional charge-sheet was served upon him on 23-9-1989. It was on 19-10-1989 that the petitioner submitted his explanation before the Consolidation Officer, Jalalpur district Ambedkar Nagar who was ap pointed as Enquiry Officer in this case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16-9-1989. Petitioner, thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 10891 (SS) of 1989 for issuance of the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to reinstate him with effect from 26-4- 1987, when he was placed under suspension, prayer for quashing the Enquiry Report was also made as the order dated 2-2-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 1025 (SS) of 1989 was not obeyed by the respondents. The petitioner also filed Contempt petition No. 1276 (C) of 1990. In the reply filed in the Contempt Case it was slated that in disciplinary proceedings final order was already passed and petitioner was reinstated. In the Writ Petition No. 19891 (SS) of 1989 also a counter-affidavit was filed in which it was slated that on 18-11 1989, the petitioner was reinstated and was permitted to resume his duties. It was also slated that regarding payment of salary for the period of suspension, a show cause notice was issued which the petitioner refused to accept. On 16-1- 1993, the petitioner was compulsorily relied from service allegedly in the public interest. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 1676 (SS) of 1993, referred to above. The Writ Petition No. 10891 (SS) of 1989 came up for hearing on 29-1-1996 and was deposed of with the observations that unless order dated 18-11-1989 is set aside, the petitioner was not entitled lo any relief. Challenging the validity of the order dated 29-1-1986, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 1991 (SB) of 1996. The said Special Appeal was finally disposed of on 17-4-1996 with the directions to (he petitioner to appear before the Respondent No. 3 and the said respondent was directed to make available the copy of the order dated 18-11-89. Challenging the validity of the order dated 29-1-1986, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 1991 (SB) of 1996. The said Special Appeal was finally disposed of on 17-4-1996 with the directions to (he petitioner to appear before the Respondent No. 3 and the said respondent was directed to make available the copy of the order dated 18-11-89. In compliance of the order passed by them Court, the petitioner appeared before Respondent No. 3 on 13-5-1996 and Respondent No. 3supplied the copy of the said order whereby one annual increment in the salary of the petitioner was per manently slopped and notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the censure entry be not awarded to him, was also issued. It was staled that after receipt of explanation of the petitioner, orders regarding payment of salary will be passed. Challenging the validity of the order dated 18-11-1989, petitioner filed a departmen tal appeal/representation on 9-8-19% and on the same dale also submitted his ex planation. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner was not disposed of, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4633 (SS) of 1998 for the above mentioned reliefs. 4. On behalf of respondents counter affidavits have been filed in the above noted writ petitions, in which material facts slated in the writ petitions have not been controverted. It has, however, been asserted that in the year 1987-88, while posted at Jalalpur petitioner was suspended. His integrity was also not certified. That in the year 1993 Meeting of Screening Committee was held which, after examining the service records recom mended for compulsory retirement of 34 Lekhpals, out of whom 20 were compulsorily retired. It has been asserted that order of retirement against the petitioner was passed in the public interest and in accordance with law, on the basis of the report of the screening committee. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner worked with utmost sincerity, honesty and with full devotion, he had unbkimishcd service record, was never awarded adverse entry, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to retire him from service before he attained the age of super annuation. The petitioner, according to him, had right to continue in service till he attained the age of retirement. The petitioner, according to him, had right to continue in service till he attained the age of retirement. Order of compulsory retirement, according to him, was violative to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as it amounted to an order of punishment. The said order having been passed without fol lowing the procedure prescribed under law, was liable to be quashed. According to him, even minor punishment of stoppage of increment permanently for one year could not be awarded to the petitioner. It was further urged that on the record, there was no material on the basis of which the competent authority formed opinion that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service. 6. On the other hand learned Stand ing Counsel supported the validity of im pugned order and submitted that the order passed by the competent authority retiring the petitioner compulsory from service. was based on relevant material on the record. The same was quite valid and en forceable in law. 7. 1 have considered rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner at tained the age of retirement i. e. 58 years during pendency of the present petition, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner for his reinstatement became otiose. The validity of impugned order is to be seen only with a view to judge as to whether the petitioner is entitled to his salary and other consequential benefits from the date he was compulsory retired till he attained the age of retirement. 9. The order of compulsory retire ment has been passed by competent authority in exercise of powers under Rule 56 of U. P. Fundamental Rules of Financial Hand Book, Volume 2, Part II to IV The relevant portion of said rule is extracted below :- "56 (a ). Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Govern ment servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service on the after the date of retirement on superannuation, with the sanction of the Government, on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances: Provided. . . He may be retained in service on the after the date of retirement on superannuation, with the sanction of the Government, on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances: Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. he must not be retained in service after that date. except in very special circumstances and with sanction of the Government. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (h), 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 any time after attaining the age of (forty five years) or after he was completed qualifying service for twenty years. (c ). notwithstanding: - (1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Govern ment servant to retire under clause (c) the ap pointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained, shall be con strued to excluded Iron; consideration - (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency may or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or sub stantive capacity or on ad hoc basis ; or (b) any entry against which a repre sentation is pending, provided that the repre sentation is also taken consideration along with the entry; or (c) any report of the Vigilance Estab lishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the Public interest. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " It is evident from aforesaid Rule that Government servant before he attains the age of retirement, can be compulsorily retired in the public interest after follow ing the procedure prescribed and in ac cordance with the said Rules. 10. Scope of the Rule 71 (a) of Orissa Service Code which is analogous to Rule 56 referred above, came lo be considered by Supreme Court in S. Rum Chandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 111. After considering the relevant decisions on the point, namely Shyam Lai v. State of U. P, AIR 1954 SC 369 , Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 , B. R. Chaddha v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70 , C. D. Ailawadi v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1004 , Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 SC 1368 , and Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020 , it was ruled by Supreme Court as under :- "9. It is thus, settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punish ment and the Government employee is entitled to draw all retrial 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 haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of ser vice and free from corruption and incom petence. 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 con tinuance is service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The en-lire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Govern ment or the Review Committee or the ap propriate 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 compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire ser vice 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 Govern ment 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 burden 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 ap propriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. Therefore, before exercising the power the competent ap propriate 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 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 inter fere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise power but the Court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as 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 mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the Government officer compulsorily from service. " Thus, the whole purpose of the rule is to weed out the worthless without the puni tive extremes covered by Article 31 1 of the Constitution. As the Administration is to be efficient, must not be manned by drones, do nothings, incompetents and worthies. 11. On the question of judicial scrutiny of an order of premature compul sory retirement it was ruled by Apex Court in MS. Bindra v. Union of India, is as under: "therefore, judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is passed on no evidence. " 12. In the present case it has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary and was not passed on any relevant material on record. The allegation of mala fide or bias have not been made against any body. 13. The impugned order of compul sory retirement has been passed on the basis of the report of the screening com mittee. As stated above, service record of several persons were screened by screen ing committee under the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The screening committee after going through the record submitted its report, a copy of which has been brought on the record as Annexure A-I to the writ petition No. 1676 (S/s) of 1993. The portion of the report which deals with the case of the petitioner is extracted below :- 14. The screening committee after going through the record submitted its report, a copy of which has been brought on the record as Annexure A-I to the writ petition No. 1676 (S/s) of 1993. The portion of the report which deals with the case of the petitioner is extracted below :- 14. The screening committee, as it is evident from the aforesaid report, recom mended premature retirement of the petitioner on the following grounds : (i) Suspension of the petitioner and non-certification of integrity in the year 1 987-88. (ii) Unauthorised absence from 5-9-92 to 13-9-92 and disobedience of transfer order dated 18-7-92. (iii) Ill-health. Entries from service record of the petitioner for the last 10 years have also been brought on record, a copy of which is contained in Annexure R-3 to the rejoinder-affidavit which are reproduced below :- Ten-years Remarks 1982-83 -Good 1 988-84 -x 1984-85 -Ordinary 1985 -86 -Good 1986-87 -Suspended w7-88 - In connection with manipulation in the records at Jalalpur Sehra suspended on 28-4-87. Integrity certified. 1988-89-Good 1989-90-No 1990-91 -Good IWl-92-Ciood Remarks :- On the basis of She entries work unsatisfactory. To retain him in service does not appear to he proper. 15. In view of the aforesaid report of the screening committee and the entries in the office record, if the appointing authority formed an opinion that it was not in the public interest to retain the petitioner in service,, the formation of the opinion cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any material on the record. 16. It is well-settled law that if the appointing authority bond fide forms opinion that it was not in the public inter est to retain a government servant in ser vice, the correctness of that opinion can not be challenged before the Courts. 17. This Court, as slated above, could scrutinize as to whether the decision was arbitrary or was based on no evidence but cannot sit as a Court of appeal and cannot substitute its own opinion. If, however, there is absolutely no material on record, formation of opinion could be termed as arbitrary and unreasonable and in that event this Court can interfere and upset the order of compulsory retirement. 18. If, however, there is absolutely no material on record, formation of opinion could be termed as arbitrary and unreasonable and in that event this Court can interfere and upset the order of compulsory retirement. 18. In the instant case, as stated above, there was more than sufficient material for the formation of opinion by the competent authority that it was not in the public interest to retain the petitioner in service, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. 19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to and relied upon the decision in Writ Petition No. 1472 (S/s) of 993 Habibulla v. State of U. P and others, decided on 17-8-93. In the said case, after scrutinizing the material on record it was held that there was no material on the record on the basis of which competent authority could form an opinion that it was not in the public interest to retain the petitioner in that service. On the other hand, it was found that work of the petitioner who was holding the post of peon in the office of Settlement Officer Consolidation, was not satisfactory in respect of service of the notices. Further, order of retirement of the petitioner was not passed on the ground that the petitioner has ceased lobe an effective and efficient employee and it was necessary 10 weed him out in public interest. It was also observed that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was given any opportunity to explain his posi tion regarding complaint received against him about discharge of his duties in the matter of service of notices. Thus, (he order of compulsory retirement was found to be penal in nature which attracted the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Con stitution of India. 20. The facts of that case are thus distinguishable from the last of the present case. Here, as noted above, there was more than sufficient material on the record to substantiate and support the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority for compulsorily retiring the petitioners from service. 21. In view of the aforesaid discus sion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 22. Here, as noted above, there was more than sufficient material on the record to substantiate and support the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority for compulsorily retiring the petitioners from service. 21. In view of the aforesaid discus sion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 22. The writ petition fails and is dis missed but without any order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed. .