JUDGMENT : K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—Appellant while working as Field Officer of the Rubber Board was placed under suspension by the Chairman of the Rubber Board under Sub-rule(i)(e) of Rule 8 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 by order dated March 17, 1988. Following are the charges levelled against the appellant: Shri M.S. Suresh Babu, while functioning as Field Officer, Rubber Board Field Office, Vazhakulam during the period between June, 1985 and March, 1988, failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he disobeyed the orders/directions/instructions of his controlling officer/superiors in regard to work, conduct, submission of inspection reports and tour reports and unaulhorisedly absented himself from duty from December 1, 1987 to December 16, 1987 from January 1, 1988 to February 12, 1988 from February 17, 1988 to March 5, 1988 and from March 7, 1988 to March 15, 1988 in violation of the rules/orders in force. And that Shri Suresh Babu with ulterior motive to obtain illegal gratification from Shri Chacko Mam, applicant in PDA/MV/1998/87 called him to the Vazhakulam Field Office after inspecting the plantation and in pursuance thereof he received from Shri Chacko Mani a sum of Rs. 200/- in October, 1987. And that Shri Suresh Babu in order to cause undue hardship to rubber growers coming under the jurisdiction of Vazhakulam Field Office, failed to submit 107 inspection reports against specific directions/instructions and failed to hand over 410 number of cases/files while handing over the charge of the Field Office, Vazhakulam to Smt. Rosamma Paul, Jr. Field Officer on April 5, 1988. By his above acts, Shri M.S. Suresh Babu violated Rule 3 of the Rubber Board Employees Conduct Rules. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who found two of the three charges proved. 2. Report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It was provisionally decided to impose a punishment of removal of the appellant from service. Prior to that appellant was given an opportunity of being heard. He filed objections. Objections were considered by the first respondent who passed Ext. P. 19. First respondent found that the appellant deserves punishment of removal from service. However, taking into consideration all relevant facts and taking a lenient view it was decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the writ petition. P. 19. First respondent found that the appellant deserves punishment of removal from service. However, taking into consideration all relevant facts and taking a lenient view it was decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the writ petition. Learned single Judge after considering the entire matter found no merits in the case of the appellant and the writ petition was dismissed, against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Counsel for the appellant assailed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. According to the counsel there is no proper application of mind by the authorities. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer took note of irrelevant materials to conclude that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, relying upon the enquiry report submitted that there is sufficient materials in this case to impose punishment of removal of appellant from service, but taking a lenient view the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed. It is stated that the appellant is also getting pension. 5. We have gone through the enquiry report carefully. Before the Enquiry Officer as many as 79 documents were produced on the side of the management. Charges levelled against the appellant was that he was constantly and habitually disobeying office instructions, habitual absenteeism, delaying inspections, not submitting inspection reports etc. It was also noticed that he was irresponsible, disobedient and completely lacking in devotion to duty. After perusing the records Enquiry Officer found that while appellant was functioning as Field Officer during the period between June, 1985 and March 1988 he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from December 1, 1987 to December 16, 1987, from January 1, 1988 to February 12, 1988, February 7, 1988 to March 5, 1988 and from March 7, 1988 to March 15, 1988 in violation of the rules and orders. It was also noticed that he failed to submit 107 inspection reports against specific directions and instructions from the higher authorities. It was also found that he failed to hand over 410 number of case files while handing over the charge of the Field Office, Vazhakulam to Smt. Rosamma Paul. Sri Mathai John who raised complaint against the appellant was also examined as PW-2. It was also found that he failed to hand over 410 number of case files while handing over the charge of the Field Office, Vazhakulam to Smt. Rosamma Paul. Sri Mathai John who raised complaint against the appellant was also examined as PW-2. Evidence of PW1 was also not controverted by the petitioner in cross-examination. The documents coupled with the oral evidence adduced by PW1 and PW2 would conclusively prove the charges levelled against the appellant. 6. Petitioner has not raised any allegations of mala fide against the Officers. Supreme Court in Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Another, (1996) 5 SCC 103 , held object of compulsory retirement is to see that inefficient and corrupt persons are removed from service and authority is normally empowered with the power to impose compulsory retirement on his employee to improve efficiency of administration. In the instant case charges levelled against the appellant was that he failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, disobedience of orders/instructions of controlling officer/superiors in regard to work, conduct and attendance. As we have noticed the enquiry revealed that the appellant was in the habit of unauthorisedly absenting from duty which was corroborated by the documents produced. It was noticed he was absent from duty from December 1, 1987 to December 16, 1987, January 1, 1988 to February 12, 1988 and again from March 7, 1988 to March 15, 1988 without obtaining permission from the authorities. It was also noticed that he caused considerable hardship to Vazhakulam Field Office. He failed to submit 107 inspection reports against specific directions/instructions. He also failed to hand over 410 number of case files while handing over the charge of the Field Office. All those charges were found proved on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. In such circumstances this Court sitting in this jurisdiction is not justified in reappreciating the evidence which are supported by relevant materials. 7. Under such circumstances writ appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed.