ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-1-1998 passed by Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 527/94 whereby the Tribunal quashed the order dated 27th December, 1993 by which Rudra Pratap Singh was compulsorily retired from service. 2. The case called out and taken up in the revised cause- list. Counsel for the petitioner is present. Counsel for the respondents are not present. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner made two-fold submissions. Firstly, that even after person is promoted to a higher post can be proceeded for his delinquency committed during the period anterior to his promotion. Secondly, that the service record of the petitioner for last five years was considered and considering that record the power was exercised by the authority under Rule 42 (B) (1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the interference by the Tribunal with the order of compulsory retirement was bad, as the same was passed after seeing the performance/A.C.R. for the last five years. 4. So far as first submission is concerned, same does not arise in this case and, therefore, it is not necessary to dilate any more. For the second submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das [(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 331] wherein legal position was reiterated that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people who are of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking the decision to retire a government employee compulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record of the government servant including the latest reports. 5. The Tribunal has recorded finding in Paragraph 18 of the order which is quoted below : "18. Thus, we have seen the facts mentioned hereinabove, the applicant's entire service record was not considered, only 5 years' records were considered. 5. The Tribunal has recorded finding in Paragraph 18 of the order which is quoted below : "18. Thus, we have seen the facts mentioned hereinabove, the applicant's entire service record was not considered, only 5 years' records were considered. At the time of Screening, the records prior to his promotion in the year 1991, were also considered." In view of this finding the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him rather it lends support to the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal rightly struck down the order of compulsory retirement on the basis that the entire service record of the employee was not considered. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is sans merit and is accordingly rejected. In the circumstance that nobody has appeared for the respondents to oppose the petition, we make no order as to costs.