JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged an order of the learned Single Judge passed on 28.1.2000 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6475/90 and confirming the impugned judgment (Ann.14) dated 5.3.90 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (for short "Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal while dismissing appellant's appeal had declined to set aside an order dated 21.12.85 (Ann.10) retiring the appellant from services of the Transport Commissioner Rajasthan (respondent No.3) under Rule 244(2), Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1957 (sic Rajasthan Service Rules) (for brevity "RSR"). 2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was initially appointed on the pot of "Farrash" in the year 1955 in the Medical & Health Department and there are he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk on temporary basis on 14.9.1957. He was subsequently transferred to the Transport Department on 2.9.1959, and promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 26.12.1978 and then as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector w.e.f. 25.6.79 as per DPC's recommendations by order dated 24.5.83. However, the appellant was ultimately compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) RSR by the respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 21.12.85 (Ann.10) in public service and in lieu of three months prior notice, a bank draft for Rs. 4,365/- as pay & allowances for notice period was also annexed to the retirement order, against which the appellant preferred appeal No. 82/86 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 5.3.90 which was challenged in aforesaid writ petition but was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 28.1.2000. Hence, this special appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, in this special appeal at admission stage, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to successfully controvert the undisputed position inter alia (1) that a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments was imposed against the appellant on 7.8.1965, (2) that adverse remarks were put against him in his Annual Confidential Report for the years 1976-77 & 1981-82 and (3) that further penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against him on 20.6.80 in relation to the notice cum charge-sheet issued on 3.3.80 under Rule 17 of the RSR (CCA) Rules, 1958 (for short "CCA Rules") to which the appellant in his reply dated 23.3.80 admitted his mistake of having written Rs. 1212.50 p. as against current amount of Rs. 1212.50 p. as against current amount of Rs. 1312.50 p. in revenue book towards daily income of 28.12.78 and he also admitted to have deposited Rs. 100/- on 8.2.80 on account of shortfall which could have been deposited less daily income i.e. Rs. 1312.50 p. date 28.12.78 in the revenue book. On the basis of the aforesaid, charge sheet and admission in the reply of the appellant, the respondent No.3 imposed aforesaid penalty of stoppage of the grade increment without cumulative effect for the allegation of having misappropriation of revenue of 28.12.78 and kept Rs. 100/- with him till it was redeposited upon audit objection, 4. The case of the appellant as contended by his learned counsel Mr. Prahlad Singh is that though penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments by order dated 7.8.65 when he was LDC and whereafter since he was promoted as UDC on the recommendations of the DPC by order dated 24.5.83, therefore, such adversity of the aforesaid penalty imposed long back on 7.8.65 stood washed off by virtue of grant of higher promotion inasmuch as it could not be considered as adverse material so as to retire him compulsorily under Rule 244(2) RSR, and further more, the remarks put in his ACR for 1976-77 duly communicated to him by letter dated 27.11.78 being advisory in nature could not be described as adverse and form the basis for compulsorily retiring him from service, against him. Shri Prahlad Singh then contended that though adverse remarks made in ACR of the year 1981-82 was communicated on 16.7.83 but curiously enough despite representation having been made against it, no rejection has been communicated by the respondent authority inasmuch as subsequent adverse remarks made in ACR of the year 1982-83 admittedly having not been communicated to the appellant could never be taken into consideration for the impugned compulsory retirement against the appellant. 5. Much stress has been laid by Mr. 5. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant by vehemently contending that once the Departmental Promotion Committee having considered service record/dossier of the appellant including penalty of stoppage of increments (supra) vide orders dated 7.8.65 & 20.6.80 and adverse entries in his ACRs made in the years 1976-77, 1981-82, 1982-83, recommended the appellant and found him suitable for being promoted as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector by order dated 24.5.83 (Ann.2) and he was confirmed to the said post vide order dated 3.5.83, therefore, whatever the adverse material in his service record stood automatically washed off, thereby nothing remained adverse against him either prior to his promotion w.e.f. 24.5.83 and/or prior to confirmation upon promotional post i.e. 3.5.83, atleast subsequent thereto, so as to result in his compulsory retirement, as has rightly been pointed out by the Tribunal, itself, in its impugned judgment (Ann.14). 6. Having heard Mr. Prahlad Singh and considered his rival contentions and so also carefully perused the record including the impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, we find that there is a categorical finding on record having been arrived at by the Tribunal in its judgment that all adverse remarks or adversities in the shape of punishment imposed upon the appellant prior to his promotion as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector w.e.f. June 1979 stood washed off and therefore could not be taken into consideration for compulsorily retiring him under Rule 244(2) of the RSR and after his aforesaid promotion in six years from 1979, only one adverse remarks in ACR for the year 1981-82 was communicated to which the appellant submitted his representation for which the respondent department failed to establish that its rejection had ever been communicated to him. The Tribunal also arrived at the conclusion that though the respondent department in its reply submitted that there was also adverse remarks in ACR of the year 1982-83 but the same were never communicated to the appellant, hence such adversity could not be used against him for his compulsory retirement. Then the Tribunal concluded that the only adversity against the appellant was of a penalty of stoppage of one, grade increment without cumulative effect imposed on him in June 1980 and based on a charge sheet issued to him on 3.3.80 for the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. Then the Tribunal concluded that the only adversity against the appellant was of a penalty of stoppage of one, grade increment without cumulative effect imposed on him in June 1980 and based on a charge sheet issued to him on 3.3.80 for the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 100/- towards daily revenue of 28.12.78 which came to notice out of the audit objection made in February 1980. 7. However, the Tribunal found only one adversity as sufficient cause for compulsory retirement having been issued by the respondent department against the appellant, holding him dishonest person for having deliberately embezzled Rs. 100/- by making a wrong totalling and depositing less amount in the Treasury towards daily revenue of 28.12.1978. 8. The only controversy having arisen out of the circumstance (supra) is as to whether aforesaid adversity in service record of the appellant could be taken into consideration for compulsory retirement of the appellant irrespective of the fact that those adverse remarks stood washed off by virtue of intervering promotion or having not been communicated to him. 9. As regards the decision in (1) Ratan Lal Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1996 (8) SCC 735 ) cited by Shri Prahlad Singh, in our considered view, it was a case where limited question arose as to whether the power conferred by Rule 244(2) of the RSR was not to be exercised as per the policy of the Government in regard to non-gazetted employee vide circular dated 22.8.90. For all practical purposes the circular was treated as part of Rule 244(2) and in that circular dated 2.8.90 it was clarified that action under Rule 244(2) RSR was to be initiated in respect of Gazetted Government servant only. However, in the instant case, since the appellant had already been compulsorily retired way back in the year 1985, benefit of circular dated 23.4.90 followed by subsequent circular dated 22.8.90 referred to in Ratanlal's case (supra) whereby the Govt. treating those circulars ibid, as part of Rule 244(2) RSR, had decided to restrict its operation in respect of the Gazetted Government servants only, cannot be extended to the present appellant. Hence, in our view also, the ratio of decision in Ratanlal's case (supra) is not at all attracted and is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. Hence, in our view also, the ratio of decision in Ratanlal's case (supra) is not at all attracted and is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. In (2) K. Kondaswamy Vs. Union of India ( 1995(6) SCC 162 ) the Apex Court held that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal within Article 311 of the Constitution nor is it a punishment nor does it entail loss of retiral benefits nor is it stigmatic, because its object is public interest. The Apex Court further held that if the appropriate authority bona fide forms an opinion that in view of doubtful integrity it would not be desirable in public interest to retain the officer/employee concerned in service, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it on the ground that requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision. 11. In (3) State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh ( 1998 (4) SCC 92 ) the Apex Court categorically held that any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service and that the whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. 12. In (4) Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth (AIR 1994 SC 1961) a decision to retire the respondent was taken, which upon being challenged before the CAT was set aside on the sole ground holding that as the adverse remarks of 1985-86 & 1986-87 had not been communicated to the delinquent and as the earlier adverse remarks in connection with the integrity of the respondent stood eclipsed by the subsequent promotions, the authorities were not justified in terminating his services by way of compulsory retirement. The conclusion of the CAT was held to be not sustainable as the same run counter to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in (5) Baikuntha Nath & (6) CSN Murthy's cases ( 1992(2) SCC 299 & 1999 (2) SCC 317 ) 13. Having considered the ratio of aforesaid decisions (supra), we are of the considered opinion that since the controversy raised in the case at hand stand resolved by the dictum of law laid down in Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth (supra) the facts of which are quite similar to that in present facts & circumstances, it was not open to the appellant to have agitated this issue by way of writ petition before the learned Single Judge or now by way of appeal before us. Applying the ratio of decisions in Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth followed in State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh , we do not find any erroneousness approach adopted by the respondents in having passed the impugned order or any perversity or arbitrariness either in the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge & the Tribunal or in the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The respondent authority has considered the totality of the facts & circumstances and only thereafter formed the opinion to compulsorily retire the appellant in the public interest by invoking Rule 244(2), RSR and the opinion is based on material evidence of adverse remarks and imposition of penalty including uncommunicated adverse entries in the ACRs as well, and subjective satisfaction, because the record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the ACRs/character rolls, both favourable and adverse and irrespective of the fact that Govt. servant was promoted notwithstanding the adverse remarks. Consequently, we find no merit and substance in any of the contentions advanced by Shri Prahlad Singh.Accordingly, this special appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.Spl. Appeal Dismissed. *******