JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who was compulsorily retired vide order dated August 16, 1991 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (in short 1951 Rules), after unsuccessful appeal before the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) has approached this court for setting aside the aforequoted order of compulsory retirement as well as the order dated February 29, 1996 of the learned Tribunal. 2. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the material available on record dismissed the appeal and thus committed illegality. The petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired upon those facts which were not conclusively established. The set of circumstances, which culminated into communication of adverse remarks for the year 1984-85 and upon which the enquiry was also initiated and the same was pending on August 16, 1991, could not have been taken into consideration and made basis to pass the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The appraisal of the petitioner's performance during the year 1976-77 resulted in communication of adverse entry, upon which the enquiry was also conducted. In the said enquiry the petitioner was initially inflicted with the penalty but on review being filed the punishment order was quashed washing off the effect of adverse entry as well as the punishment. The adverse remarks which were communicated for the year 1977-78 and 81-82 can in no way classify or describe as having declared any Govt. servant as inefficient or a person with doubtful integrity. The said adverse entry being minor in nature cannot be as per settled position of law, used as a basis for compulsory retiring the Government servant. The service record which clearly establishes that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner, except the adverse entry of 1984-85 upon which the decision was awaited on August 16, 1991. For last five years of service, preceding the date of compulsory retirement, since there was nothing adverse, the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. For last five years of service, preceding the date of compulsory retirement, since there was nothing adverse, the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The petitioner has further pleaded that the learned Tribunal failed in exercising its jurisdiction by not taking adverse inference against the respondent who suppressed major portion of his service record by not producing his annual performance appraisal reports right from 1985-86 to 1990-91 except of the year 1988-89 in which the performance of the petitioner was held satisfactory. The respondents failed in providing any explanation upon the plea of discrimination by which the petitioner highlighted about Shri Raghuveer Singh I, Raghuveer II, H.L. Singhal and R.L. Tyagi who were also serving in his department and were possessing adverse remarks in their APA reports and were also penalised but still they were neither considered nor ordered to be compulsorily retired whereas the petitioner who was having two remarks of general nature and an enquiry pending was retired on the basis of such facts which were not conclusively established on the date of his retirement. 4. Reiterating the facts pleaded in the writ petition, learned counsel Mr. Ajay Rastogi placed reliance on Bainkuntha Nath Das and another vs. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another (1992) 2 SCC 299 , S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa (JT 1994 (5) SC 459) , Union of India vs. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik (1995) 6 SCC 442 , Narasingh Patnaik vs. State of Orissa (1996) 2 SCC 619 , State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 , Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar and others (1999) 3 SCC 396 , High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Ishwar Chand Jain and another (1999) 4 SCC 579 , Prabhodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2000) 5 SCC 630 , State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel (2001 AIR SCW 862) , State of U.P. and another vs. Lalsa Ram (2001 AIR SCW 881) , Ramekbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar and another (1990) 3 SCC 504 , State of U.P. and others vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (2002) 3 SCC 641 . 5. 5. Per contra, the respondent No.2 in its written statement averred that the adverse remarks in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1976-77 related to poor output, poor organisation control, poor temperament, poor capacity of handling people and poor over all performance. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was held and the petitioner was punished with the penalty of stoppage of 2 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment was quashed under Rule 34 of CCA Rules. The respondent No. 2 further pleaded that in the APAR for the year 1984-85 the adverse remarks were regarding fraudulant drawal of T.A. In this matter the State Government initiated an enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and a penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for 2 years was imposed by the order dated November 14, 1995. The petitioner was compulsorily retired in view of the over all assessment of the service record in the public interest. 6. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh (1998) 4 SCC 92 , H.G. Venkatachaliaah Setty vs. Union of India and others (1997) 11 SCC 366 ) and Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and another ( 2000 (3) RLR 850 =2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) page 1) . 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. Baikunth Nath Dass vs. Chief District Medical Officer (supra) in the basic authority in regard to matters of compulsory retirement. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be interfered with by the High Court unless the High Court is satisfied that the following grounds exist: (a) Mala fide; (b) that it is based on no evidence; (c) it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, if it is found to be a perverse order. 8. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the order of compulsory retirement was the outcome of the mala fide exercise of powers by the concerned authority. No plea of mala fide has also been raised in the writ petition. 9. 8. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the order of compulsory retirement was the outcome of the mala fide exercise of powers by the concerned authority. No plea of mala fide has also been raised in the writ petition. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in Janaki Vallabh Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2000 (3) RLR 410= 2000(3) WLC 509) propounded thus : "In our opinion, what is to be considered in such matters is the examination of overall entries of the officer concerned and not an entry here and there. It may well be in some cases that inspite of satisfactory performance still the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as is the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by mere efficient and dynamic person. There is no denying of the fact that in all organisations there is great deal of dead wood and, more so in Government departments, which has to be replaced in public interest. Therefore, as pointed out by many Courts in India, it is purely a matter of subjective satisfaction of the High Court or the Reviewing Committee, as the case may be. In the instant case, the order of compulsory retirement is passed without casting any aspersion or attaching any stigma to the officer concerned. There cannot be any justification for interference by this court. Even termination of the services of a public servant would not amount to dismissal or removal but only when such termination is arrived at or imposed by way of punishment it is in contravention of the protection offered under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case the petitioner so compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during the service. Thus compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences. Therefore, in our view, compulsory retirement is not considered prima facie and per se as punishment and does not attract the provisions of Article 311." 10. In the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Bihari Lal (1994 Supp. Thus compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences. Therefore, in our view, compulsory retirement is not considered prima facie and per se as punishment and does not attract the provisions of Article 311." 10. In the case of State of U.P. and another vs. Bihari Lal (1994 Supp. (3) SCC 593) it was indicated that "The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the bona fide decision taken in the public interest of augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by the court/tribunal in exercise of its judicial review." 11. In H.G. Venkatachaliah Setty v. Union of India and others (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a solitary adverse remarks in regard to integrity, although proceeded by promotion could sustain the order of compulsory retirement. 12. In the instant case it is established on record that in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1984-85 the adverse remarks were regarding fraudulant drawal of T.A. The State Government initiated enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and a penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for 2 years was imposed vide order dated November 14, 1995. In my considered opinion fradulant drawal of T.A. relates to the doubtful integrity of the petitioner and on the basis of this solitary adverse remarks, the respondents were justified in passing the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order of compulsory retirement as well as the order of the learned Tribunal. The ratio indicated in all the authorities cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any way. 13. The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******