JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner while holding the post of Executive Manager (CTS) in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') was retired compulsorily vide order dated April 24, 2002. The petitioner seeks to quash the said order in the instant writ petition. 2. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1959) 1 SCC 529 , while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement indicated that public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while services of dishonest or corrupt or those who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with. In order to find out whether any Government servant has outlived his utility, and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of overall performance of that Government servant has to be taken. Performance of a Government servant is reflected in annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. If character roll is studded with adverse entries or overall categorisation of employee is poor and there is a material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such Government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of 'integrity'. this is missing, whole bundle would disperse. (Underlining is mine) 3. Bearing in mind the aforequoted principles if the reply of the RSRTC is considered, it is revealed that service record of the petitioner is studded with the following adverse entries:- (a) On account of loss caused to RSRTC by cancelling the profitable routes the petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 5, 1982. (b) The petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 21, 1982 for not furnishing the information regarding results of operation of buses. (c) The petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 21, 1982 again for not furnishing the required information to the General Manager. (d) The petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 15, 1983 for his delinquencies. (c) The petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 21, 1982 again for not furnishing the required information to the General Manager. (d) The petitioner was given recorded warning vide order dated January 15, 1983 for his delinquencies. (e) Vide order dated December 27, 1991 the petitioner was given recorded warning to be careful in future. (f) Vide orders dated November 22, 1993, May 6, 1995 and November 14, 1995 the petitioner was given recorded warning. (g) Vide order dated October 5, 1995 the petitioner was punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, the punishment was converted to that of 'Censure' in appeal. (h) Vide order dated July 30, 1996 the petitioner was punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect that too was converted to 'Censure' in appeal. (i) Vide order dated April 28, 1997 the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, that was converted to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effective in appeal. (j) Vide order dated August 21, 1991 the petitioner was given punishment of Censure. 4. From the entire material on record, I do not find any allegation of doubtful integrity against the petitioner. Undeniably the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager on the basis of recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated November 8, 1988. In the final seniority list of Assistant Divisional Managers the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.1. It also appears that the petitioner vide notice for demand of justice dated March 17, 2002, which was served through counsel, made request to RSRTC for considering the name of the petitioner to the post of Divisional Manager. 5. After having heard the rival submissions and on a close scrutiny of the reply of the respondent RSRTC as well as the material placed by the petitioner I am of the view that there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the petitioner had outlived his utility as a public servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood. There being no material before the Chairman RSRTC, in as much as there were no adverse remarks about the integrity of the petitioner in the service record at any time, no conclusion could be drawn that the petitioner was a fit person to be retired compulsorily. The petitioner at the time of passing the impugned order dated April 24, 2002 was holding the post of Executive Manager (CTS) but in the said order the petitioner was shown as Executive Manager (Traffic), the post that was held by Sh. Ghanshyam Gupta on April 24, 2002. There is no denial of this averment by the respondent RSRTC in its return. RSRTC also admitted in its return to have received the notice for demand of justice served by the petitioner just one month before the impugned order of compulsory retirement. It is thus established that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was punitive having been passed in a utter haste for a collateral purpose of the petitioner's immediate removal, rather than in public interest. 6. In the aforesaid premises, the order dated April 24, 2002 whereby the petitioner was retired compulsorily is set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service as if the order dated April 24, 2002 was never passed. 7. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above with costs.Petition allowed. *******