ORDER : This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 5-3-1997 (Annexure-P-8) by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service under Rules 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhind on 6-4-1960. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 11-7-1989. He was further promoted as Assistant Accountant on 9-6-1994. He was placed under suspension on 6-11-1996. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 17-12-1996 (Annexure-P-6). There were as many as 8 charges against him. The essential core of these charges was inefficiency and negligence. According to the first charge the petitioner did not act upon the letter dated 22-11-1995 of the Registrar of the High Court for about 8 months. Similarly as per Charge No. 2 the petitioner did not attend to another letter of the Registrar dated 8-5-1995 for more than a year. As per Charge No. 3 the petitioner did not send the requisite information to the Income Tax Office for about 5 months. It was found that a number of letters were pending with the petitioner which were unattended. A list of pending items with the petitioner was prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 18-1-1997 and that is Annexure-P-7. 3. The District and Sessions Judge sent a detailed report dated 5-12-1996 (Annexure-R-1) to the Registrar of the High Court showing therein the inefficiency and dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioner. He recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It was considered on the administrative side of the High Court and the permission for compulsory retirement of the petitioner was granted. The note-sheet dated 17-2-1997 recorded by the High Court shows that the proposal for compulsory retirement of the petitioner was approved by the Chief Justice. Thereafter the impugned order dated 5-3-1997 was passed. 4. The petitioner's case is that he could not be retired under F. R. 56(j) during the pendency of the departmental enquiry against him and according to him, the impugned order amounts to punitive action against him and it is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter the impugned order dated 5-3-1997 was passed. 4. The petitioner's case is that he could not be retired under F. R. 56(j) during the pendency of the departmental enquiry against him and according to him, the impugned order amounts to punitive action against him and it is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that the action of his compulsory retirement is not based on adequate material. It is pointed out that he was promoted as Assistant Accountant on 9-6-1994 and, therefore, he should not be held guilty for inefficiency and dereliction of duties in the year 1996. It is also submitted by him that the un-communicated confidential reports could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of compulsory retirement. 5. The respondents' case is that the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner were assessed by the District and Sessions Judge after the petitioner completed 55 years of age and it was found that he was not fit to be retained in service in public interest. It is submitted that the confidential reports of the petitioner were adverse for 7 years. The latest confidential report of the year 1995 recorded that a large amount of work is pending with the petitioner, he has failed to send revised expenditure statements for the period from April, 1994 to October, 1994, he has also failed to send monthly statements and D. C. Bills, he is unable to understand the importance of official business in order to fix the priority and he is in the habit of leaving head-quarter without permission. It is also recorded that the petitioner lacks in integrity and devotion. In this year the petitioner was rated below average. The opinion of the District Judge was accepted by the High Court on the administrative side and it was found that there was enough material to justify retirement of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for both the sides have been heard. Two-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner - (a) the impugned order is of punitive nature and (b) there was not sufficient ground for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 7. 6. The learned counsel for both the sides have been heard. Two-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner - (a) the impugned order is of punitive nature and (b) there was not sufficient ground for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 7. The law relating to compulsory retirement of a Government servant has been summarised by this Court recently in Arun Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P., 2003 (3) MPLJ 90 as under :- "The decision to retire an officer or an employee compulsorily under or akin to the rules mentioned above (F. R. 56(j) and rule 42(1)(b) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1976) must be arrived at in bona fide exercise of the power in public interest. It should not be arbitrary or mala fide. The object of the rule is to "chop off the dead wood" or to bid farewell to inefficient or whose integrity is doubtful. An order of compulsory retirement under such a statutory rule is not punitive. It does not carry any stigma. It is passed after considering the relevant material and the entire service record. More importance is attached to the latest confidential reports or other record. The adverse remarks prior to promotion or confirmation do not become entirely irrelevant though the importance to be attached to such remarks depends upon the facts of each case. There should be an overall assessment or evaluation of the whole record." 8. In State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh, AIR 1998 SC 1661 it has been held by the Supreme Court that before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. 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. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. In Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 2 SCC 305 it has been reiterated that there are service rules, such as F. R. 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with loss of retrial benefits. More appropriately, it is like premature retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government servant shall be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retrial benefits. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bona fide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being mala fide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The object of such compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the government servant but to weed out the worthless who have lost their utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or promoting stagnation. The country needs speed, sensitivity, probity, non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity which can be achieved by eliminating the dead wood, the paperlogged and callous. 9. Again in State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 it is stated that the law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus : (i) Whenever the service of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken not of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact is favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 10. Again in State of U. P. vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR 2002 SC 1345 it has been held that if the conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the Government has under FR 56(c) read with Expln. (2) an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The Government's right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to find out whether a government servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll that the Government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not. 11. In the present case the entire service record of the petitioner has been considered by the District and Sessions Judge and also by the High Court on the administrative side. It has been concluded that the petitioners is inefficient in his work and grossly negligent in attending to his duties. 11. In the present case the entire service record of the petitioner has been considered by the District and Sessions Judge and also by the High Court on the administrative side. It has been concluded that the petitioners is inefficient in his work and grossly negligent in attending to his duties. As pointed out the latest confidential report for the year 1995 demonstrated that the petitioner was in the habit of shirking from his work and he was not attending to even the important instructions issued by the Registrar of the High Court. He was not submitting periodical statements. He was insincere and he lacked devotion to duty. Therefore the decision to retire the petitioner was arrived at in bona fide exercise of the power under F. R. 56 in public interest. The action cannot be said to arbitrary or mala fide. The petitioner had really become a "dead wood" and he could not be retained in service after 55 years of age. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily under F. R. 56 could not be taken during the pendency of the departmental enquiry and according to him this enquiry should have been carried to its logical conclusion so that the petitioner could prove his innocence. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Ishwar Chand Jain, AIR 1999 SC 1677 . In this decision in para 27 a reference has been made to two earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. vs. Abhai Kishore Masta, (1995)1 SCC 336 and Baikuntha Nath Dass vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992)2 SCC 299 and it has been observed as under :- "it cannot be said as a matter of law nor can it be said as an invariable rule, that any and every order of compulsory retirement during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is necessarily penal. It may be or it may be not. It may be or it may be not. It is a matter to be decided on a verification of the relevant record or the material on which the order is based." In State of U. P. vs. A. K. Masta, (1995) 1 SCC 336 a reference has been made to a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260 and it has been held that it cannot be said merely because the order of compulsory retirement is made after the charges are communicated or during the pendency of disciplinary enquiry, it is penal in nature. 13. In the present case a perusal of the charge-sheet dated 17-12-1996 (Annexure-P-6) and the grounds of compulsory retirement given in the letter dated 5-12-1996 (Annexure-R-1) go to show that the inefficiency and dereliction of duty with which the petitioner was charged have been taken into consideration for arriving at the conclusion whether the petitioner should be compulsorily retired. In addition to the material contained in the charge-sheet the other material and grounds for compulsory retirement have also been considered. There cannot be a separate watertight compartment for taking disciplinary action and for arriving at a decision whether an employee deserves compulsory retirement. The same material may be the subject-matter of the both or either of the two actions. The decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily is based mainly on inefficiency and dereliction of duties by the petitioner and some of the instances of inefficiency and dereliction of duties also form part of the charge-sheet. In such a situation the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily could be taken even during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. The order of compulsory retirement is not rendered illegal simply because it was passed during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. 14. As a matter of fact the petitioner should be happy that he has got retiral benefits because of the order of compulsory retirement only and if a punitive action had been taken against him, he would have been deprived of the retiral benefits. 14. As a matter of fact the petitioner should be happy that he has got retiral benefits because of the order of compulsory retirement only and if a punitive action had been taken against him, he would have been deprived of the retiral benefits. In this connection it has been observed by this Court in Arun Kumar Pandey's case as under :- "There were two powers in the armoury of the employer and if one which does not carry any stigma has been exercised that is more beneficial to the petitioner as he gets the retrial benefits. It cannot be argued that the employer must resort to the other weapon which is more lethal, of holding a departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct and then pass the punitive order. The choice is with employer. The exercise of the former power conferred by the statutory rule cannot on the facts of the case be said to be mala fide or arbitrary. It was bona fide and in public interest." 15. The judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement is permissible only on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness and perversity as held by the three-judge Bench in Baikuntha Nath Das's case. The order which has been passed in the present case cannot be said to be suffering from either of these three infirmities. This decision further lays down that even uncommunicated confidential reports can be relied upon for the purpose of arriving at the decision of compulsory retirement. That circumstance by itself cannot be the basis for interference. It is further laid down that the High Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court. 16. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, AIR 2002 SC 23 it has been made clear that averments made in the return or counter-affidavit to justify the termination or compulsory retirement cannot be used for holding that the action is punitive. 17. The petition is dismissed.