R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 30. 04. 2002 passed by the executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-Ist, (U. P. Power Corporation Limited, budaun whereby in reference to U. P. State Electricity Board (Employees Service Retirement)Rules, 1975 as well as U. P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulation, 1975, as amended from time to time, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his date of birth is 15. 03. 1945 and he initially joined the service on 04. 04. 1996 as a Town Incharge in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity distribution Division, U. P. State Electricity Board, Badaun and was terminated on 31. 12. 1967. The termination order was adjudicated before different Courts including Industrial Tribunal, high Court and Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 14. 09. 1983 passed in civil Appeal No. 743 of 1981 (Hari Mohan Rastogi v. Labour Court and Ors.) allowed the petitioner in continuity of service with a direction for payment of arrears of salary. According to the petitioner, he has done satisfactory service and was never communicated any adverse remark or material against him and behind his back without any notice or show cause or opportunity of hearing the said order of compulsory retirement dated 30th April, 2002 was passed without recording any reason, more so, by way of punishment. ( 3 ) ACCORDING Sri Hari Mohan Rastogi, the petitioner in-person, the Executive Engineer has neither considered any of the documents of the service record or any of the entries in the service book or any material, as to his believe According to petitioner even the uncommunicated entries and complaints can not be taken into consideration for the purpose of compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Executive Engineer dated 30. 04. 2002 was passed without perusal of the documents pertaining to the petitioner, namely, the service record, character roll entries, complaints and the order dated 30. 04. 2002 is also not based on the analysis and comments of the screening committee as nothing has been mentioned therein. ( 4 ) COUNTER affidavit tiled by one Sri Chandra Prakash. Executive Engineer, Electricity distribution Division-I, U. P. Power Corporation Limited, Budaun, reveals that the screening committee has considered the case and has passed the order. 04. 2002 is also not based on the analysis and comments of the screening committee as nothing has been mentioned therein. ( 4 ) COUNTER affidavit tiled by one Sri Chandra Prakash. Executive Engineer, Electricity distribution Division-I, U. P. Power Corporation Limited, Budaun, reveals that the screening committee has considered the case and has passed the order. ( 5 ) THIS Court; by order dated 19. 08. 2003 wanted to know as to what wash the material before the screening committee including character roll, service record, entries made in the service book of the petitioner and what was the analysis made by the screening committee. This Court also wanted to see the original records pertaining to compulsory, retirement and complaints against the petitioner. As noted in the subsequent order dated 14. 01. 2003 by this Court a letter No. 2032 dated 01. 04. 2002 of Executive Engineer was produced, which indicated that the screening committee was constituted, whereby seven other persons along with the petitioner were compulsorily retired on 30th April, 2002. The work analysis chart of the persons retired has also been placed before this Court, however, the character roll entries recorded for each of the year, which was subject matter of the screening before the screening committee, have not been placed before the Court. It has not been specifically brought to the notice of the Court what materials were placed before the screening committee in view of the circular No. 611 dated 30. 07. 2000, enclosed as C. A.-1 with the counter affidavit issued under the provisions of Regulation 2-A of u. P. State Electricity Board (Retirement of Employees) Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter in short called regulation, 1975), winch reads as below:- "2-A. In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Boards servant to retire under Clause (b) the appointing authority or any authority to whom we appointing authority is subordinate may take into consideration any material relating to the efficiency and suitability of the Boards servant including Service Records, Annual Confidential Reports, any report of the Vigilance Establishment or any other Inquiry Report and other relevant material. " ( 6 ) WHEN the records said to have been placed before the screening committee were presented before this Court, the Court was surprised to know that the screening committee has not made any categorical finding about its subjective satisfaction or its perception in respect of the petitioner, therefore, it is difficult to know what material pertaining to the petitioner were perused by the screening committee, whereas, the screening committee was comprised of many of senior officers and the large number of complaints were said to be available in the records and file pertaining to the petitioner. It is worth to be noted that for about 20 years in the past the character roll entries pertaining to only for couple of years were on records. In these circumstances it is difficult to know how and what inferences could be derived by the screening committee from the character roll entries of the petitioner. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the character roll entry from 01. 04. 1999 to 25. 02. 2000 reveals that adverse remarks were made against the petitioner and large numbers of complaints were also available in the service book of the petitioner. According to the respondents, since the petitioners for many years had not regularly been serving and from transfer of each senior officials the character roll entries for every year could not be recorded regularly, therefore, on the available past character roll entries, inferences were derived presuming that for remaining years the petitioners performance was of same nature and the same limited character roll entries could be allowed to be treated applicable for all the years. ( 8 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties and available documents two aspects are to be considered, as under:- (i) When the character roll entries are recorded for on couple of years in the service record of an incumbent, will that limited character roll entries are treated to be sufficient for deriving inference for the service period of the petitioner of 10 years past? (ii) Whether the screening committee was under obligation to make its observations, comments in relation to its subjective satisfaction on the scrutiny of the character roll entries, complaints and other adverse materials available in the service record and personal files of the incumbent or only blanket decision of Screening Committee about the compulsory retirement without any comments is sufficient? (ii) Whether the screening committee was under obligation to make its observations, comments in relation to its subjective satisfaction on the scrutiny of the character roll entries, complaints and other adverse materials available in the service record and personal files of the incumbent or only blanket decision of Screening Committee about the compulsory retirement without any comments is sufficient? ( 9 ) THE public interest in relation to public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispensing with services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood or corrupt and dishonest in view of (Brij Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, air1987 SC 948 , [1987 (54)FLR460 ], (1987)I LLJ522 SC , 1987 (1)SCALE556 , (1987)2 SCC188 , [1987 ]2 SCR583 , 1987 (3)SLJ54 (SC), 1987 (2)UJ49 (SC ). In the present case warning have been given to bring the improvement of the petitioner. The provisions of compulsory retirement are constant reminders to the government servants to conduct themselves properly, diligently and efficiently throughout their service career [state of U. P. v. Chand a Mohan, AIR1977 SC 2411 , 1977 Lablc1923 , (1978)I llj6 SC , (1977)4 SCC345 , [1978 ]1 SCR521 ]. ( 10 ) THE retirement of the petitioner made in the public interest shall also be treated to have been made in the interest of public administration and could not be said to illegal in the light of the decision of [gian Singh Maim v. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR1980 SC 1894 , 1980 Lablc983 , (1981)I LLJ153 SC , (1980)4 SCC266 , [1981 ]1 scr507 , 1981 (1)SLJ121 (SC) and Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, AIR1971 SC 40 , (1970)II LLJ284 SC , (1970)2 SCC458 , [1971 ]1 SCR791 ]. ( 11 ) THE principle of natural justice have no place to contest of an order of compulsory retirement as the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies nor stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. Since the action is taken on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government as such there is no room for importing the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice in view of (Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer,), AIR1992 SC 1020 , JT1992 (2)SC 1 , (1992)I LLJ784 SC , 1992 (1)SCALE428 , (1992)2 SCC299 , [1992 ]1 SCR836 , 1992 (1)SLJ177 (SC), (1992)2 UPLBEC816 ). ( 12 ) THE order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed taking into consideration the material available in the service record and on the subjective satisfaction of the State government an order of compulsory retirement may not be passed by a speaking order, in the light of R. L. Butail v. Union of India, (1970)II LLJ514 SC , (1970)2 scc876 , [1971 ]2 SCR55 and in view of the decision of Union of India v. Dulal Dutt, 1993 AIR scw 1008. ( 13 ) THE compulsory retirement is not to be treated as punishment for the purpose of Article 311 of the Constitution (State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel,), AIR2001 SC 1109 , [2001 (89)FLR173 ], (2001)3 GLR2461 , JT2001 (3)SC 223 , (2001)II LLJ1140 SC , 2001 (2)SCALE261 , (2001)3 SCC314 , 2001 (1)UJ664 (SC)), the present compulsory retirement is simplicitar does not amount dismissal or reduction in rank as such is not hit by the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution, in view of the judgement of Andhra Pradesh v. L. U. A. Dixitulu, AIR1979 SC 193 , 1979 Lablc1672 , (1979)2 SCC34 , [1979] 1 SCR26 , relying on judgment in Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan, air 1975 SC 1487 , 1975 Lablc1046 , (1975)4 SCC86 , [1975 ]3 scr 1002 , 1975 (7)UJ337 (SC) and State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash, air1976 SC 1841 , 1976 Lablc1190 , (1976)2 SCC977 , [1976] Suppscr 603 , 1976 (8)UJ641 (SC ). ( 14 ) THE order of compulsory retirement in question has been passed by exercising power of fundamental Rule 1956 where there appears no arbitrariness as such it is not illegal in view of the decision of (Union of India v. K. R. Tahiliani,), AIR1980 SC 953 , (1980)3 SCC309 , [1980 ]2 SCR1092 , 1980 (1)SLJ314 (SC), 1980 (12)UJ422 (SC)) by retiring the petitioner before attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of material available on the record shall not tantamount stigma in view of the decision of State of U. P. v. Shyam Lal Sharma, AIR1971 SC 2151 , 1971 Lablc1369 , (1971)II llj325 SC , (1971)2 SCC514 , [1972 ]1 SCR184. ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court held that the charge or imputation that the respondent had outlived his utility was made the condition of the exercise of power and hence the order amounted to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The supreme Court itself did not agree and over-rule the view taken by the Full Bench decision in abdul Ahad v. The Inspector General of Police, U. P. AIR1965 All 142, [1964 (9) FLR 197], (1965)I LLJ110 All to the effect that compulsory retirement will always be on the ground that the employee can no longer render useful service, and the position does not become worse because what is implied is expressed in State of U. P. v. Madan Mohan Nagar, air1967 SC 1260 , [1967 (14)FLR262 ], (1967)II LLJ63 SC , [1967]2 SCR333. ( 16 ) THE impugned order of compulsory retirement is a simplicitor and stigma is not to be drawn out of which by speculative process as for making the order compulsory retirement the stigma must stems from the order itself and the scheme endeavoured to be derived from the circumstances or possibility or suspicion vide the decision in the State of U. P. v. Shyam Lal sharma, AIR1971 SC 2151 , 1971 Lablc1369 , (1971)II LLJ325 SC , (1971)2 SCC514 , [1972 ]1 SCR184 ; State of U. P. v. Ramchandra, AIR1976 SC 2547 , 1976 Lablc1647 , (1977)I LLJ200 SC , (1976)4 SCC52 , [1977 ]1 SCR462 and Sreshta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1973) 2 MLJ 485 . . . it has been repeatedly pointed out by the Supreme Court that Courts cannot delve into the records and pierce the veil of the order for discovering a Stigma. What is open to the court is that it could find out a stigma if it is apparent on the record or otherwise clear and springs from the order, vide the decision in State of U. P. v. Sughar Singh, AIR1974 SC 423 , 1974 Lablc353 , (1974)I llj260 SC , (1974)1 SCC218 , [1974 ]2 SCR335 ; State of v. U. P. v. Ramchandra and State of bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Misra, AIR1971 SC 1011 , 1971 Lablc724 , (1970) II LLJ 440 SC , (1970)2 SCC871 , [1971 ]2 SCR191. Unless the Court is satisfied that such a stigma stems out from the order, an interference with an order of compulsory retirement is not envisaged while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution in the light of K. Venugopalan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1979 SLJ 517. ( 17 ) THE mere form of order of compulsory retirement though not a conclusive and the court may some times delve into the basis of the order to lift the Veil, however, I find that after scrutiny even the present order in question is not stigmative or by way of punishment therefore can not said to passed in derogation of the decision of Shyam Lal v. State of U. P. AIR1954 SC 369 , 1954 (2)BLJR265 , (1954)II LLJ139 SC , [1955 ]1 scr26 ; Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, AIR1981 SC 70 , 1980 lablc1184 , (1980)II LLJ459 SC , (1980)4 SCC321 , [1981 ]1 SCR430 , 1981 (1)SLJ188 (SC); Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, (1971) SCR 791; Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, air1974 SC 2192 , (1974)II LLJ465 SC , (1974)2 SCC831 , [1975 ]1 CR814 , 1975 (1)SLJ1 (SC) and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, AIR1984 SC 636 , [1984 (48)FLR258 ], 1984 Lablc343 , (1984)I llj337 SC , 1984 (1)SCALE105 , (1984)2 SCC369 , [1984 ]2 SCR453 , 1984 (16)UJ925 (SC), the Supreme Court observed: "on a consideration of the above decision the legal position that now emerges is that even though the order of compulsory retirement is couched in innocuous language without making any imputation against the Government servant who is directed to be compulsorily retired from service, the Court, if challenged, in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out whether the order is based on any misconduct of the Government servant concerned or the order has been made bona fide and not with any oblique or extraneous purpose. Mere form of she order in such cases cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the Government service as has been held by thus Court in Anoop Jatswals case. " ( 18 ) THE present order of compulsory retirement has been passed in public interest. Mere form of she order in such cases cannot deter the court from delving into the basis of the order if the order in question is challenged by the Government service as has been held by thus Court in Anoop Jatswals case. " ( 18 ) THE present order of compulsory retirement has been passed in public interest. It was not necessary to give a detail reason in the order in exercise of power under fundamental rule in view of the State of Maharshtra v. V. S. Naik, AIR1980 SC 1095 , (1980)82 BOMLR642 , 1980 Lablc641 , 1980 Supp (1)SCC229 , 1980 (12)UJ636 (SC ). ( 19 ) UNCOMMUNICATED adverse entries but mostly based upon general assessment of performance shall not render an order of compulsory retirement invalid as the rule of audi alteram partem does not apply. The Supreme Court has held that mm communication of such adverse entry could not have the effect of vitiating the order of compulsory retirement (Jayant Kumar Sinha v. Union of India, AIR1989 SC 72 , JT1988 (4)SC 77 , (1989)I LLJ566 sc , 1988 (2)SCALE800 , 1989 Supp (1)SCC1 , [1988 ]supp3 SCR5 , and the similar view was taken to decide the question of compulsory retirement that the rule of audi alteram partem does not apply in view of the decision of Union of India v. V. P. Seth, AIR1994 SC 1261 , (1994)II LLJ411 SC and Secretary to Government v. Nityanamd Pati, AIR1993 SC 383 , 1992 (2)SCALE810 , 1993 Supp (2)SCC391 , 1992 (2)UJ688 (SC ). ( 20 ) THE compulsory retirement in question is not based on remote and stale adverse entries but is based on two latest entries as such is not in derogation in view of AIR1984 SC 630 , 1984 (32)BLJR92 , 1984 Lablc337 , (1984)I LLJ344 SC , 1984 (1)SCALE125 , (1984)2 SCC8 , [1984 ]2 SCR466 , 1984 (1)SLJ490 (SC), 1984 (16)UJ980 (SC) (J. D. Srivastava v. State of M. P. ). The said compulsory retirement is not based on the basis of reports written by a bias officer and the order of compulsory retirement is not hit by the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution in view of the State of Sikkim v. Sonam Lama, AIR1991 SC 534 , 1991 Lablc30 , 1991 Supp (1)SCC179 , and order of compulsory retirement does not involved civil consequences hence no show cause notice was necessary in view of decision in E. Venkatewararao v. Union of India, 1973 SC 698. Since the decision in the present compulsory retirement by the present order is based on clean and bona fide exercise and as a placid of the doctrine of the State Government in legitimate exercise of power under fundamental rule is not illegal as such compulsory retirement based on material on record can not be interfered with in view of the decision of C. D. Adawadi v. Union of India, AIR (l990) 1 SCR 783 : AIR (1990) SC 1004. ( 21 ) COMPULSORY retirement involves no civil consequences:- The compulsory retirement when exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule, as for example, F. R. 56 (j), one of which is that the authority concerned must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so then Such order of compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is neither a punishment nor visits with loss of retrial benefits. It does not cause a stigma. The officer will be entitled to pension that is actually earned and there is no diminution of the agreed benefits. If the competent authority bona fide forms that opinion the same cannot be challenged before the courts. But it is open to the aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or that the decision is based on collateral ground or that it is an arbitrary decision. However, the compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. While exercising the power various considerations would weigh with the appropriate authority. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular post may be usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding the office. However, the compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences. While exercising the power various considerations would weigh with the appropriate authority. In some cases, the Government may feel that a particular post may be usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding the office. That does not mean that the concerned officer is inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer a more efficient officer or in certain key posts, public interest may require that a person of undoubted integrity and ability should foe there [s. Rama Chandra Raju v. State of Orrisa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424]. ( 22 ) WHEN the charge against the Government servant has been proved by the departmental enquiry and punishment has been awarded and the entry to that effect has been entered in the confidential report compulsory retirement on the basis of that entry is valid and cannot be held to be in the nature of punishment. (Collector v. Chottelal), [1995 (70)FLR301 ], JT1995 (1)SC 20 , 1995 Lablc567 , 1994 (4)SCALE1036 , (1995)1 SCC184 , [1994 ]supp5 SCR691 , 1995 (1)SLJ158 (SC) ). ( 23 ) IN another decision in K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, AIR1996 sc 277 , [1995 (71)FLR989 ], JT1995 (7)SC 80 , 1995 Lablc2709 , (1996)I LLJ979 SC , 1995 (5)SCALE439 , (1995)6 SCC162 , [1995 ]supp3 SCR258 , the Supreme Court has again reiterated that if the appropriate authority forms a bona fide opinion that in view of the doubtful integrity it would not be desirable in public interest to retain the officer concerned in service the action thereof cannot be challenged before the Courts, though it is open to the aggrieved party to impugn it on the ground that requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not be formed on bona fide ground or is based op collateral grounds or arbitrary. When the order has been passed by the competent authority on the basis of totality of facts and circumstances appropriate to the case the order cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjustified or based on no evidence. When the adverse remarks in the confidential reports contained a reflection on his integrity in discharging the duty, the decision to compulsory retire him on such adverse remarks is held to be in public interest. When the adverse remarks in the confidential reports contained a reflection on his integrity in discharging the duty, the decision to compulsory retire him on such adverse remarks is held to be in public interest. [u. P. State Mineral Dev Corporation v. K. C. P. Sinha, 1996 IV ad (SC)53 , [1996 (74)FLR1909 ], JT1996 (6)SC 87 , (1997)II LLJ692 SC , 1996 (3)SCALE761 , (1996)5 SCC111 , [1996 ]supp1 SCR689 , 1996 (2)SLJ33 (SC), 1996 (2)UJ400 (SC), (1996)3 UPLBEC1793 ]. ( 24 ) THE competent authority can also take into consideration record of pending disciplinary enquiry against the Government servant along with other relevant record for formation of opinion to compulsory retire a Government servant in public interest even if such departmental enquiry resulted in imposing a minor penalty. [state of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das, 1996 V AD (SC)195 , AIR1996 SC 2436 , 1996 Lablc2062 , (1997)I llj238 SC , 1996 (5)SCALE14 , (1996)5 SCC331 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR559 , 1996 (3)SLJ65 (SC)]. ( 25 ) BAD service record. Adverse remark made in the confidential report although preceded by promotion constituted a material on the basis of which the opinion could be formed to compulsorily retire the employee concerned in public interest. (H. G. Venkatachahah v. Union of india,), (1997)11 SCC366 ). The employee concerned out of last ten years was graded in ACRs for part of one year and for three other years as "average". He was punished by three warnings in respect of various lapses in pre-promotion and post-promotion period. In view of such average gradings and punishment order compulsory retirement passed against him has been upheld by the Supreme Court. [satya Prakath Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1997 SCC (Lands) 1764]. When the entire service record of the concerned employee was placed before the Review committee and the Review Committee on considering the adverse entries and punishment imposed on the Government servant recommended compulsory retirement and the competent authority on the basis thereof passed the order of compulsory retirement It cannot be held that the order of compulsory retirement was arbitrary or illegal. (I. K. Mishra v. Union of Indian,), AIR1997 SC 3740 , JT1997 (6)SC 390 , 1997 (4)SCALE646 , (1997)6 SCC228 , [1997 ]supp2 SCR260 , 1997 (2)UJ396 (SC) ). While considering the entire service record of the employee the authority took into consideration and adverse entry even prior to his promotion. (I. K. Mishra v. Union of Indian,), AIR1997 SC 3740 , JT1997 (6)SC 390 , 1997 (4)SCALE646 , (1997)6 SCC228 , [1997 ]supp2 SCR260 , 1997 (2)UJ396 (SC) ). While considering the entire service record of the employee the authority took into consideration and adverse entry even prior to his promotion. The order passed bona fide cannot be faulted because such adverse remarks even prior to promotion is not wiped out by promotion of the concerned employee. (State of punjab v. Gurdas Singh,), AIR1998 SC 1661 , JT1998 (2)SC 693 , 1998 (2)SCALE570 , (1998)4 SCC92 , 1998 (1)UJ615 (SC) ). When entire service record including the record for the period prior to 1st April 1985 i. e. prior to confirmation, which contained adverse remark was considered it cannot be said that there was no sufficient material for the appropriate authority to form the requisite opinion that further retention of service of the respondent was not in public interest. (Union of India v. P. S. Dhillon,), 1996 III AD (SC)675 , AIR1996 SC 1738 , 1996 (84)ELT181 (SC), [1996 (73)FLR1522 ], JT1996 (5)SC 193 , 1996 Lablc1547 , 1996 (3)SCALE519 , (1996)3 scc672 , [1996 ]supp1 SCR234 , 1996 (2)UJ220 (SC), (1996)4 UPLBEC2769 ). ( 26 ) IN Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. , (2001) 2 SCC 305 , the Supreme court has observed in para 12 as below:-" 12. Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principal of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 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 completing a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it was necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. In that case, it is neither a punishment nor a penalty with loss of retrial benefits, (see Shyamlal v. State of U. P.), AIR1954 SC 369 , 1954 (2)BLJR265 , (1954)II LLJ139 SC , [1955 ]1 SCR26) , (Birj Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, , (S Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 ; 1995 SCC (L and S) (1994) 28 ATC (443 ). (Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District medical Officer, Bairpada (S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424. We may with advantage quote the following passage from this decision; (SCC p. 430, para 9) "though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the government servant on being compulsorily retired is entitled to draw all retiral benefits, including pension, the government must exercise its power in she public interest to effectuate the efficiency. Integrity of public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency in service, and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would go by reputation built around him. In appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive act of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation in such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. " ( 27 ) THE order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and in the formation of opinion while passing order of compulsory retirement the entire service records, character roll or confidential report with the emphasis cannot be taken into account along with the relevant period and the contention that the consideration of adverse material older than ten years vitiated the order of compulsory retirement was rejected by the Supreme Court in the State of U. P. and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR2002 SC 1345 , JT2002 (Suppl1)SC106 , (2002)II LLJ533 SC , 2002 (2)SCALE632 , 2002 (2)SCT408 (SC), and order of withholding integrity certificate and censor entry are sufficient entries for compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (c) and (j) of U. P. Fundamental Rules, In Vijay Kumar Jam (supra) the Court in para Nos. 13 and 14 had noted as below: "13. 13 and 14 had noted as below: "13. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, AIR1992 SC 1020 , JT1992 (2)SC 1 , (1992)I LLJ784 SC , 1992 (1)SCALE428 , (1992)2 scc299 , [1992 ]1 SCR836 , 1992 (1)SLJ177 (SC), (1992)2 UPLBEC816 , this Court land dawn certain principles which arc as under: (SCC pp. 315-16 para 34 ). "34. (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the contest of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would from the requisite opinion on the given material in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so. If the promotion is based upon merit (selection)and not upon security. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a court merely on showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. " "14. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 92, it was held thus : SCC p. 99 para 11)--"before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. " "14. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 92, it was held thus : SCC p. 99 para 11)--"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 dining whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The where record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. " ( 28 ) I have heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records. Since the character roll entries for many years were not recorded and for the year 1999-2000 there was adverse entry and in the past 15 years only for couple of years annual entries were recorded and for large number of years the character roll entries were not recorded, therefore, limited adverse entries could be treated to be sufficient entry to assess the performance of the petitioner in service, but in the order of compulsory retirement either the competent authority or the screening committee constituted for the purpose has to go in totality of all types of records and is to scrutinize the performance, character roll entries and the complaints or different reports in respect of the petitioner and has to record his own comments and observations indicating their subjective as well as objective satisfaction before passing the order of compulsory retirement. In view of tins, above two aspects of paragraph-8 above are dealt with accordingly. Since large number of complaints and adverse, material were available in respect of petitioner in the service record of the petitioner and some adverse character roll entries were available for assessment but there appears non-application of mind on the part of screening committee which has overlooked to scrutinize the records and has not even bothers to form opinion and record comments about its satisfaction. The decision of the screening committee is not only a formality but is statutory obligation to record the finding in public interest in express and speaking words under regulation. The decision of the screening committee is not only a formality but is statutory obligation to record the finding in public interest in express and speaking words under regulation. 1975, therefore, the report of the screening committee is said to be devoid of no legal force as the competent authority suo-moto too has not separately made any analysis of the records pertaining to the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition is not legally sustainable irrespective of the fact that before passing the compulsory retirement order, which is not of punitive nature, the incumbent was not to be given notice or show cause or opportunity of hearing. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 30 04. 2002 is set aside and keeping in view the date of birth of the petitioner that he could have continued upto 30. 03. 2003. therefore, he shall be deemed to in service and he should be given the increments due to him for each year in past, however, since alter 30. 04. 2002 i. e. from the date of compulsory retirement order upto 31. 03. 2003 the petitioner has not rendered any actual work, therefore, he should be entitled to only 50% of the wages and treating, the actual pay scale and payable amount admissible to him on 31. 03. 2003 and treating that he was remained in service throughout and has earned also increments the fixation of notional pay-scale and payable salary etc. shall be made on 30. 03. 2003 for the purpose of retirement benefits admissible to him under the law. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. . .