JUDGMENT 1. - By instant writ petition the State has challenged validity of judgment dated 28.7.1994 (Annexure-3) passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby order dated 16.8.1991 of the petitioner passed in exercise of powers u/R. 244(2) of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 ("RSR") retiring respondent No.2 compulsorily, has been set-aside with the direction that respondent No.2 will be entitled to all consequential benefits including Ray & allowances. 2. Facts, in brief, are the Inderkumar Singh ("respondent No.2") initially joined service as Agri. Extension Officer on ad hoc basis on 4.7.1958 in Rajasthan Agriculture Service (the Service") and was selected by RPSC in 1959. He was further promoted in Group C of the Service on ad hoc basis and then on recommendation of DPC w.e.f. 10.9.1974 and thereafter as Deputy Director (Agr.) in November, 1985 and on the recommendation of review DPC on 17.3.1988 against vacancy of the year 1984-85 on the basis of merit in Group A Sec. II. While holding the post of Dy. Director (Grade A) he was compulsorily retired from service u/R. 244(2) of RSR vide order dated 16.8.1991, which was challenged by respondent No.2 by filing Appeal No.450/1991 before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, ("Tribunal"). The State (petitioner) filed reply to the appeal. The Tribunal after examining material on record, has recorded finding that in the facts of present case, order of compulsory retirement against respondent No.2 cannot be said to be in consonance with Rule 244 (2) of RSR and accordingly the same was set-aside and directed the State Government to grant him all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate for the State (petitioner) has urged that complete service record of respondent No.2 was duly considered by screening committee so also by review committee and on their recommendations, final decision was taken for his compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of RSR and when the high power committee took decision, ordinarily such a decision was not required to be interfered unless material which was looked into for taking decision either does not exist or it was reviewed or revised at later stage. According to him, the Tribunal has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interfering with administrative decision of the State Government taken for compulsory retirement of respondent Officer being dead wood and whose retention in Government service was of no use to the public at large. 4. Shri Sharma further urged that the committee constituted by State Government has examined over all efficiency of respondent No.2 and after considering his record of service, the State Government finally concurred with final opinion of the high power committee that retention of respondent No.2 is not in public interest and consequently took decision for his compulsory retirement. Shri Sharma also urged that the Committee pointed out in its report that there were adverse remarks in APAR of 1987-88 where his integrality was recorded to be doubtful; and this solitary adverse remark was sufficient for the committee to take decision for compulsory retirement and in such circumstances, finding recorded by the Tribunal is not legally sustainable, and requires interference by this Court. 5. Shri Sharma further submitted that it is a prerogative of the State Government and its subjective satisfaction depending on several consideration based on entire service record, was not ordinarily required to be interfered or disturbed unless the Tribunal could have arrived at a conclusion that the satisfaction recorded by the State Government is not supported by material on record, which is not the situation in present case and contrarily, sufficient material was available on record which was taken note of the committee constituted by State Government while taking decision with regard to compulsory retirement of respondent No.2, and according to him, interference in subjective satisfaction of the State taken by the Tribunal is without any legal foundation and requires interference by this Court. 6. 6. Shri R.C. Joshi, counsel for respondent No.2 filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that record of service produced before the Tribunal is either "very good" or "good" and he was promoted on the basis of merit in Group A against quota of 1984-85 but it was reviewed in the light of decree passed in the case of Bhograj and respondent No.2 was promoted against vacancy of 1987-88 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit as Deputy Director (Agr.) vide order dated 11.1.1990; and respondent No.2 has through out maintained unblemished record of service; and even for the year 1987-88 Reporting Officer found him to be "outstanding" and the Reviewing Officer rated him to be satisfactory but none has found any adversity in APAR of the year 1987-88 but its countersigning Officer under whom respondent No.2 has never worked and who had no occasion to examine his service, has without any basis recorded remark of doubtful integrity and that too was based on the alleged fact that he has purchased some benami property, whereas such a fact was merely a conjecture. 7. According to Shri Joshi, after respondent No.2 was compulsorily retired, the matter was referred to the Anti Corruption Department with regard to alleged Benami property and a case was registered against him for offences u/S. 420, IPC, read with Sections 5(1 )(d) & 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and after inquiry by competent Court of jurisdiction, he has been completely exonerated and discharged from the charges vide order dated 12.4.2002 (Annexure R2/1) placed along with application dated 31.7.2002. 8. Shri Joshi further submitted that apart from APAR of 1987-88, there was only one penalty of Censure inflicted upon him on 30.11.1981 and a notice dated 19.4.1991 issued u/R. 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") while he was working as Assistant Director (Soil Conservation) in the context of acceptance of resignation of one Pramod Kumar Agarwal, therefore, except "supra" there was no adversity ever recorded in his total service career. On the contrary, his APAR succeeding to 1987-88 were also outstanding/very good. 9. On the contrary, his APAR succeeding to 1987-88 were also outstanding/very good. 9. Shri Joshi also submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration material on record in totality of circumstances, specifically observed that so far as remark of integrity recorded in APAR of 1987-88 is concerned, it was not supported and based on record and sufficient reasons have been attributed for it and apart from remark of 1987-88, there was no material on record which could at all hold respondent No.2 to be deadwood or his retention in service could not be said to be in public interest; and according to him, the Tribunal has rightly observed and unless any perversity is otherwise pointed out in the finding recorded, this Court would not be prone to invoke writ jurisdiction u/Arts. 226 & 227 of Constitution of India so as to interfere in the decision in setting aside order of compulsory retirement of respondent No.2. 10. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. This fact remain undisputed that respondent No.2 on the date of his entry into service from 1958 till he was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 16.8.1991, except his APAR of the year 1987-88, his complete record of service remained unblemished throughout and on the contrary his APAR were also otherwise found to be very good or satisfactory. Original record of service dossier of respondent No.2 was produced for perusal of this Court. Upon its careful perusal find that 33 years' service record is unblemished except of one year i.e. 1987-88. 11. Under Rule 244 (2) of RSR, State Government is empowered to take decision for compulsory retirement of such employee who has either crossed 25 years of service or attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, on forming an opinion in the public interest to compulsorily retire him, and order is certainly passed on subjective satisfaction of the Government. But that subjective satisfaction should be based on entire record before taking decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant. 12. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the deadwood in order to maintain efficiency in the service and to dispense with services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. 13. But that subjective satisfaction should be based on entire record before taking decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant. 12. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the deadwood in order to maintain efficiency in the service and to dispense with services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. 13. It is settled law as laid down by Apex Court and so also by this Court in a series of decisions that more importance has to be attached to the service record and performance of later services; and the record has to be considered including entries recorded in APARs both either favourable or adverse. 14. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, 1992 (2) SCC 299 , the Apex Court has given guidelines, in details, which consisted of (1) exercise of subjective satisfaction and (2) to form opinion of State Government as to whether in the circumstances of the case, it is in public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. 15. The Apex Court held thus:- "(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 Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of any 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) malafide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary - in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order. (iv) The Government for 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. 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 lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it un communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. The circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 16. The Apex Court further in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das, 1996 (1) SCC 331 , in para 3 laid down various principles:- "It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empower and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or who are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to incubate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, has to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest reports." (emphasis added)and so also in State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 , in Para 11 has further laid down principles relating compulsory retirement:- "(i) Whenever the services 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 u/Art. 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 advertise entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicative 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. (iv)Any advertise entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicative 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, this a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not imposed as a punitive measure. 17. In instant case, Minutes of screening committee have also been placed on record, which also pointed out about doubtful integrity of respondent No.2 in respect of APAR of the year 1987-88, besides penalty of censure inflicted in regular inquiry u/R. 16 of CCA Rules vide order dated 31.12.1981; and further pointed out one inquiry pending u/R. 17 of CCA Rules about irregularity committed with as Assistant Director (Soil Conservation) DPAR Banswara in the year 1983-84 and about some complaints of which no details have been placed on record. The Tribunal, after examining recorded in totality, concluded that so far as adverse remarks in APAR of 1987-88 by counter-signing officer, there is no material on recorded to support particularly when the reporting and Reviewing Officers both have rated respondent No.2 as very good/satisfactory, and except what has been observed by Countersigning Officer, was based on some news paper information, which cannot be used so as to take prejudicial action against respondent No.2. The Tribunal considered that remarks recorded were based on alleged purchase of benami properties as per news item published in Hindustan Times dated 6.9.1987 and on the alleged complaint dated 16.4.1988 made by Shankar Lal Yadav President Congress (I) Seva Dal District Doongarpur, the Joint Director conducted preliminary inquiry and submitted his report on 13.9.1990, which too was produced before the Tribunal. After taking into note of material (supra), the Tribunal concluded that what has been recorded in APAR of 1987-88 was not based on the material & evidence on record. The Tribunal also recorded finding that despite the record made available to the screening & review committee, none examined the record in totality and proceeded only on the basis of what has been observed in APAR of 1987-88. The Tribunal also recorded finding that despite the record made available to the screening & review committee, none examined the record in totality and proceeded only on the basis of what has been observed in APAR of 1987-88. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal, supra, in respect of APAR of 1987-88 is duly supported by cogent material on record and I do not find any error in the decision taken by Tribunal. It is for the State Government to form opinion that it is in public interest to compulsorily retire a Government servant, and such an opinion is to be based on its subjective satisfaction but this fact cannot be ruled out that subjective satisfaction of the State Government or if its constituted committee, must be supported by material on record and the Tribunal is competent to examine the remarks recorded in APARs if any prejudicial action has been taken against reported at later stage, as held by this Court in Tayyab Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (2) RLR (FB) p.1. Once the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of material made available on record, with regard to the remarks recorded in APAR of 1987-88 against respondent No.2, I find no justification to interfere in the impugned findings recorded by Tribunal which is being duly supported by cogent evidence and material on record made available before it. 18. In view of what has been held by Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer , (supra), viz., entire record has to be considered by screening/review committee constituted by State Government; and the record of performance of later year as to be given more importance, in the instant case, as per material made available, total 33 years' service record of respondent No.2 is unblemished through out and on the contrary after examining the record which was placed before this Court also, I find that respondent No.2 has got number of ACRs of very good/ satisfactory, and it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner found respondent No.2 suitable for promotion on the basis of merit against vacancy of 1984-85 also and I find no error in the decision taken by the Tribunal is setting aside action of petitioner State to be in violation of Rule 244(2) of RSR and so also of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. 19. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No, order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******