Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 16-9-2002, Annexure A-11 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, whereby he has been compulsorily retired after completing 20 years of service. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed in the year 1978 in the Water Resources Department on the post of Assistant Grade III and was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 3-12-1992 vide Annexure A-7. His services were made permanent by order dated 1-4-1994, Annexure A-8. The petitioner has contended that but for minor punishments of censure and withholding of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 27-4-2002, Annexure A-10, he has a flawless service record to his credit. According to him he was so punished because of the delay in preparing the pension papers of one Executive Engineer R. D. Vishwarkarma for which he was not responsible. The petitioner has also asserted that there is not a single adverse entry in his character roll and, therefore, he could not have been compulsorily retired by treating him unworthy of Government service after 20 years. He has further asserted that his entire service record has not been properly evaluated in accordance with the norms prescribed in this regard and hence, the impugned order of compulsorily retiring him is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. ( 3. ) IN reply, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on the basis of recommendations made by the Screening Committee which had evaluated his entire service tenure. It is the case of the respondents that the decision taken on the basis of such a recommendation cannot be subjected to judicial review. The respondents have filed a circular dated 22-8-2000, Annexure R-1 of the State Government wherein norms and guidelines have been provided for considering the cases of compulsory retirement. These guidelines are reproduced as under :- (i) Doubtful integrity (entire service record of the concerned employee has to be appreciated for recommendations ). (ii) Lack of physical efficiency. (iii) Appreciation of efficiency and conduct of the concerned employee on the basis of scrutinizing entire service record as well as entire Annual Confidential Reports. These guidelines are reproduced as under :- (i) Doubtful integrity (entire service record of the concerned employee has to be appreciated for recommendations ). (ii) Lack of physical efficiency. (iii) Appreciation of efficiency and conduct of the concerned employee on the basis of scrutinizing entire service record as well as entire Annual Confidential Reports. It is not necessary to consider the fact that each and every adverse a. C. R. should have been communicated to the employees concerned (as per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court ). (iv) The assessment/valuation of the entire service record of the concerned employee should not be inferior to good (13) Grading. Any lack in the working efficiency shall also assessed, especially during the last five years. ( 4. ) IT is clear from the aforesaid norms and guidelines that decision for compulsory retiring has to be taken by the Screening Committee keeping in view the overall performance of the employee during his entire service period, his integrity, physical health, conduct and efficiency especially during the last five years. ( 5. ) IN the present case, proceedings of the Screening Committee indicate that recommendation for compulsorily retiring the petitioner was made in view of only average ( l) entries earned by him in the years 1985,1995,1996 and 1997 and minor punishments of censure and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect inflicted in the year 2000. Apart from these, there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. Even the entry average ("h) is for the years 1985,1995,1996 and 1997 and thereafter in the subsequent years, i. e. , from 1998 upto 2000 he has shown improvement and has earned good grading. During the entire career of more than 20 years except in the four years mentioned above where he received average grading, his grading was always good and very good. These aspects of the case have been ignored by the Screening Committee. That apart integrity of the petitioner during his entire service period is beyond doubt and there is nothing adverse against him. While evaluating the entire service record of the petitioner, no prudent man could have come to a conclusion that he is unworthy to be retained in Government service and he should be terminated in public interest. That apart integrity of the petitioner during his entire service period is beyond doubt and there is nothing adverse against him. While evaluating the entire service record of the petitioner, no prudent man could have come to a conclusion that he is unworthy to be retained in Government service and he should be terminated in public interest. Action taken merely on the basis of four average C7!)entries and minor punishments of censure and withholding of two increments is clearly an arbitrary action which cannot be sustained. The overall service record of the petitioner in my considered opinion has not been properly evaluated by the Screening Committee and, therefore, I have no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 16-9-2002, Annexure A-11. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits subject to adjustment of pensionary benefits already received by him. ( 6. ) THE petition is allowed. C. C. as per rules. Writ petition allowed.