1. Following is the sequence of events as gatherable from official records that forms the circumstantial backdrop to this piece of litigation. 2. With declared purpose of weeding out dead wood from public administration to improve efficiency, the Government vide circular No. 7-GAD of 2004 dated 7-5-2004, urged upon all Heads of Departments to start process of periodical review of the performance of officers/officials under their control and record appropriate remarks in their APRs. By another circular No. 5-GAD of 2003 dated 29-1-2003; all concerned were impressed upon to apprise General Administration Department about the follow up action taken. In continuation vide order No. 306-GAD of 2003 dated 5-3-2003, Government accorded sanction to constitution of a Committee comprising of Financial Commissioner Home, Pr. Secretary GAD and Commissioner/Secretary Law Department, plus the Secretary of concerned Administrative Department as co-opted member cases of whose department would be under consideration for weeding of undesirable officers/officials in terms of Article 226(2) and (3) of the J&K CSR. The committee was charged with the duty of recommending action against such officers to be processed further by concerned Administrative Department for obtaining approval of cabinet or competent authority. Under a follow up order being No. DAR (Adm) 71/2003-V dated 1-4-2003, all concerned were required to send requisite information about officers/officials under their control in prescribed proformas, with instructions to refer cases of those who have become ineffective or out-lived their utility along with their ACRs, and a general assessment about their reputation except the cases involving dereliction of duties liable to be dealt with under normal statutory procedure within a fixed time frame i.e. in cases of heads of department by or before 9-4-2003, Middle level officers by or before 23-4-2003 and other gazetted officers by or before 15-5-2003. The proforma prescribed for furnishing information as aforesaid interalia required APRs for five preceding years i.e. 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 along with adverse remarks, if any, and details of the works/contracts allotted by the officer those had become subject of any departmental enquiry or investigation by Vigilance department or invited adverse comment of audit and inspection department, along with a brief report by concerned Administrative Secretary as to whether the concerned employee had out lived his utility etc. By andother order being order No. 713-Gad of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 the order No. 306-Gad of 2003 above mentioned was partially modified to the extent of re-constituting the committee to comprise of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner (Finance), and Commissioner Secretary, Law department, while other ingredients of the aforesaid order No. 306 were kept intact. 3. The committee first met on 2-7-2003 and formulated the guidelines to be adopted for undertaking the assigned job as follows:- "Present: 1. Chief Secretary ...In chair. 2. Financial Commissioner (Finance) ...Member. 3. Commissioner/Secretary, Law Dept ...Member. The committee took note of the principles which have crystallized, through various judgments of the Honble Courts, on the issue of compulsory retirements. These include the following:- (a) Order of compulsory retirement is not regarded as a punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (b) An employee who has outlived his utility can be compulsorily retired in public interest; (c) If the general reputation of the officer/official is not good, he can be compulsorily retired in public interest. (1).The Committee held that cases (i) where there is evidence that a government employee is responsible for any defalcation of Government money, (ii) where prosecution has been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance organization or the Crime branch and charges have been framed by the Court or (iii) in which a government employee is, in an investigation, found to have committed moral turpitude shall fall under the category(c) of para 1 above and liable for being considered in terms of Article 226(3) of the J&K CSRs. (2) Similarly, where any Government employee has failed to achieve the set targets consistently for three years, without any specific justifiable reason, he shall be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. Likewise where the pass percentage of students in any subject taught by any member of the teaching staff is below average consistently for three or more years, he shall also be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. Where a government employee has failed to achieve targets consistently for two years or where the pass percentage. Likewise where the pass percentage of students in any subject taught by any member of the teaching staff is below average consistently for three or more years, he shall also be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. Where a government employee has failed to achieve targets consistently for two years or where the pass percentage. In any subject taught by a member of the teaching staff is below average consistently for two years, the performance of such employees shall be watched in the third year to decide whether their cases be considered for premature retirement., Such employees shall be identified and notified by each Head of the Department and their names kept in a list to be called as the "agreed list" meaning thereby that such government employees are under watch. (3).The un-qualified persons who are holding various engineering posts in the Rural Engineering Wing of the Rural Development Department and for which they are not eligible under rules be considered for premature retirement in terms sub Para (b) of Para 1 above as such officers cannot de justice with their job. A view about the retention or otherwise of teachers who are just matriculates or holding any lesser qualification will be taken I the next meeting. (4). After setting the above broad principles, following decisions were taken:- (a). the Vigilance Commissioner and the I.G. Crime and Railways shall provide to the committee, in its next meeting, lists of all in-service government employees against whom prosecution has been launched in the court of law either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or for any moral turpitude. Other details like, the post held, the date of birth, and the date of entry into Government service of each such government employee as well as the status of the prosecution proceedings shall also be provided. (b). Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Principal Secretary, PDD, Commissioner/Secretary Public Works Department, Director Consumer Affairs Kashmir and Jammu, Director Funds and Director Accounts and Treasuries, shall also provide to the committee, in its next meeting lists of all such employees under their administrative control who have been found to have defalcated government money/property. Full details, namely the posts held by such employees, date of birth, and date of entry into the Government service shall also be provided in each case. (c). Full details, namely the posts held by such employees, date of birth, and date of entry into the Government service shall also be provided in each case. (c). The next meeting of the Committee shall be held on 14th July 2003 at 4 PM where the above officers shall also attend the meeting with all details mentioned above. 5.The General Administration Department shall convey the decisions as reflected in para 4 to all concerned so that they attend the meeting on 14th July, 2003 with all relevant details." Incidently no details from concerned HOD were sought regarding "unqualified persons" mentioned at Para 3, as holding Engineering posts in Rural Engineering Wing of the Rural Development Department in which category the present petitioner figured later. 4. (a) Next meeting of the committee appears to have been held on 14-7-2003 with Principal Secretary to Government, Planning and Development Department also a member by then which was attended by IGP Crime and Railways, Director Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Srinagar, Director Accounts and Treasuries and DIG Vigilance also. In that meeting, the IGP Crime is stated to have reported about cases of officers/officials against whom criminal charges had been framed by Special Judge, Anticorruption and who was accordingly asked to give details of cases including those pertaining to commission of forgery, embezzlement or moral turpitude; Director Accounts and Treasuries is stated to have informed that about 60 officers were involved in embezzlement of money and defalcation etc. who was accordingly asked to provide details along with amount so defalcated etc. At the same time, Director Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Srinagar is reported to have stated that more than two crore rupees had been embezzled by various officers of the department by way of shortages etc. whereupon he was asked to give a list of officials habitually indulging in embezzlement of Government money etc. Nothing specific to the present petitioner was noticed or discussed in the said meeting also. whereupon he was asked to give a list of officials habitually indulging in embezzlement of Government money etc. Nothing specific to the present petitioner was noticed or discussed in the said meeting also. (b) In third meeting of the committee held on 21-7-2003 and attended by all the members except Financial Commissioner (Finance), IGP Crime and Railways, Director Accounts and Treasuries and Joint Director Prosecution are also stated to have participated, when IGP Crime and Railway reportedly placed particulars of officers/officials involved in such cases as would render them liable to premature retirement and accordingly furnished a list of 16 officers/officials as also one Ravi Kumar, Junior Assistant. After consideration, the committee recommended premature retirement of two officers namely Shah Latief Director Rural Sanitation and G.M.Bhat, Drug Controller and concluded the proceedings with an observations that further details about one S.E.Arora be obtained and another officer namely Khurshid Ahmad Naqeeb be kept on the watch list. In this meeting also, nothing transpired about the petitioner nor was he discussed or reported for discussion. (c) Another meeting was held by the committee on 25-7-2003 attended by all members except Financial Commissioner (Finance) wherein present petitioners name surfaced for the first time and the committee, claiming to have reports that his general reputation as an Engineer of the Rural Development Department was not good, felt that further details be obtained for consideration in the next meeting. Rest of the proceedings concern other officers/officials. Nothing regarding alleged lack of petitioners qualification was, however, mentioned. (d) This was followed by another meeting of 28-7-2003 attended by all the members including Financial Commissioner Finance, wherein while considering petitioners case it was observed that his administrative department viz. Rural Development Department had reported that he was appointed as Sectional Officer in Kargil District in 1983, after he produced a certificate of having passed the course of civil engineering from Inter National Correspondence Institute, Bombay while in 1997, the State Board of Technical Education had vide letter dated 26-2-1997 informed the/Additional Secretary of RDD that as per All India Directory of Institutes 1996-97 of AICDE, no such Institute was recognized, and that the Diploma/Degree offered by the institute would not be valid. It was also observed that in view of his bad reputation as gathered from a cross section of public, the committee would recommend his premature retirement. Remaining portion of the minutes pertain to other officers. It was also observed that in view of his bad reputation as gathered from a cross section of public, the committee would recommend his premature retirement. Remaining portion of the minutes pertain to other officers. 5. In the last meeting of 29-7-2004, nothing was discussed about the petitioner, and cumulatively all proceedings conducted as aforesaid ultimately culminated in recommendations regarding premature retirement of the 22 officers/officials, including the petitioner who figured at serial no. 5 of the list, whereupon the Government passed petitioners order of premature retirement under No. 1549-GAD of 2003 dated 9-12-2003 in the following terms:- "Whereas the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, the Government hereby gives notice to Shri Mehraj-ud-Din Khan, Executive Engineer, (REW) Rural Development Department, presently on deputation to Divisional Procurement, Supplies and Marketing Society, Jammu, that he having already rendered 22 years of service, shall retire from service with effect from afternoon of 9th December 2003. He is allowed three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice. By order of the government of Jammu and Kashmir." and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner impugns it in this writ petition. 6. Grounds pleaded are that it has been passed mala fide and arbitrarily without any support ing material to justify it. As the background to support the ground pleaded, petitioner has summarized his service profile which runs thus. Appointed as Sectional Officer in respondent -- department on 25-89-1981, he traveled through different phases of his career to be promoted as a Junior Engineer in his own pay and grade on 28-5-1985 with release of grade on 6-6-1985, where-after he was adjusted as Assistant Engineer on 12-9-1988, again in his own pay and grade and deputed to Desert Development Agency, Leh, as I/C Assist ant Executive Engineer, vide Government order No. 597-Agri of 1989 dated 25-8-1989, where-after pursuant to an order of this court passed in SWP No. 1051/1992, grade of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was released in his favour vide order No. 390-RD of 1996 dated 19-7-1996 with effect from the date of his deputation to Desert Development Agency Leh, and he was declared to have the status of an officiating Executive Engineer. Under order No. 531-RD of 1996 dated 19-9-1996, he was placed in Executive Engineers grade of Rs. 3000-4500 with effect from 5-6-1992, in lieu of, what his officers and concerned are reported to have acknowledged as, meritorious service. At a particular point of time, the Minister for Ladakh Affairs is claimed to have requested the concerned Minister for petitioners placement at the disposal of Public Works Department for his adjustment as Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Leh, which allegedly did not happen due to hurdles reportedly created by respondent no. 2, who, while posted as Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department also leveled certain frivolous allegations against him, where-after under Government order No. 133-Agri of 2000 the petitioner was recalled and posted as Executive Engineer in the Rural Engineering Wing, Kargil, and then again transferred as Executive Engineer, REW, Anantnag, vide Government order No. 261-CR(Rd) of 2002 dated 24-10-2004, later withdrawn by Government in view of petitioners bad health, and he attached with Director Rural Development Kashmir, under order No. 278-RD of 2002 of 18-11-2002. Vide order No. 80-RD of 2003 dated 24-3-2003, he was deputed to Divisional Procurement and Supplies Marketing Society Jammu and also given the temporary charge of Executive Engineer, REW, doda in addition to his own duties vide order No. 1187-RD of 2003 dated 25-7-2003. The petitioner also claims that he was the only person deputed by State Government to Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi for purpose of getting clearance of Project proposals under PMGSY and CRRI schemes, whereupon he was recommended by Director Rural Development department for induction in Kashmir Administrative Service in the Schedule Tribe category etc. 7. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite all the meritorious services rendered by him in different capacities aforesaid as duly acknowledged by his superior officers through-out, he was compulsorily retired by respondent no. 1vide impugned Government order without application of mind, and he challenges the same, inter-alia, on the grounds, that his compulsory retirement was not ordered in public interest or in a bona fide exercise of the power, and was not aimed at promoting efficiency in public service. 1vide impugned Government order without application of mind, and he challenges the same, inter-alia, on the grounds, that his compulsory retirement was not ordered in public interest or in a bona fide exercise of the power, and was not aimed at promoting efficiency in public service. Claiming that he was not liable to compulsory retirement, the petitioner pleads that while passing the order his entire service record had to be kept in mind, and had that been done, the impugned order of his retirement could never have been passed, because of the fact, that his service record provided enough evidence from the standard of a reasonable person, to show that his removal would in no way be in public interest, especially in view of the commendatory remarks contained in his annual confidential reports particularly those for five years preceding the order of his retirement, which show petitioners performance to have been excellent. Alleging mala fides against respondent no. 3, the petitioner also maintains that impugned order of his retirement was issued by respondent no. 1 under undue influence of second respondent, who had all along been inimical towards him, and at one stage event tried to implicate him in a false case by having FIR No. 21 of 1993 registered in Crime Branch, whereupon he was forced to approach this court where Government conceded that on investigation the case registered under aforesaid FIR was found not proved, and accordingly his promotion and regularization was upheld by the court. There-after the said respondent, as alleged, also manipulated certain communications to facilitate initiation of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against petitioner which promoted him to issue a legal notice to him through his counsel alleging mala fides and criminal intention on his part to prevent petitioner from getting promotion to the next higher post in the hierarchy. On basis of all this, the petitioner impugns the aforesaid order of his premature retirement and seeks issuance of certiorari for quashment of the same and direction for his continuation in service till he reaches superannuation. Annexures appended with the writ petition include orders mentioned hereinabove, and copies of some other officials communication, which if necessary, would be discussed in due course. 8. Annexures appended with the writ petition include orders mentioned hereinabove, and copies of some other officials communication, which if necessary, would be discussed in due course. 8. In their counter affidavit, the first respondent have, besides objecting to maintainability of the petition on the ground of involving disputed questions of fact and non-involvement of any of petitioners actionable rights, also sought to justify the impugned retirement order on the court that Government were within rights to pass such orders where their passing became unnecessary for maintaining health of the administration. It has been pleaded that for identification of employees/officers liable to be retired prematurely in the interests of efficiency, a committee was duly constituted which after holding a series of meetings scrutinized the record and other relevant material pertaining to various officers including the petitioner and came to the conclusion that it was in the interests of administration and public in general that the petitioner who had already completed 22 years in Government service be prematurely retired. It is alleged that he had been appointed as Village Level Worker in 1981, and promoted as Sectional officer on basis of a certificate that was later found to be incompetent as having been issued by an un-recognized institute. However, the promotions claimed by petitioner there-after have been admitted with the plea that he had never qualified the DPC and got higher grades only pursuant to court orders; while otherwise he was only a matriculate. Rebutting petitioners allegations of mala fides against respondent no. 2, it has been pleaded that same are totally baseless and have emanated from petitioners own grudge against him, because he had pointed out falsity of a letter that petitioner had managed from Minister of State for Ladakh Affairs, whereupon the Minister withdrew the recommendations made in petitioners favour, under letter No. MOS-LAPRD/97 dated 23-2-1997 on the count that petitioner had fraudulently induced him to sign the recommendatory letter. Concluding their reply, the respondents maintain that petitioners order of premature retirement was justified in view of his service record which was considered while passing the impugned order, and that his good APRs could not be the sole basis for determining whether or not he should have been prematurely retired, particularly after he was found to have indulged in fakery of the certificate on basis whereof he was promoted. 9. 9. In retaliation to contents of the counter affidavit, the petitioner has in his rejoinder, further pleaded that the impugned order of retirement was totally against law and the guidelines judicially laid down for exercise of the power of premature retirement, as almost all the reasons pleaded for justifying the impugned order are totally non-existent. It has further been pleaded that he qualified diploma course from the Government Polytechnic College, Srinagar also way back in 1981, as witnessed by the certificate dated 1-1-1982. In rebuttal of the allegation that petitioner was originally appointed as Village Level Worker, it is claimed that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was appointed as Section Officer in Kargil District, as already admitted by Government in their order No. 288-Agri of 1081, wherein production of the certificate of having passed course of Civil Engineering from International Correspondence Institute Bombay in 1980 too had been acknowledged, and that is why after his appointment as such, the petitioner was deputed to undergo short term condensed course vide order No. 54 of 1981 dated 2-6-1981, where from he was relieved vide order dated 11-6-1981, after having completed the course. Regarding diploma course which has been challenged by respondents on the ground of having been done from an unknown Institute, not reflected in the directory of Institutions, it is pleaded that petitioner has a valid certificate to show that not only did the Institute exist, but as a matter of fact it was also recognized for the purpose of issuing such certificates, which were equivalent to the requisite standard for promotion. About the D.O. regarding which petitioner is alleged to have induced the concerned Minister ands as such withdrawn later, it is maintained that the same had already been found to be genuine by this court in a previous writ petition. In conclusion it is claimed that at all stages and every point of time, whenever finger was raised against petitioners integrity, he came out clean through all the departmental proceedings/enquiries and the cases registered against him under different and FIRs at the behest of respondent no. 2, who always wanted to jeopardize his service career. 10. In conclusion it is claimed that at all stages and every point of time, whenever finger was raised against petitioners integrity, he came out clean through all the departmental proceedings/enquiries and the cases registered against him under different and FIRs at the behest of respondent no. 2, who always wanted to jeopardize his service career. 10. During course of their detailed submissions, the petitioners counsel and learned Advocate General as assisted by Deputy Advocate General, have mainly reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings, with reference to annexure and reported case law, which, if necessary, would be discussed in due course. 11. I have heard learned counsel, gone through the record and considered the matter. Before anything else, it would be appropriate to mention that the petitioner having been prematurely retired in public interest under powers vested in the Government under Article 226(2)(3) of the CSR, can not, as per judicially laid down law, claim to have suffered any punishment or stigma, and as such cant project infringement of principles of natural justice, if any, as a ground to assail the impugned order, as they are not attracted in the matter, in the manner they would be in case of a regulation enquiry. In view thereof it becomes necessary to notice the contours of power of judicial review by courts in such matters. Without referring to the long line of judgments on the subject, it would be appropriate to reflect the law laid down, in a condensed form, as evolved from precedent to precedent, and the principles/guidelines derived there from in "Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, reported as (1992) 2 SCC 299, wherein after taking detailed note of the law declared from time to time, the Honble Supreme Court, among other things, laid down as follows: "The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (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 context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context 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 form 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 lost 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 uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstances by itself cannot be a basis for interference." Accordingly, it follows, that compulsory retirement, as in the instant case, is a well accepted mode of weeding out inefficient and di-honest employees from employment, And taken in that sense, it appears to be almost a condition of service rather than a penalty, as the person compulsorily retired does not lose benefits he has already earned, even though deprived of some more salary that he might have earned otherwise. Obviously therefore, the employer can require him to retire on completing the prescribed period, in public interest, and he can not make a grievance out of it, except on the grounds of mala fide or lack of evidence/supporting material, and arbitrariness, in the meaning that on available materials, no reasonable person, thinking reasonably would ordinarily form an opinion favouring compulsory retirement of the concerned employer. On that touch stone alone is the present case required to be assessed. 12. On that touch stone alone is the present case required to be assessed. 12. In order to appreciate the controversy in its fullness it would be apt to quote, verbatim, from recommendations of the appointed committee regarding premature retirement of the petitioner, who, as already said, figures at serial no. 5 of the list of officers so retired, which runs as follows:- Sl.No. Name of Officer/official With designation Grounds, in brief, for the premature retirement of the officer/official X Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5. Shri Mehraj-ud-Din Khan, Engineer Rural Development Department Shri Khan was appointed from the post of Village Level Workers as Sectional Officer in Kargil district vide Government order No. 288-Agri of 1981 dated 29-5-1981 on the ground that he had produced a certificate of having passed the course of Civil Engineering from International Correspondence Institute Bombay. He has thus rendered more than 22 years service in the Government. The State Board of Technical Education vice their letter dated 26-2-1997 had informed the Additional Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department that as per All India Directory of approved Institutes of 1996-97, of AICTE, there was no such institute recognized under the name of Inter-National Correspondence Institute, UCO Bank Hutama Chowk, P.O. 1931, Bombay, on whose certificate he was appointed as Sectional Officer in 1981. The State Board of Technical Education had further stated that Diploma/Degree offered by the Institute would not be valid and at par with Degree/Diploma awarded by the recognized Institute. Shri Khan is presently working in the Store Procurement and Marketing Society at Jammu and has also been asked by the Rural Development Department to hold the charge of the post of Executive Engineer REW Doda in addition to his own duties. xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Thus it would appear that the main ground of petitioners premature retirement in terms of the aforesaid recommendation, as accepted by the Government, is that at the time of his appointment as Sectional Officer in 1981, he produced a certificate, from an Institution, which was in 1997, reported to be unrecognized, as per the directory of such Institutions. As it is, however, neither the concerned letter of the Board of Technical Education purported to have been written to the Additional Secretary of the Rural Development Department, nor the intimation note, if any received from said Addl. As it is, however, neither the concerned letter of the Board of Technical Education purported to have been written to the Additional Secretary of the Rural Development Department, nor the intimation note, if any received from said Addl. Secretary and relief upon by the committee, is part of the record, nor has any one of these communications been produced by respondents at any stage of the proceedings. For that matter, the directory referred to therein or anything regarding the level of its authenticity, too, has not been furnished, and that being so, it is not very sure as to on what material other than the alleged "intimation" from Additional Secretary concerned, did the committee act to conclude that more than two decades back the petitioner had been appointed in the job on the basis of a fake certificate, particularly while right from his appointment till the impugned order, he had been serving the department apparently well, as suggested by his continuous promotions and commendatory remarks given in his favour by his superiors from time to time, as also the "excellent" APRS recorded throughout his service, especially for the five years preceding impugned order. The absence of material supporting the ground of petitioners premature retirement from the records submitted becomes more conspicuous in light of his service record, where from it percolates that he never incurred any punishment, during his entire service career; and the enquiries initiated and cases reportedly registered against him ended up in his total exoneration even before reaching the point of trial. This when viewed along with this APRs for five years from 1997-98 till 2001-2002, which as per proforma prescribed for furnishing of information regarding officers as appended to Government order No. DAR(Adm) 71/2003 dated 1-4-2003 were required to be considered and wherein, he has been rated as "excellent" and his achievement regarding targets fixed recorded as "100 Percent", suggests that import and impact of an apparently unsubstantiated allegation regarding production of fake certificates at the time of his entry into Government service, which in view of the overwhelming positive texture of his service record should have been considered with an extra amount of caution has been given conclusive weightage without proper justification. 13. 13. At this stage it would be appropriate to address the alleged production of fake certificate by petitioner at the time of his appointment, directly; and to start with a reference in that behalf may be made to Para 3 of the guidelines adopted by the appointed committee in its meeting of 2-7-2003 as reproduced hereinabove whereunder a specific class, for consideration of premature retirement has been constituted, as, "unqualified persons holding various engineering posts in Rural Engineering Wing of the Rural Development Department for which they are not otherwise eligible"; who too would be, "considered for premature retirement, in terms of sub Para (b) of Para 1", i.e., for having outlived their utility, but curiously enough this class is restricted to one particular department only, i.e, REW of RDD, and not extended to ineligible officers/officials those might have been holding higher posts in other departments. This phenomenon becomes more conspicuous in the light of the fact, that even in the targeted department also, only petitioner has been considered for premature retirement, leaving out others, who like him claimed to be qualified diploma engineers. That there were other such officers in the department is aptly evidenced by the reply of concerned Minister to question No. AQ 973 in assembly session of 1988, furnished by petitioner, which runs as under:- "REPLY AQ 973 of 1988, Regarding Diploma engineers. The number of qualified diploma Engineers who are working as I/C Jr. Engineers, I/C Assistant Engineers and I/C Ex. Eng. In their own pay and grade in the Rural Dev. Dept. Nine diploma Engineers are working in rural Development Department in Kashmir Div. as I/C Jr. Eng. I/C Assistant Engineers, I/C Executive engineers, in their own pay and grade." So at least nine diploma holders were reportedly working in rural Engineering Department of Kashmir Division as I/C Junior Engineers, I/C Assistant Engineers, and I/C Executive Engineers, in their own pay and grade. But incidentally none among them attracted Committees attention why was it so and why petitioner was specifically singled out,. Is not shown, particularly in view of the annexure to Government order No. 163-Agri of 1989 dated 3-3-1989, furnished by petitioner, as per which, many persons not duly qualified have been regularized in the cadre of engineers, even while some of them were under matric only. Is not shown, particularly in view of the annexure to Government order No. 163-Agri of 1989 dated 3-3-1989, furnished by petitioner, as per which, many persons not duly qualified have been regularized in the cadre of engineers, even while some of them were under matric only. In some cases, even record of the academic qualification of incumbents too, was not at all available. A few illustrative examples may be quoted from the said annexure as below: Tashi Namgial Under Matric Sonam Aangchok Matric Tsering Narboo -do- Sonam Tashi Under matric Nawant Chotak -do- Ghulam Rasool Matric Phunchok Tundup Under matric. Mohd Hassan Middle. Tashi Regzin Matric Rehzin Dara Under Matric. Phunchok Angchok Middle Tsering Angchok Matric Kanya Lal NA Chuni Lal NA Mohd Yousuf Matric Qamar-ud-Din Matric Why were all these Engineers left out consideration is not known. Even with that background, loaded as it is, with an assumption of petitioners selective consideration for premature retirement, the question of his production of fictitious certificate, does not appear to have surfaced for the first time only during proceedings of the aforesaid committee. It had been there for quite a long time, and arguably already settled in the legal sense. In that behalf it would be appropriate to notice, that as far back as on 11-3-1993, an FIR being No. 2/1993 was registered against the petitioner for having managed his appointment on basis of fictious certificate, for quashment whereof, he in view of materials furnished, appears to have filed OWP No. 1579/1993 in this court, which was dismissed by the Single bench on 30-7-1993, with an observation that investigation in the matter could not be stopped. In LPA No. 49/1993, filed against learned Single Judges order, the Division bench, while recording statement of the then Additional Advocate General to the effect that police authorities having investigated the matter had concluded the investigations by holding that "there is no case made out against the appellant," observed that no purpose would be served by proceeding ahead with the appeal, and dismissed the same as having become in fructuous in view of the stand taken by State, that case of producing fictitious certificate against the petitioner was not made out. Coupled with that, is the photo copy of a letter dated 11-4-1994, purporting to have been written by Executive Officer of the "International Correspondence Institute Bombay" to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch during investigation of the aforesaid FIR, wherein the Institute has confirmed the petitioner having been a bona fide student of the Institute for Civil Engineering Course under studentship No. ICS/12719 who completed the course successfully and was accordingly awarded the diploma certificate. Along with the letter, a copy of the diploma certificate is purported to have been sent, photocopy whereof forms part of the record. It may be recalled that the Institute aforementioned is the same regarding which the Additional Secretary of Rural Development Department is said to have been informed by Institute of Technical Education, that the directory of such Institutes did not mention it, whereupon the Institute was taken to be non-existent. It is perhaps on basis of this letter and the certificate forwarded to the Investigating Officer by concerned Institute, that investigations in aforesaid FIR was closed, as born out by concerned Investigating Officers report and furnished to CJM Srinagar on 6-6-1994 as per which, the case had been closed as not admitted, and thus seized certificate returned to petitioner by the said court on 8-6-1994. It is perhaps after this that the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department while responding to publication of a news item regarding certain illegal appointments/promotions in the Rural Development Department including that of the petitioner, informed the concerned editor vide his letter U.O.No. CS/RD/105 dated 1-10-1996 copy whereof is on record, that the academic qualification certificate of the officer had been verified from the concerned Institute, and found genuine. Even though petitioners name as concerned officer is not mentioned in the letter, but the assertion that it pertains to him only, has not been rebutted by the official side. Even though petitioners name as concerned officer is not mentioned in the letter, but the assertion that it pertains to him only, has not been rebutted by the official side. That being so, the controversy regarding fakery of certificate purporting to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment, appears to have died down much before the constitution of the committee, that ultimately recommended his premature retirement on that very ground, which, in the fact of aforementioned circumstances, appears to have been unduly overstretched, and quite casually relied upon, without adverting to other materials as aforesaid, available on the subject; exclusion whereof from consideration may well be attributable to share oversight though, yet their impact upon the conclusions remains. At this stage it may be apt to quote the following passage from apex court judgments reported as (1980) 4 SCC 321:- ".... One wonders how an officer whose continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, could be cashiered on the score that long years ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut may often be a wrong cut. The order of compulsory retirement fails because with vital material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, willfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law; Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on regard of the totality of material facts viewed in a holistic perspective. For these reasons, the order challenged is obviously bad and we quash it..." The observations apply to instant case with full effect, because of the total absence of material supporting the impugned order from records, which might not have been so had the recommendations of petitioners compulsory retirement been well documented. 14. In addition thereto, it may be recalled that under the original order whereby the committee was constituted, the concerned Secretary/Head of the Department was to be associated with proceedings while case of an officer belonging to his department was under consideration. 14. In addition thereto, it may be recalled that under the original order whereby the committee was constituted, the concerned Secretary/Head of the Department was to be associated with proceedings while case of an officer belonging to his department was under consideration. In terms therefore, the Director of rural Development Department should perhaps have been co-opted during consideration of petitioners case, which does not appear to have been done. As per Para 9 of the memo of objections purporting to have been filed, along with another respondent, on behalf of said Director also as respondent no. 3 it has been pleaded that, "respondents no. 2 and 3 have nothing to say vis-a-vis the Government order dated 9-12-2003, (order of petitioners premature retirement) as the same has been issued by General Administration Department, and the answering respondents have not been associated with this exercise, as admitted by respondent no. 1 in the objections."; which confirms that the appointed committee did not fully adhere to the guidelines/procedure it adopted for undertaking its assigned task, which to pay the least was not proper. Reference in this behalf may be made to the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in "Union of India v. R.C.Mishra." reported as (2003) 9 SCC, 217, in Para 5 whereof the court observed, that adherence to instructions meant to be followed while considering premature retirement of an employee was necessary. 15. This takes me to other aspect adverse to petitioner, in terms of the proceedings of appointed committee. To reiterate, reference may be made to the minutes recorded on 28-7-2003, as quoted hereinbefore, wherein the committee claimed to have gathered adverse reports regarding petitioners reputation "from a cross section of the people". Before proceeding ahead, it may be recalled that as per Para 1(c) of the guidelines adopted by the committee, as reproduced in opening part of the judgment, the officers whose general reputation was not good could be considered for premature retirement. Under Para 2, the cases of officers responsible for defalcation of money; or facing cases by Vigilance Organization and CB where trial court had framed charges, or involved in moral turpitude would be assumed to have bad reputation. Of these, the first two i.e falcation of government money, and prosecution, etc. Under Para 2, the cases of officers responsible for defalcation of money; or facing cases by Vigilance Organization and CB where trial court had framed charges, or involved in moral turpitude would be assumed to have bad reputation. Of these, the first two i.e falcation of government money, and prosecution, etc. are always matters of record, and none having been brought on fore, or claimed to be existing, in petitioners case, have to be assumed to be inapplicable to him; while regarding his involvement in any act of moral turpitude not even a bare allegation is made anywhere. Accordingly one would look for some sort of suggestive material, regarding "adverse reports" on petitioners general reputation, claimed to have been gathered from "cross section of the people". Since the appointed committee, with its given texture, was not a fact finding or investigate machinery, it could not be expected to directly "gather" the reports. Even then, if it undertook the exercise, when and how was that done, is not even hinted at. Obviously therefore, the "reports" could only have reached the committee from different sources, or, let us say, a "cross section of the people". But incidentally, nothing is shown or spoken, muchless spelt out, to indicate the texture of these reports, which if written could have been a part of record, and if verbal should have been reduced into a written memo for the sake of records; particularly because as per minutes of the proceedings of committee, it is these reports only, which brought petitioners case on its agenda for consideration of his premature retirement. On records therefore, there is no such report or even a mention thereof. In absence of anything to support this aspect, observations of the committee as aforesaid, only appear to reflect certain loose impressions attributable to hearsay, which despite being so, has apparently been at the back of their mind while recommending the impugned action. Had that not been so, it could perhaps be projected as an arguably plausible back ground for the committee to make its recommendations against the petitioner on some other acceptable ground which, as a matter of fact, is not the case. Had that not been so, it could perhaps be projected as an arguably plausible back ground for the committee to make its recommendations against the petitioner on some other acceptable ground which, as a matter of fact, is not the case. In the situation, thus, one feels compelled to say that even while 22 years long career of a middle rung government officer was at stake, an adverse decision on his premature retirement appears to have been taken on mere guess work and hear say, without enough material to substantiate the same. Again it appears to be apt to quote from the above quoted judgment i.e. (1980) 4 SCC321; Wherein while spelling out the requirement of supporting materials in cases of compulsory retirement, the apex court observed as under:- "...This takes us to the meat of the matter, viz., whether the appellant was retired because and only because it was necessary in the public interests so to do. It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary. Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service..." "..........So it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of `public interest if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal..." "...When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest the State must disclose the material so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of `public interest justifying forced retirement of the public servant..." Again the observations made apply with special force in the instant case for almost total lack of materials to support the impugned order. 16. 16. Thus the ground projected by the committee for recommending petitioners premature retirement i.e. the alleged production of a fictitious certificate, does not appear to be reasonably documented to the level, that a reasonable person, reasonably instructed in law, could agree with it as being well founded to qualify for being categorized as a justification for petitioners compulsory retirement in public interest. Simultaneous therewith, it would be apt to mention that the petitioner also claims to have undergone condensed course in Government Polytechnic college, which has under rules been treated to be equivalent to two years diploma for purposes of rendering a Sectional Officer eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as per the schedule annexed therewith with, i.e. "J&K Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 1978". A photo copy of the condensed course certificate shown to have been issued in petitioners favour on 1-5-1982 is on the file which purports to have been issued on the basis of result notification No. CPW/11/209 dated 1-1-1982. 17. This position is further elucidated by the report of Inquiry Officer appointed under Government order No. 84-Agri of 1997 dated: 10.9.1977 as partially modified by Government order No. 159-Agri of 1999 dated: 21.4.199 whereunder enquiry was directed against petitioner regarding extent and the nature of irregularities allegedly committed by him while executing works of Desert Development, Leh, up gradation of said Desert Development Agency to the level of special Sub-Division, delegation of powers of Executive Engineer, execution of works without inviting tenders etc. and whether the technical qualification reportedly accorded to the petitioner from International Correspondence Institute aforesaid was equivalent to a degree or the diploma in Engineering and whether the same could be treated at par with degree/diploma awarded by a recognized Engineering Institute in the country. The Inquiry Officer besides reporting that due administrative approval has been accorded by competent authority to the works executed by the Desert Development Agency and that after checking of payments made no violation of any codal formality was detected as all payments were duly verified and authenticated, also did not find petitioner involved under any of the other references for the reason that under Para 12 of Business Rules read with Government order No. 531-DD of 19996 dated: 19.9.1996 the orders issued by competent authority were quite right. Regarding the specific question of petitioners diploma in Engineering, the Inquiry Officer reported that in view of the Court orders passed on the subject from time to time, the issue had been concluded and did not require any further comments particularly because the petitioner had qualified the diploma from Kashmir Polytechnic College in 1982 under Roll No. 03 which under Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules of 1978 at par with the Diploma Engineers in 1977. The Inquiry Officer concluded his report with the remark that from inquiry conducted after going through the records thoroughly, the allegation regarding violation of codal formality against the petitioner was unfounded. In view of the said inquiry report not only the violations of administrative norms leveled against the petitioner were negative but the question of his being a valid Engineering Diploma holder was also almost settled. This is further gatherable from official records, copies whereof have been furnished by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been acknowledged to have been a diploma holder in Civil Engineering even by the Secretary of Rural Development Department from his noting on a particular official file (page 303 of the file) which has also been approved by the concerned Minister in the noting. 18. As regards the general service profile of the petitioner it would be relevant to notice that throughout his career, in general and during five years preceding his premature retirement in particular, the petitioner besides earning remarkable APRs has been commended for his work and recommended for promotions from time to time in view whereof his service career appears to have been fairly satisfactory which should not have been ignored by the committee while assessing him for premature retirement. Not only that any record, whatever, adverse to petitioner if considered by the committee in the matter has nowhere been mentioned muchless brought before the court. In sharp contrast, the records favorable to him have been totally ignored. The Honble Supreme Court, as also various High Courts, have been repeatedly holding that during such considerations the whole service record of the concerned officer has to be kept in view, and not only a particular portion thereof, especially ignoring the positive one and projecting the negative only. In sharp contrast, the records favorable to him have been totally ignored. The Honble Supreme Court, as also various High Courts, have been repeatedly holding that during such considerations the whole service record of the concerned officer has to be kept in view, and not only a particular portion thereof, especially ignoring the positive one and projecting the negative only. Reference in this behalf may be made to the law declared by Hon `ble apex court in "State of Orissa v. Chander Dass" reported as AIR 1996 SC 2436, wherein while adverting to the subject, the court observed as under:- "It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration to week out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate 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 the government servant including the latest reports". In addition thereto, the observations made by a Division bench of this court in "State v. Jia Lal Gupta" reported as 1994 SLJ 24 may also be quoted as under: "In the impugned order, there is no mention as to whether the service record of the petitioner had been perused before passing the orders. There is no reply of the state to fill in this lacuna. The only records produced in the court is the ACRs of the writ petitioner pertaining to the years 1964 to 1973 which do not warrant the conclusion that the writ petitioner is unfit for retention in service. There is no adverse entry. The later entries are rather good. In fact learned Advocate General has very fairly conceded that the record of the appellant is good. Even otherwise, since the respondents have failed to produce the recent record of the writ petitioner, more particularly that pertaining to his service as a Superintending Engineer, a presumption has to be drawn that the record, if produced would have gone against the respondents. Even otherwise, since the respondents have failed to produce the recent record of the writ petitioner, more particularly that pertaining to his service as a Superintending Engineer, a presumption has to be drawn that the record, if produced would have gone against the respondents. The service record of the appellate being good, there should have been some other relevant material to hold that the continuance of the writ petitioner was not in public interest..." Thus for all that has been discussed above, it appears that not only is the impugned order reasonable and unsubstantiated for want of reasonably supportive material, but it also appears to be in conflict with petitioners service record that should necessarily have bee taken into consideration while passing it. In addition to that, the Government too while accepting recommendations of the committee for compulsorily retiring the petitioner appears to have acted merely in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. 19. Before concluding, it would be appropriate to mention that during course of his arguments, learned Advocate General has while defending the impugned order in terms of the appointed committees recommendations, which have already been discussed hereinabove, also contended that this court not being an appellate forum, cant into the sufficiency of materials relied upon by the committee to subjectively satisfy itself about petitioners premature retirement having been in public interest particularly because he had also been subjected to a departmental enquiry, and also found to have mislead a minister to obtain a commendatory letter in his favour, which was later withdrawn by the minister. He has also relied upon certain judgments of Honble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1995 SC 1745, AIR 1994 SC 1261, AIR 1987 SC 1871, AIR 1965 SC 280, and AIR 1996 SC 277 to further support his arguments. In fairness, therefore, it would be proper to consider them all. (a). Regarding submissions made in the first instance it must be readily agreed that this Court is not expected to undertake the judicial review of the impugned order like and appellate forum, which in the mater it certainly is not. In fairness, therefore, it would be proper to consider them all. (a). Regarding submissions made in the first instance it must be readily agreed that this Court is not expected to undertake the judicial review of the impugned order like and appellate forum, which in the mater it certainly is not. But the lack or insufficiency of materials to indicate the reasonableness of conclusions leading to establishment of petitioners liability for premature retirement in public interest, from the stand point of reasonable man reasonably thinking has got to be examined as that is an acknowledged ground for judicial review of order like the present one. As a matter of fact the exercise of appellate power which ordinarily would mean a reappraisal of materials to formulate a different opinion on facts involved is not even required in the instant case because of total lack of such materials, as mentioned herein before. In absence of materials no question of reappreciation as an appellate review would arise. That the petitioner had been facing an inquiry on certain charges of omissions and commissions though factually correct is only half of the whole truth, as born out by Inquiry officers final report, copy whereof is on the file, according to which the petitioner stands positively exonerated. Even the mention of alleged non-observance about certain codal formalities by a letter of Vigilance Organization has been negative by the Inquiry Officer by observing that on non-observance of codal formalities was detected and this matter has ended there. So far as the ministers commendatory letter in petitioners favour and its subsequent withdrawal is concerned less said thereupon is better. Suffice it to observe that if the Honble Minister could be "induced to deny what he willingly wrote, and both ways only his credibility would take a beating reducing his conduct to a mere mockery of ministerial responsibility. Normally, however officials/officers always seek and sometimes get appreciation letter from their superiors. (b). Suffice it to observe that if the Honble Minister could be "induced to deny what he willingly wrote, and both ways only his credibility would take a beating reducing his conduct to a mere mockery of ministerial responsibility. Normally, however officials/officers always seek and sometimes get appreciation letter from their superiors. (b). Now the judgments quoted and relief upon by the learned Advocate General as cited above I. In "Chief General Manger State Bank of India v. Suresh Chandra Beheras," the case reported as AIR 1995 SC 1745, the appellant Bank had prematurely retired the respondents under 3rd proviso of Para 19(1) of the enabling provision whereunder the Executive Committee of the Bank could "in its direction" order premature retirement of an officer ordered respondents premature retirement after approving the report of concerned committee who after giving though respondents entire service record had recorded that: "The overall performance of the respondent during the past five years had been `Average. He was censured for procedural irregularities as Head Cashier. His performance as a Branch Manager had not been satisfactory on account of his inadequate job knowledge. His initiative had also been average for the last five years. Though he was withdrawn as a Branch Manager and was posted as a Passing Officer since April, 1984 to impart further training in the Accounts Wing, he had shown no improvement despite his seniority. The Bank was not able to utilize him effectively commensurate with his seniority. Even the proposal to transfer him to the cash wing could not be suggested against the back-drop of his earlier performance as a Head Cashier. The Committee further observed that the respondents extension of service was already delayed by more than three years and was nearing the second review. Hence there was no alternative but to grant him extension of service till he attained 54 years of age on 23.1.1986. He should be compulsorily retired on that date after giving him requisite notice in October, 1985, as per paragraph 19(1)." And in those circumstances while reiterating that: "It has reaffirmed that the Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court. He should be compulsorily retired on that date after giving him requisite notice in October, 1985, as per paragraph 19(1)." And in those circumstances while reiterating that: "It has reaffirmed that the Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court. It would interfere only if it is satisfied that the order is malafid, or is based on evidence or 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 a perverse order" (Emphasis supplied) this court opined in Para 7 of the judgment: "Looking to the findings arrived at by the Reviewing Committee after a detailed examination of the service record of the respondent, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be faulted on any ground. The High Court cannot examine for itself the service record of any employee and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Reviewing Committee." (Emphasis supplied). Thus while there the Committee had thoroughly gone through the entie service record of the concerned officer with specific instances of his inefficiency, whereupon the apex court said that the subjective opinion of the committee could not be substituted on reappraisal, of records, here no such scanning of petitioners service record is claimed, much less shown; leaving little scope for reappreciation of records and hence substitution of the opinion. In contrast there is a noticeable exclusion of petitioners service record, especially his APRs etc. from consideration regarding to which one cannot shut his eyes. Thus the factual matrix and circumstances of the case quoted above is quite different from the instant case while principles contained therein have been respectfully observed in so far their application to the instant case is attracted. II. "Union of India v. V.P. Seth" reported as AIR 1994 SC 1261, is a case where certain uncommunicated adverse ACRs were relied upon to compulsory retire the respondent. While Administrative Tribunal held that they could not be so relief upon for the purpose unless communicated to the Officer for enabling him to represent against same and till disposal of such representation on merits if made, the Apex Court opined to the contrary and laid down that in view of the already declared law such APRs could be relied upon etc. Thus that case appears to be completely different from the one in hand, as respondents reliance upon such ACRs while passing the impugned order is not at all involved. On the contrary an important component of petitioners grievance is that even his duly communicated ACRs were not considered, let alone relied upon. III. In "Kalesh Chandra v. State of M.P" reported as AIR 1987 SC 1871, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on administrative side recommended premature retirement of the petitioner unanimously with 25 Judges forming the Coram. Challenging it on the ground that some uncommunicated ACRs had been relief by the High Court even though notwithstanding them he had been promoted to a superior post, the petitioner claimed that he should have been heard before recommendation of his compulsory retirement. On directions of Apex Court, the High Court disclosed the materials it had relief upon to petitioner who represented against the same which was considered by the High court but even thereafter it endorsed the earlier recommendations while finally disposing of the matter, the Apex court did not entertain the plea that uncommunicated ACRs should not have been relied upon, or that after petitioners representation, the High/Court could not have taken into account the remarks of the District Judge on petitioners representation. As would be seen, the case is not even remotely identical with the present one and has thus no bearing whatsoever thereupon. IV. As would be seen, the case is not even remotely identical with the present one and has thus no bearing whatsoever thereupon. IV. "Shivehander v. State of Mysore", reported as: AIR 1965 SC 280, is a case where the employees compulsorily retired had challenged the rule enabling compulsory retirement of government servants, whereupon the Supreme Court while observing that validity of such rules was too well settled to be reopened also held that the question whether or not compulsory retirement of a Government servant was in public interest was for the Government to decide and while opining on facts of the case observed in Para 4 that: "Whether or not the petitioners retirement was in the public interest is a matter for the State Government to consider, and as to the plea that the order is arbitrary and illegal, it is impossible to hold on the material placed by the petitioner before us that the said order suffers from the vice of mala fide." (Emphasis supplied) As would be seen, in the instant case the question is not whether Government or some other authority is competent to assess whether petitioners premature retirement was or was not in public interest. The whole controversy is that the conclusion arrived as such is not reasonably supported by any material; and sufficiency of materials to substantiate the Governments opinion in that behalf can according to law as it later developed with greater clarity, be gone into for examining its substance. In terms therefore, this judgment too does not appear to have any bearing on the case in hand except in so far as that the materials placed before the court by petitioner too were considered while assessing the reasonability of his retirement order because instantly also materials furnished by petitioner have been taken into consideration similarly. V. "K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India," reported as AIR 1996 SC 277 is a case where the appellant, a DIG of Police was compulsorily retired according to the judgment in following circumstances: Para. 2 "On the recommendation by the Review Committee on June 12, 1986 for considering his case for promotion, the Government of India had called for a special report and his State Government had submitted his repot on June 12, 1987. 2 "On the recommendation by the Review Committee on June 12, 1986 for considering his case for promotion, the Government of India had called for a special report and his State Government had submitted his repot on June 12, 1987. Therein it was stated that since his posting as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, there were persistent reports of his acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. While no specific evidence of receiving money from his subordinate was forthcoming, he himself had come up with a request for permission to acquire a coffee estate in the name of his wife for Rs. 25 lakhs on the basis that he would pay Rs. 5 lakhs by mortgaging his house and rest of the amount by hank loans. Formal enquiries indicated that the estate would be worth about the least Rs. 60 lakhs. As the transaction appeared to be highly suspicious, confidential preliminary enquiries were made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption into the source for this large amount. It was stated that in the C. Rs of the period from April, 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985 it has been recorded that his work as Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Madras, was not satisfactory. It has also been recorded that his integrity during this period could not be certified, as he came out with a proposal about purchase of an estate by his wife and son valued at a few lakhs . An officer with not of patrimony to boast about, the transaction is full of suspicion, Government have been requested to have further verified through the Vigilance Agency. It was also noted that pending further the report, the entries on verification of the integrity was awaited". Para. 3 On consideration of the above reports, the Government of India in its proceedings dated: August 20, 1987 recorded thus: "Thus undersigned is directed to enclose copies of briefs regarding a proposal to retire Shri K.Kandaswamy, I.P.S (TN: 1966) from Indian Police service under Rule 16(3) of AIS (DCRS) Rules, 1958, with the request that it may kindly be placed before the Central Establishment Board/Appointments committee of the Cabinet Secretariat for consideration and orders". Para. Para. 4 "Pursuant thereto, decision was taken to compulsory retire the appellant from service and order was passed to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the impugned order dated February 9, 198". Para. 7 "The question, therefore, is whether the Government of India was not justified in doubting the integrity and whether it is based on no evidence." And with following observations, in Paras 8 to 11, dismissed the appeal: "Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is neither punishment nor visits with loss of retrial benefits; nor does it cast stigma. The officer would be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned and there is no diminution of the accrued benefits. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in public interest. If the appropriate authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before Courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it. But the same may be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion is based on evidence or has not been formed or the decision is based for collateral grounds or that it is and arbitrary decision." Para. 8 "As seen in the light of the documents and in the light of the specific permission sought by the appellant himself on the basis of the specific permission sought by the appellant himself on the basis of the special report submitted by the State Government, the Government of India through the appropriate Committee reached the conclusion that in view of the doubtful integrity it would not be desirable in the public interest to retain the appellant in service..................Compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If is neither punishment nor visits with loss or retrial benefits; nor does it east stigma. The officer would be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned and there is no diminution of the accrued benefits. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in public interest. If the appropriate authority bonafide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before Courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it. The object of compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in public interest. If the appropriate authority bonafide forms that opinion, the correctness thereof on merits cannot be challenged before Courts, though it may be open to the aggrieved employee to impugn it. But the same may be challenged on the ground that requisite opinion is based on no evidence or has not been formed or the decision is based for collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision". Para. 9 "The government is given power to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service, when the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in the public interest". Proceeding ahead the court quoted the following passage from the earlier judgment reported as (1994) 3 SCC 424 with approval: "The Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency, integrity in public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt of public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence . The officer would live by live by reputation built around him. In appropriate case, there may be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Reviewing committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances alone: the Government should form the opinion that the Government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government Officer." Para. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government Officer." Para. 10 "The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material con record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or coloborable exercise of power". Para. 11 "Considering from the perspective and the material on record, we are of the considered view that the decision taken by the government of India cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjustified or based on no evidence." Proceeding further the court observed: "The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material con record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colorable exercise of power." And finally disposed of the matter in following terms: "Considering from the perspective and the material on record, we are of the considered view that the decision taken by the Government of India cannot be held to be arbitrary, unjustified or based on no evidence." Thus the said judgment too while observing, approving and laying down various principles governing the mater stresses upon sufficiency of materials to support the decision of Government employees compulsory retirement, and in given circumstances of present case, could perhaps, have been relied upon by the petitioner as well. VI. Cumulatively, therefore thus the precedents relied upon by learned Advocate General either contain the principles governing the subject as later condensed in Barkhu Naths case, or are distinguishable on facts and circumstance, and as such do not further the contentions advanced by him. VII. VI. Cumulatively, therefore thus the precedents relied upon by learned Advocate General either contain the principles governing the subject as later condensed in Barkhu Naths case, or are distinguishable on facts and circumstance, and as such do not further the contentions advanced by him. VII. It would also be appropriate to mention that during submissions, the learned Advocate General also furnished a file No. RDIB/23/95 relating to certain allegedly incompetent appointments/transfers stated to have been made by the petitioner while posted as In charge Executive Engineer, Hill Development Council, Leh and the enquiry stated to have been initiated on which petitioner as per records of the committee has been recommended for premature retirement, it would not be necessary to consider it in orders mentioned therein, almost all of them have been passed with prior or post approval of the appropriate authorities concerned which considerably dilutes whatever impact the contents of the file could have on the matter. 20. (a). In conclusion, therefore, for all that has been stated above the impugned order of petitioners retirement, not being based on sufficient material, or if one may say, having been issued without any cogent material to reasonably support it, suffe4rs from the vice of arbitariness and cannot sustain. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the impugned order of petitioners premature retirement bearing No. 1549-GAD of 2003 dated: 9.12.2003 is quashed. (b). The quashment shall, however, not act as a bar against respondents to freshly assess the petitioner for such statutory disciplinary action as would be lawful in case they find sufficient materials for the same. (c). In views of the conclusions arrived at the petitioners claim of not having 22 years service at his credit and therby not liable to forced retirement, and his allegation of mala fides against respondent No. 2 and relevance need not be specifically addressed. 21. Petition stands accordingly disposed of with all connected CMPs.