SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. R. Sirohi for respondents. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 18. 5. 2002 by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56@ after making him entitled to receive three months salary. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that there was no material other than an adverse entry dated 10. 5. 2002, which was awarded to the petitioner and that too just two days before the order of compulsory retirement was passed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this entry has nothing to do with the work and conduct of the petitioner. It was made concerning an endorsement made by the petitioner in the stock register that only 9 out of 11 Almirahs were received in the Courts at Charkhari. The District Judge found that incorrect entry has been made in the stock register by the petitioner who had just taken over charge at Charkhari. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that for the last 28 years, the petitioner was not given any adverse entry. His record was even otherwise, not communicated this entry. If at all the remarks were made for misconduct, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 ; Pritam Singh v. Union of India 2005 (1) LBESR 807 (SC) 1, and the judgment in Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham JT (1997)7 SCC 463 . ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit of Sri P. N. Sachan, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba these facts are admitted. Paragraph 5, 9 and 11 of the counter affidavit are quoted as below: "5. That in reply to the contents of para 5 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Central Nazir on 3. 7. 2000. However, on Administrative grounds the petitioner was deputed as Deputy Nazir in place of Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh vide order dated 26. 7. That in reply to the contents of para 5 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Central Nazir on 3. 7. 2000. However, on Administrative grounds the petitioner was deputed as Deputy Nazir in place of Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh vide order dated 26. 7. 2001, and while working as Deputy Nazir, the petitioner had committed gross misconduct by making entries of 9 Godrej Tables instead of 11 purchased for Charkhari by the then District judge. 9. That the contents of paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition, as stated, are denied. It is submitted that the then Officer-in-charge (Nazarat) Sri R. P. Rai, has made endorsement against the petitioner on 11. 4. 2001. Thus, the irregularity was committed by the petitioner before 10. 5. 2002. 11. That the contents of paras 20 to 23 of the writ petition, as stated, are denied. Suitable reply in detail have already been given in the foregoing part of this counter affidavit, which may kindly be perused here. The impugned order is wholly just, proper and legal and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is stated that the petitioner was compulsorily retired on the basis of the report of screening committee on 18. 5. 2002. The petitioner had committed gross misconduct by making entries of nine Godrej Tables instead of eleven purchased for Charkhari court, in the stock register. It is stated that the entry against the petitioner is made about purchase of Almirahs, where as the petitioner made wrong entry in the purchase of tables. ( 6 ) THE endorsement in the service book of the petitioner was made by the District Judge, mahoba on 10. 5. 2004, just eight days before the screening committee submitted its report. There is no other adverse entry or material in the entire service record of the petitioner to form an opinion that it was not in the public interest to continue him in service. I find that even in this entry of the year 2001-02 his work and conduct was reported to be good and his integrity was certified by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba, who was the reporting authority. The District Judge did not agree with this assessment and had made a remark of the facts endorsement which, at best, amounted to misconduct. The District Judge did not agree with this assessment and had made a remark of the facts endorsement which, at best, amounted to misconduct. The petitioner has right to explain the charges. He has stated in the writ petition that he had taken over only 9 Almirah in his custody after physical verification and that had made a correct entry in the stock register. He has annexed bill No. 36 dated 20. 3. 2001 of Sahu Sales by which only 9 Almirah was purchased on 20. 3. 2001 and was taken in stock. I do not propose to go into these allegations and his explanation to these proceedings. The fact remain that there were no material except the note of the District Judge, on 10. 9. 2002 over the report of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba, giving his assessment of petitioners work for the year 2001-02. The assertion in paragraph 19 that before making endorsement, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. ( 7 ) IN S. Ramachaudra Raju (supra) the Supreme Court held that where there was nothing in the entire service record, except the solitary adverse report, it could not be made a ground for compulsory retirement, as no satisfaction could be reached in such case that it is in the public interest to retire the petitioner. Paragraph 9 of the judgment is. relevant for the purposes of this case which is quoted below: "9. It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the government must exercise its power only in public interest to effectuaqte the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to be augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on 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 reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not 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 in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service 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. When an officer reaching the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evolution of the entire record of service if the government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona-fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala-fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service. ( 8 ) SIMILAR view was taken in the Pritam Singhs case (supra ). Para 15 of this case is relevant for purposes and is quoted below: "15. ( 8 ) SIMILAR view was taken in the Pritam Singhs case (supra ). Para 15 of this case is relevant for purposes and is quoted below: "15. This Court in the case of Union of India and Anr v. G. Ganayutha, JT 1997 (7) SC 572; (1997) 7 SCC 463 , while examining the scope of judicial review held that "reasonableness" "rationality" and "proportionality" are the grounds on the basis of which judicial grounds on the basis of which judicial review of the administrative order can be undertaken. Considering he facts extracted herein before, we find that the exercise of power by the respondent falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power. " ( 9 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, materials placed on record, and principles, for resorting to compulsorily retirement given by the Supreme Court, I find that there was no material other than an adverse remark given up by the District Judge, just eight days before the petitioner was considered for compulsorily retirement. The District Judge did not disagree with the assessment of the reporting authority for the work and conduct of the petitioner. His integrity was certified. The fact that the petitioner had made an entry of only 9 Almirah in stock book and according to district Judge, 11 Almirah were purchased, could have been a ground to give a show cause notice to the petitioner and to take a appropriate disciplinary action for misconduct. It, however, could not be made a ground up form an opinion that the continuance of the petitioner in service is not in public interest and thus the officer needs to be retired compulsorily. ( 10 ) I find that the report of the screening committee as well as the subsequent satisfaction of the district Judge as appointing authority was not in the bonafide exercise of power and is thus liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is consequently allowed. The order of compulsorily retirement dated 18. 5. 2002 is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. There will be no order as to costs. . .