Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1042 (ALL)

Vasudeo Singh v. State of U. P.

2006-04-18

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.1990 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow, compulsorily retiring the Petitioner under Rule 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules from the post of Junior Engineer. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he was appointed as Overseer in 1960 and was confirmed in the year 1974. At any point of time no disciplinary action was initiated or contemplated against him and as such the impugned order of compulsory retirement is illegal. It is further submitted that the Petitioner received two letters dated 2.2.1990 communicating him adverse entries for the period 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1987 and 1.4.1988 to 29.4.1989. With regard to adverse entry for the period 1.4.1988 to 29.4.1989 it is stated that the Petitioner has never worked under Sri Dinesh Chandra Kansal who awarded the aforesaid adverse entry and in fact Sri S. K. Sultania was the Assistant Engineer under whom he was working during that period. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the aforesaid adverse entries were awarded on account of bias and mala fide against the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner was allowed six weeks' time to make representation, but even before expiry of the aforesaid period the impugned decision was taken which is illegal and lack sufficient material for passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the Petitioner again submitted representation but that too is pending before the Respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to para 3 of the counter-affidavit stating that entire service record has not been considered while forming opinion of compulsory retirement and there existed no material against the Petitioner for taking such decision. 4. The Respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein it has been stated that the entire record was considered while passing the impugned order and in this regard the report of screening committee was also considered which recommended for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner, since the Petitioner's continuance in service was not found in public interest. The detail of the service record showing his performance has been given in para 3 of the counter-affidavit as under: (3) ... The details of the Petitioner's performance is as under: 1972 Two permanent increments. 1980 Two temporary increments. 1982 One temporary increment. 1983 One permanent increment. 1984 One temporary increment. 1986 Three permanent increments. The detail of the service record showing his performance has been given in para 3 of the counter-affidavit as under: (3) ... The details of the Petitioner's performance is as under: 1972 Two permanent increments. 1980 Two temporary increments. 1982 One temporary increment. 1983 One permanent increment. 1984 One temporary increment. 1986 Three permanent increments. Besides the following losses were caused to Government by the Petitioner, for which recovery orders were passed: In the year 1967 Rs. 836.61 In the year 1978 Rs. 7565.70 In the year 1979 Rs. 5502.65 In the year 1982 Rs. 1966.70 In the year 1989 Rs. 2500.00 In addition to above the integrity certificates of the Petitioner were also withheld as under: 1979-80 Once 1982-83 Once 1983-84 Once 1984-85 Once 1988-89 Once That during the tenure of last ten years of the services of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was given adverse entries in his A.C. 1981-82 Adverse 1982-83 Adverse. 1983-84 Adverse. 1984-85 Adverse (1.4.1984 to 8.8.1984) 1987-88 Adverse (1.8.1987 to 31.3.1988) 1988-89 Adverse That during the following years of the service of the Petitioner, the Petitioner given censor entries: 1977 Once 1980 Once 1983 Twice 1984 Once 1986 Once 1987 Once” 5. It is also stated that the screening committee has considered the matter on 19.2.1990 and after assessing the performance of the Petitioner for the last 10 years particularly the adverse entries awarded by Sri A.K. Singhal and Sri D.C. Kansal, the screening committee has recommended for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. It is also stated that Sri Dinesh Chandra, Assistant Engineer gave adverse entry to the Petitioner for the period of 1.4.1988 to 30.6.1988 and Sri S.K. Sultania, Assistant Engineer gave entries in the A.C.R. for the period 1.7.1988 to 31.3.1988. Sri A.K. Singhal, Executive Engineer withheld the integrity of the Petitioner for the above said periods. 6. The Petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit wherein the averments made in para 3 of the counter-affidavit have been denied and it has been stated that vide order dated 6.5.1999 the increments stopped for three years, have been given to the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Petitioner was allowed selection grade after completing 19 years service, hence there is no sufficient material for compulsory retirement. It is also stated that the Petitioner was allowed selection grade after completing 19 years service, hence there is no sufficient material for compulsory retirement. It is also stated that vide order 15.9.1988, the earlier order dated 6.5.1999 withholding of three increments and adverse remark regarding his integrity has been cancelled and he was allowed consequential benefits. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The impugned order of compulsory retirement has been assailed by the Petitioner on the following grounds: 1. The adverse entries which were communicated vide letter dated 9.1.1990 for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89, were represented which was pending and not decided, yet the said entries have been taken into account for considering the Petitioner under Fundamental Rule 56 for premature retirement. 2. The various punishments awarded were already revoked and certain entries were also expunged, but they have also been taken into account for the purpose of compulsory retirement. 3. The Petitioner was allowed promotion in selection grade after completing 19 years of service. The entries earlier to the date of said promotion could not have been considered. 4. There is no material justifying compulsory retirement of the Petitioner and the power has been exercised by the appointing authority in an unreasonable manner with collateral purpose vitiating the impugned order. 5. The order of compulsory retirement casts stigma against the career of the Petitioner. It is arbitrary in nature and could not have been passed without opportunity of hearing. The impugned order has been passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 9. Before proceeding to consider the various submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable in U.P. after its amendment in 1976: 56.(a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a Government servant in inferior service, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. (b) The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 60 years. He must not be retained in service after that date, except in very special circumstances and with the sanction of Government, (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b) the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of 50 years, or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he had completed qualifying service of 20 years. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that: (i) any such Government servant may, by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice, be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of 50 years, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement ; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided further that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in the case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding the Government servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted: Provided also that the notice once given by a Government servant under Clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority ; (e) A retiring person shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with the subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule: Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less. Explanation. Explanation. -- (1) The decision of the appointing authority under Clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under Clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration: (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on an ad hoc basis ; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration alongwith the entry ; or (c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken into the public interest. (3) The expression “appointing authority” means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire, and the expression “qualifying service” shall have the same meaning as in the relevant rules relating to retiring person. (4) Every order of the appointing authority requiring a Government servant to retire forthwith under the first proviso to Clause (d) of the rule shall have effect from the afternoon of the date of its issue, if the Government servant concerned, bona fide and in ignorance of that order, performs the duties of his office, his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that in order to form opinion whether the Government servant should be retired compulsorily, the appointing authority is entitled to consider the entire service record of the Government servant even if he has been subsequently allowed promotion or crossed efficiency bar etc. or whether his representation against the adverse entries is pending provided his representation has also been taken into consideration. or whether his representation against the adverse entries is pending provided his representation has also been taken into consideration. 11. The reason for giving such a wide power to the appointing authority is easily understandable. Whole purpose of provision made for compulsory retirement is to weed out worthless without resorting to bona fide extreme covered by Article 311 of the Constitution. After all the administration to be efficient has to be manned by efficient, competent and prone workers and should not be manned by drones do nothing, incompetent and un-worthies. Lack of efficiency by itself does not amount to a misconduct and, therefore, such incumbent may not be delinquent needs to be punished but may prove to be a burden on the administration, if by insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the floor or promote stagnation. In a developing country where speed, probity, sensitive, enthusiastic, creative and non-brevity process are immediately required, callous cadres and paper logged are the bees setting sin of the administration. Therefore, it is in public interest to retire a never doer person. Some times the reputation or otherwise the information available to the superior officers reflects on the integrity of the employee but there may not be sufficient evidence available to initiate punitive action, but conduct and reputation for continuing of such person is menace in public service and injurious to public interest. In said case also the order of compulsory retirement may be passed by the competent authority. 12. At this stage it would be useful to refer some of the decisions of the Apex Court throwing light analyzing the objective and purpose of compulsory retirement, the source of power and the scope of judicial review in such matters. 13. In Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review as under: An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. F.R. 56 (j) authorizes the Government to review the working of its employee at the end of the period of their service referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The Courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record. (para 5) (Emphasis added) 14. In T. Ramegowda Vs. R. Krishnamurthy and others, AIR 1994 SC 85 held as under: 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 the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public servant needs 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. But his conduct and reputation is such and his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. 15. In State of U.P. and Another Vs. Abhai Kishore Masta, (1995) 1 SCC 336 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: ...if the charge or imputation against the officer is made the condition of the exercise of the power it must be held to be by way of punishment--otherwise not. In other words if it is found that the authority has adopted an easier course of retiring the employee under Rule 56 (j) instead of proceeding with and concluding the enquiry or where it is found that the main reason for compulsorily retiring the employee is the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding or the levelling of the charges, as the case may be, it would be a case for holding it to be penal. But there may also be a case where the order of compulsory retirement is not really or mainly based upon the charges or the pendency of disciplinary enquiry. As a matter of fact, in many cases, it may happen that the authority competent to retire compulsorily under Rule 56 (j) and authority competent to impose the punishment in the disciplinary enquiry are different. It may also be that the charges communicated or the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry is only one of the several circumstances taken into consideration. In such cases it cannot be said that merely because the order of compulsory retirement is made after the charges are communicated or during the pendency of disciplinary enquiry, it is penal in nature.(para 8) 16. In Allahabad Bank Officers Association and another Vs. Allahabad Bank and others, AIR 1996 SC 2030 the Apex Court observed as under: The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.(para 5) 17. In State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, AIR 1996 SC 2436 the Apex Court held: ... It is needless to reiterate that the settled 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 administration or to weed 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. (para 3) 18. In M.S. Bindra Vs. (para 3) 18. In M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1998 SC 3058 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: Therefore, judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence, the observation that principles of natural justice have no place in the context of compulsory retirement does not mean that if the version of the delinquent officer is necessary to reach the correct conclusion the same can be obviated on the assumption that other materials alone need be looked into.(para 11) 19. Fundamental Rule 56 as applicable in U.P. itself has been considered by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Lalsa Ram, AIR 2001 SC 1137 the Apex Court in para 11 of the judgment held as under: The Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules governing the service conditions of the Respondent herein, in particular, Rule 56 (c) and Explanation 2 (a), (b) and (c) specifically provide that nothing in the Rules should be construed to exclude from consideration any entry relating to any period before a Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or he was promoted to any post in an officiating or a substantive capacity or on an ad hoc basis. The important words used are: nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration the exclusion thus is prohibited in terms of the rule. The authority concerned, by reason wherefor has thus a liberty to consider even entries relating to the period before the Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted. It is true that one of the guiding principles as enunciated above in Baikuntha Nath case with regard to performance during the later years ought to be attached more importance but that does not exclude the consideration of the entire record of service.” (para 11) 20. Again in para 13 of the judgment in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Lalsa Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Fundamental Rule 56 confers the right absolute to retire an employee on happening of certain event namely, the employee attaining 50 years of age. The only guiding factor is the public interest to retire an employee. Again in para 13 of the judgment in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Lalsa Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Fundamental Rule 56 confers the right absolute to retire an employee on happening of certain event namely, the employee attaining 50 years of age. The only guiding factor is the public interest to retire an employee. It also held that the right being absolute and in the event it is not contrary to the condition, as embodied in Fundamental Rule 56, the question of violation of any legal right of an employee would not arise. It further held where the material is sufficient and conclusion of the authority would have been justified, it cannot be a matter of judicial review, since primarily it is for the departmental authority to decide. The delinquency of the entry and whether it is of such a degree as to reflect on the efficiency of the employee has to be decided by the authorities and the Courts have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with such exercise of power, if arrived at bona fide on the basis of the material on record. Usurption of authority is not only unwarranted but contrary to all norms of service jurisprudence. Showing its agreement with the law laid down in The State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh, AIR 1998 SC 1661 the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Lalsa Ram (supra) further held as follows: .... The appointing authority upon consideration of the entire service record as required under the rules and having formed its opinion that the compulsory retirement of the Respondent being in public interest issued the order and in the wake of the aforesaid, question of any interference of this Court does not and cannot arise. Interference in these matters by the Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under the constitutional mandate is very restricted and the Courts shall have to tread on the issue with utmost care and caution by reason of very limited scope of interference. The High Court has, in fact, ignored this aspect of the matter and proceeded solely on the basis of the factum of there being no adverse entry in the recent past. The High Court has, in fact, ignored this aspect of the matter and proceeded solely on the basis of the factum of there being no adverse entry in the recent past. Needless to state that adverse entries did not stand extinguished by mere lapse of time but they continued to be on record and it is for the employer to act and rely thereon in the event of there being a rule permitting an order of compulsory retirement. (para 16) 21. Now coming to the various issues raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, his first submission is that the order of compulsory retirement is punishment and violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as long back as in 1954, the Apex Court in Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1954 SC 369 held that the order of compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and is not a punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India or Rule 55 of the Civil Servant Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. It also held that as a result of dismissal or removal the Government servant loses benefits already earned. A dismissed or removed employee does not get pension which he had earned, but an officer who has compulsory retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned. He is entitled for pension etc. There is no deprivation of the accrued benefits. It may be true that the officer may consider himself punished, but there is a clear distinction between loss of benefit already earned and loss of prospect to earn something more. 22. After analyzing the entire earlier law on the matter of compulsory retirement the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1029 laid down certain principles which have been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 and it would be useful to reproduce the said principles: (i) When the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 and it would be useful to reproduce the said principles: (i) When the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 23. Therefore the plea of violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no force and is accordingly rejected. 24. Similarly the contention of the Petitioner is that he was not given opportunity to defend him, is also liable to be rejected, since it was held repeatedly that in the matter of compulsory retirement principle of natural justice has no place. In Baikunth Nath Das (supra), the Apex Court clearly held as under: Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. 25. In Baikunth Nath Das (supra), the Apex Court clearly held as under: Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. 25. Further submission that the adverse entries against which representations were pending and the adverse entries prior to the promotion could not have been considered, also cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalsa Ram (supra), where in para 16, it was held that the appointing authority is entitled to form an opinion upon consideration of the entire service record and adverse entries would not stand extinguished by mere lapse of time but they continued to be on record and it is for the employer to act and rely thereon in the event of there being a rule permitting an order of compulsory retirement. 26. In fact in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Bihari Lal, AIR 1995 SC 1161 the Apex Court has held that the entries, if for technical reasons might have been expunged even such record could have been considered and would not affect the order of compulsory retirement provided the appointing authority has taken a decision that the retention of the Government servant is not in public interest. The Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment held as under: It is now settled law that the entire service record should be considered before taking a decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary that adverse remarks should be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorized as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the Government servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of officer built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a Government servant. The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a Government servant. The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the bona fide decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any mala fide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by the Court/Tribunal in exercise of its judicial review. (para 4) (Emphasis added) 27. The appointing authority has to form its opinion which depends on subjective satisfaction based on objective consideration and unless it is shown that there is no material at all and the decision is totally perverse, the Court could not interfere. In Jugal Chandra Saikia Vs. State of Assam and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1362 , the Apex Court held as under: It cannot be disputed that the passing of an order of compulsory retirement depends on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, of course on objective consideration. Unless it is shown that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without application of mind or that such formation of opinion to retire compulsorily was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was totally perverse, the Court cannot interfere. 28. In the present case admittedly, as apparent from the pleadings, besides several adverse entries, punishment etc. there is sufficient material to show that no person of ordinary prudence may say that retention of the Petitioner in Government service would be in public interest. Even if one or two entries or punishment, as argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, are excluded, it cannot be said that there is no material justifying the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. 29. The Petitioner further submitted that his representations against the adverse entry for the year 1987-88 is pending and therefore, the same should not be considered is also not correct, inasmuch as Annexure-3 shows that it is a communication letter regarding entry of the aforesaid period to the Petitioner. 29. The Petitioner further submitted that his representations against the adverse entry for the year 1987-88 is pending and therefore, the same should not be considered is also not correct, inasmuch as Annexure-3 shows that it is a communication letter regarding entry of the aforesaid period to the Petitioner. Annexures 4 and 5, as alleged by the Petitioner, are representations made by him against the aforesaid adverse entries but from the perusal of the aforesaid annexures, it appears that the same are not representations against the adverse entries but a letter sent by the Petitioner seeking certain information and documents from the Superintending Engineer and by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be the representations against the aforesaid entries. Therefore, it cannot be said that the representations against the aforesaid adverse entries were actually pending, since none was ever made. 30. The next contention of the Petitioner that the adverse entries recorded by the Sri D. C. Kansal, Assistant Engineer, for the period 1.4.1988 to 29.4.1989 is illegal since the Petitioner did not work under the said officer is also liable to be rejected, inasmuch as Annexure 3 shows that the Petitioner was communicated the entire entries for the aforesaid period. It further shows that for the period 1.4.1988 to 30.6.1988 and 1.7.1987 to 29.4.1989, the Petitioner was working under Sri A.K. Singhal, Executive Engineer who has awarded the adverse entries for the aforesaid period. The entry recorded by Sri Kansal does not show any period. There is no allegation that these entries were not communicated to the Petitioner. The Respondents in the counter-affidavit have categorically stated that Sri D.C. Kansal gave adverse entry to the Petitioner for the period 1.4.1988 to 30.6.1988 and Sri S.K. Sultania gave entries for the period 1.7.1988 to 31.3.1988. The aforesaid averment made in para 8 of the counter-affidavit has not been disputed in para 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 31. Under Fundamental Rule 56, a Government servant can be retired premature in public interest, and if he is retained in the institution and allowed to continue in service, it would not be in public interest. The aforesaid averment made in para 8 of the counter-affidavit has not been disputed in para 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 31. Under Fundamental Rule 56, a Government servant can be retired premature in public interest, and if he is retained in the institution and allowed to continue in service, it would not be in public interest. The material placed in the counter-affidavit shows beyond doubt that even if adverse entries against which the alleged representation of the Petitioner was pending, and according to him these entries being disputed should not have been taken into consideration, even then there is sufficient material to justify the decision of the screening committee recommending for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. This decision cannot be said arbitrary and against law. In the case of Baikunth Nath Das (supra), the Apex Court laid down the following principles of law which are reproduced as under: The 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. It also held that: the procedure to pass an order of compulsory retirement is not quasi-judicial in nature and as the action has to be taken on the subjective satisfaction of the Government, there is no room for importing the facet of natural justice particularly when an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment nor does it involve any stigma. 32. The Fundamental Rule 56 (c) does not permit a Government servant in service whose retention in the Institution is not in public interest and his premature retirement may be considered if there is any material, justifying the said decision. The Court would not sit in appeal, scrutinizing sufficiency and adequacy of the material. 33. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.