JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 9.12.1986 (P-9) retiring him prematurely on attaining the age of 55 years, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, by exercising the power under Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume- I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana). The retirement of the petitioner is claimed to be in public interest. 2. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner joined service on 2.10.1953 as a Village Level Social Worker in the respondent department. On 2.10.1967, he was selected and appointed as Instructor for Panchayati Raj Training Centre, Ambala. On 24.11.1969, he was promoted as Social Educational and Panchayat Officer (SEPO). He claims to have earned many appreciation letters. Eventually in April, 1976, the petitioner was promoted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer (for short ‘BDPO’). During his service as BDPO also, he claims to have earned many appreciation letters. 3. It has been claimed that up to 6.9.1982, the service record of the petitioner was of Good or Very Good quality. He was transferred from Rajond to Ambala Block on 6.9.1982 and he discovered mala fide intention of his superior officer as some illegal acts were required to be done by him. As a result of ill- will, the superior officer of the petitioner addressed certain letters to him. In order to put the record straight, the petitioner had written a letter dated 29.7.1983 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, for obtaining an appointment with him. The Deputy Commissioner fixed the time of meeting at 8.30 a.m. on 17.10.1983 at his residential office but the petitioner could not meet him because the letter reached him on 19.10.1983. 4. The petitioner was awarded average report for the period 6.9.1982 to 31.3.1983, which was conveyed to him on 29.1.1985 (P- 2). In respect of the year 1983-84, the Annual Confidential Report was also conveyed to the petitioner on 15.5.1986 that was after about two years (P-3). The petitioner made representation on 23.2.1985 to the respondent to expunge the adverse remarks from his ACR of 1982-82, which remains undecided and the other representation, dated 1.12.1986, has been rejected by order dated 2.1.1987 (P-4). The petitioner made representation on 23.2.1985 to the respondent to expunge the adverse remarks from his ACR of 1982-82, which remains undecided and the other representation, dated 1.12.1986, has been rejected by order dated 2.1.1987 (P-4). The petitioner claims that he has been permitted to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1984, vide order dated 5.3.1985 (P-8). However, the petitioner has been retired vide order dated 25.11.1986 (P-9). 5. Written statement in this case was filed as early as 29.5.1987. In para 10, the stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 7.5.1985 and there were entries of doubtful integrity in his service record in respect of two years. The summery of his service record has been referred in para 12 of the written statement and the same reads as under:- “1. 1976-77 Good 2. 1977-78 Very Good 3. 1978-79 Good 4. 1979-80 Very Good 5. 1980-81 (1.4.80 to 20.9.80) Outstanding (22.9.80 to 31.3.81) Very Good 6. 1981-82 Good 7. 1982-83 (1.4.82 to 6.7.82) Very Good 4.9.82 to 31.3.83 Average. Integrity doubtful (conveyed) (representation is under consideration) 8. 1983-84 Average (Integrity average) (Conveyed) (representation rejected) 9. 1984-85 Good 10. 1985-86 Good” 6. It has further been claimed in para 14 that the action of the respondent to retire the petitioner prematurely is in public interest as per the provisions of Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana). It has also been asserted that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were conveyed to him where his integrity has been doubted. The representations made by the petitioner have been rejected and his overall assessment has been adjudged as ‘Average’. On account of the fact that integrity of the petitioner was doubtful, he was given three months time to retire from service as per the Rules, which is the order impugned in the instant petition. The aforementioned order, dated 25.11.1986 (P-9) reads as under:- “ Whereas the Governor of Haryana is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire Shri Jarnail Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer from service after attaining the age of 55 years by giving him “THREE MONTHS NOTICE”. 2. The aforementioned order, dated 25.11.1986 (P-9) reads as under:- “ Whereas the Governor of Haryana is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire Shri Jarnail Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer from service after attaining the age of 55 years by giving him “THREE MONTHS NOTICE”. 2. Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, the Governor of Haryana, in the public interest, hereby orders that Shri Jarnail Singh shall stand retired from service under the State Government of Haryana on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him and it will not affect in any way the enquiries pending against him.” 7. When the matter came up for consideration on 19.4.2006, learned State counsel had requested and was granted time to produce the record including the ACRs of the petitioner along with complete information as to whether the reports of doubtful integrity were ever conveyed or not. The aforementioned order was necessitated because the petitioner had claimed that the reports were never communicated. In response to the aforementioned order, an affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary, Development Department, Haryana, stating that the relevant record is more than 19 years old and the branches of Development Department shifted three times from one building to another, therefore, the record pertaining to the petitioner was not traceable in the branch. 8. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that adverse reports conveyed to the petitioner on 29.1.1985 (P-2) in respect of the period commencing from 6.9.1982 to 31.3.1983 do not contain any remarks about integrity. He has further submitted that similar is the position with regard to the ACR pertaining to the year 1983-84, where in Column VI general reputation for honesty and integrity has been recorded to be ‘Average’. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has without any rhyme or reason construed the report of reputation regarding integrity as ‘Average’ to mean that the integrity is doubtful. According to the learned counsel, the respondent has without any rhyme or reason construed the report of reputation regarding integrity as ‘Average’ to mean that the integrity is doubtful. He has emphasised that the whole service record of the petitioner as admitted by the respondent in para 12 of the written statement is Good or Very Good and, therefore, merely on the basis of average reports of two years i.e. 1982-83 and 1983-84, the petitioner could not be prematurely retired because for the next two years i.e. 1984-85 and 1985-86 he has again been rated as ‘Good’. To the query with regard to the averments made by the respondent in para 12 of the written statement showing that for two years i.e. 1982-83 and 1983- 84, he has earned entries of integrity doubtful and as to why no replication was filed in the year 1987 or subsequently, learned counsel was not able to reply satisfactorily. He has, however, insisted that the performance of the petitioner even in respect of these two years has been assessed as ‘Average’ and he could not be considered to be a deadwood and retired prematurely. 9. Mr. Harish Rathee, learned State counsel has submitted that on the basis of the reports showing integrity doubtful, the petitioner has lawfully been retired from service, which is in larger public interest as postulated by Rule 5.32-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, read with Rule 3.26(d) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana) on attaining the age of 55 years. He has contended that at this belated stage the pleadings as existed in 1987 must be accepted as correct because if there was any controversy on facts then the petitioner could have filed replication controverting the averments made in para 12 of the written statement where summary of his ACRs has been reproduced. According to the learned State counsel, once the facts are not controverted then the presumption is in favour of the assertion made, which is based on official record. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that despite best efforts the record of past 19 years could not be traced in the office and on that basis no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent. 10. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that despite best efforts the record of past 19 years could not be traced in the office and on that basis no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the averments made by them along with annexures, I am of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed. It would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant provisions of Rule 5.32-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, and Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I (as applicable to Haryana), which are reproduced hereunder:- “5.32-A. The rule for the grant of retiring pensions is as follows: - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx Note 1. - The Government retains an absolute right to retire any Government employee after he has completed twenty-five years of service qualifying for pension if he is holding a pensionable post or has completed service for a similar period if he is holding a non-pensionable post, but is entitled to the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund, without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further services of a Government employee such as on account of inefficiency, dishonesty, corruption or infamous conduct. This clause (b) of this rule is intended for use- (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx The word “Government” used in this note should be interpreted to mean the authority which has the power of removing the Government employee from service under the Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Note 2. - xxx xxx xxx Note 3. - xxx xxx xxx (c) A retiring pension is also granted to a Government employee other than a Class IV Government employee, - (1) who is retired by the appointing authority by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing, - (i) If he is in class I or class II service or post and had enacted Govt. service before attaining the age of thirty- five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years; and (ii)(a) If he is in class III service or post; or (b) If he is in Class I or class II service or post and entered Govt. service after attaining the age of thirty five years. after he has attained the age of fifty five years; (2) Who, if from category (1) above retires on or after attaining the age of fifty years, or if from category (1)(ii) above retires on/or after attaining the age of fifty five years, by giving a notice of not less than three months, in writing, of his intention to retire, to the appointing authority: Provided that where the notice is given before attaining the age of fifty years or fifty five years, as the case may, it shall be given effect to from a date not earlier than the date on which the age of fifty years, or fifty five years, as the case may be is attained. Note. - Appointing authority retains an absolute right to retire any Govt. employee referred to above on or after he has attained the age of fifty years, or fifty five years, as the case may be, without assigning any reason. A corresponding right is also available to such a Govt. employee to retire on or after he has attained the age of fifty years or fifty five years, as the case may be.” “3.26. (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. He must not be retained in service after the age of compulsory retirement, except in exceptional circumstances with the sanction of the competent authority in public interest, which must be recorded in writing: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) The appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government employee, other than Class IV Government employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:- (i) If he is in class I or class II Service or post and had entered Government service, before attaining the age of thirty five years, after he has attained the age of fifty year; and (ii) (a) If he is in class III Service or post, or (b) If he is class I or Class II Service or post and entered Government service after attaining the age of thirty-five years; after he has attained the age of fifty five years. The Government employee would stand retired immediately on payment of three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period and will not be in service thereafter.” 11. According to Rule 3.26 (d) an Appointing Authority has been clothed with absolute power to retire a Government employee by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu thereof if such an employee is in Class-I or Class-II service or post if he has attained the age of 55 years, provided that if he has entered the Government service when he was more than 35 years of age. The petitioner was to attain the age of 55 years on 7.5.1986, which shows that his date of birth is 7.5.1931. He has entered the service on 2.10.1953 when was over 22 years of age. Therefore, the petitioner answers the requirement of the Rule that he could have been retired at the age of 55 years if he had entered the service after attaining the age of 35 years. He has entered the service on 2.10.1953 when was over 22 years of age. Therefore, the petitioner answers the requirement of the Rule that he could have been retired at the age of 55 years if he had entered the service after attaining the age of 35 years. Such an employee could also be retired at the age of 50 years if he has entered the service before attaining the age of 35 years. Rule 5.32(c) regulate retiring pension, which is to be granted to such an employee. 12. A perusal of the summery of ACRs, as reproduced in para 12 of the written statement, categorically shows that the integrity of the petitioner in respect of the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 has remained doubtful. The written statement which has been filed on 29.5.1987 has remained un-controverted and, therefore, there is no room to entertain any doubt with regard to the veracity of the statement made on the basis of record. It is well settled that if integrity of an employee is doubted even once then such an employee may have to be chopped off as a deadwood, which is in larger public interest. The aforementioned proposition has repeatedly been considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, the whole earlier case law was reviewed and following five propositions were extracted and the same reads as under:- “34. 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 misbehaviour. (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 lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 13. It is equally well settled that once there is an entry of ‘integrity doubtful’ in the service record of an employee then it is considered to be in larger public interest to retire such a person prematurely. In that regard, reliance may be placed to the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Ajoy Kumar Patnaik, (1995) 6 SCC 442 and Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam, (2003) 4 SCC 59. In para 5 of the judgment in Jugal Chandra Saikia’s case (supra) it has been noticed that the review committee had concluded that the delinquent employee had outlived its utility and was of doubtful integrity. In Jugal Chandra Saikia’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme has followed and applied the principles of law as laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case (supra). 14. In Jugal Chandra Saikia’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme has followed and applied the principles of law as laid down in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case (supra). 14. When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, no doubt is left that the impugned order dated 25.11.1986 (P-9) deserves to be upheld as the same is in larger public interest because it seeks to get rid of an inefficient and dishonest officer. The order has been passed in consonance with the requirements of Rule 5.32-A (c) and Rules 3.26(d) as has already been observed in the preceding paras. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. 15. The argument of Mr. Ramesh Hooda that the reports conveyed to the petitioner vide letters dated 29.1.1985 and 30.5.1986 (P-2 and P-3) do not show any remark of doubtful integrity does not survive for a serious consideration because in the written statement a categorical stand has been taken that the entries for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 has recorded the integrity of the petitioner as doubtful. The written statement was filed in the year 1987 and it remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the petitioner cannot bank upon the aforementioned letters (P-2 and P-3) alone. Moreover, as per the law settled in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case (supra), communication of adverse remarks is not necessary when the Government is to consider case for retention of an employee in service beyond 50/55 years of age. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the argument raised. 16. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.