Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order Annexure-P-9 dated 11. 11. 1997 by which he has been compulsorily retired under Rule 42 (1) (b) of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short the Rules ). The petitioner has further assailed the order Annexure-P-15 dated 4th May, 1999 by which his representation against Annexure-P-9 has been rejected by the High Court. ( 2. ) ON bare perusal of the memorandum of petition it is gathered that the impugned orders are challenged on the ground that they violate the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has also been mentioned in the ground that three months notice was not given and the order of compulsory retirement was passed without prior permission of the appointing authority. The other ground which has been raised is that the impugned orders are not in the public interest. The petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of arbitrariness. ( 3. ) SHRI Bhave, learned senior counsel by inviting my attention to the entire service record of the petitioner has submitted that without casting any stigma after scanning his overall performance, the petitioner was found to be a dead wood, as a result of which he was compulsorily retired under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Rules. The action of respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. By inviting my attention to Annexures-R-1 to R-19 it has been contended by learned senior counsel that entire service record of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, he has been rightly retired compulsorily. The impugned order (Annex. P-9) has been issued in the public interest. ( 4. ) AFTER having heard Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. R. Bhave, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 5. ) IN the case of I. K. Mishra v. Union of India 1998 (1) Vidhi Bhaswar 68 the Supreme Court has observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and rule of natural justice is not applicable in that situation. ( 5. ) IN the case of I. K. Mishra v. Union of India 1998 (1) Vidhi Bhaswar 68 the Supreme Court has observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and rule of natural justice is not applicable in that situation. This Court in the case of Smt. Subhadra Bai v. District and Sessions Judge 1998 (1) MPJR 421 has held that there is no need of giving the details of public interest in the order of compulsory retirement. Thus, merely because no reasons are assigned in the impugned order (Annexure-P-9) or details are not furnished, would not be a ground to hold the order of compulsory retirement to be bad in law. Since the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, therefore, provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are not attracted. ( 6. ) ON merit on going through the averments made in the return as well as the documents Annexures-R-1 to R-19 it is gathered that performance of the petitioner was very poor throughout his service career. In Annex. R-1 ACR of year ending 31st March, 1968 there is a remark that he is yet to pick up. In Annex. R-2 which is ACR of year ending 31st March, 1969 it is mentioned that performance of the petitioner is not up-to the mark. The District Judge has further made a remark that he may be ousted in case he did not make any improvement. ACR of 1971 shows that the petitioner has not picked-up his work and is not sincere. ACR of the year 1973 shows that he is in the habit of quarreling with his colleagues and parties. In the ACR of 1973 it is found that he petitioner was guilty of breach of office and Court discipline and for his insolent and improper behaviour with the Judge he has been awarded a character roll warning. It has been further mentioned that he is not having efficiency as is expected. He was also found to be lazy in his work. As per ACR of 1974 petitioner was found to be below average. ACR of 1977 mentions that petitioner should improve in manners and behaviour and should give better performance of his work. Similarly as per ACR of 1978 he was directed to be watched before being considered for promotion. He was also found to be lazy in his work. As per ACR of 1974 petitioner was found to be below average. ACR of 1977 mentions that petitioner should improve in manners and behaviour and should give better performance of his work. Similarly as per ACR of 1978 he was directed to be watched before being considered for promotion. In the ACR of 1981 again it was mentioned that he should discharge his duty with promptness and same remark also finds place in the ACR of 1981-82. ACR of 1987 shows that he is not sincere in his work and did not use to sit at the time of work. Vide Annex. R-13 dated 1st August, 1987 he was warned and vide Annex. R-14 dated 20/26th October, 1987 he was censured. Vide Annex. R-15 dated 20/26th October, 1987 for another incident he was warned. ACR of the year ending 31. 3. 1988 shows that the petitioner was not sincere towards his work and did not perform his work in time for which he was orally informed. Vide letter Annex. R-17 dated 14. 8. 97 there was a complaint of the learned Judge under whom the petitioner was serving against his behaviour and the same was admitted by the petitioner vide Annex. R-18 dated 2. 9. 97 by apologizing his guilt. Vide Annex. R-19 dated 7. 10. 1997 permission was sought to retire the petitioner compulsorily and this letter was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Bhopal and ultimately the permission was granted and in this manner the petitioner was retired compulsorily in public interest. ( 7. ) IT has been vehemently argued by Shri Samaiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner that adverse ACRs were not communicated to the petitioner. Be that as it may. The law is well settled in this regard, even uncommunicated adverse ACR can be taken into consideration while passing the order of compulsory retirement. In that regard the decision of the Supreme Court State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai Patel AIR2001 SC 1109 , [2001 (89 )FLR173 ], (2001 )3 GLR2461 , JT2001 (3 )SC 223 , (2001 )II LLJ1140 SC , 2001 (2 ) SCALE261 , (2001 )3 SCC314 , [2001 ]2 SCR170 , 2001 (1 )UJ664 (SC ) is placed reliance. ( 8. ( 8. ) ON going through the aforesaid documents it is gathered that during his entire service the petitioner was not sincere and, therefore, in the public interest he was rightly compulsorily retired. Though no details are required to be assigned, but on going through Annex. R-20 which is note-sheet it is gathered that in detail the reasons are assigned in order to take the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily. ( 9. ) THE decisions of Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR1990 SC 1368 , 1991 (39 )BLJR271 , 1990 Lablc1188 , (1990 )II LLJ601 SC , (1990 )3 SCC504 , [1990 ]2 SCR679 , 1990 (2 )SLJ98 (SC ), 1990 (2 )UJ284 (SC ) and Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR2000 SC 1816 , JT2000 (5 )SC 181 , 2000 (4 )SCALE209 , (2000 )5 SCC152 , (2000 )2 UPLBEC1661 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I have already discussed hereinabove the service profile of the petitioner and because overall performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory to continue him in service in public interest, rightly he has been retired compulsorily. There is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the instance of Additional District Judge the petitioner tendered his apology. Merely because this is so mentioned in the representation would not suffice. Apart from this, it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be inquired in this writ petition. The decision of Union of India v. M. E. Reddy AIR1980 SC 563 , (1980 )I LLJ7 SC , (1980 )2 SCC15 , [1980 ]1 SCR736 is not applicable. In this case it has been held by the Supreme Court that order of compulsory retirement of Govt. servant in public interest does not cast any stigma and principle of natural justice is expressly excluded. This decision is not applicable in the present case. The decision of J. D. Shrivastava v. State of M. P. and Ors. AIR1984 SC 630 , 1984 (32 )BLJR92 , 1984 Lablc337 , (1984 )I LLJ344 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE125 , (1984 )2 SCC8 , [1984 ]2 SCR466 , 1984 (1 )SLJ490 (SC ), 1984 (16 )UJ980 (SC ) is also hot applicable because there was only single entry and that too of 20 years ago. AIR1984 SC 630 , 1984 (32 )BLJR92 , 1984 Lablc337 , (1984 )I LLJ344 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE125 , (1984 )2 SCC8 , [1984 ]2 SCR466 , 1984 (1 )SLJ490 (SC ), 1984 (16 )UJ980 (SC ) is also hot applicable because there was only single entry and that too of 20 years ago. But the facts of present case are totally different. The decision of Brij Behari Lal Agarwal v. Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. AIR1981 SC 594 , 1981 (29 )BLJR115 , [1981 (42 )FLR102 ], 1981 Lablc137 , (1982 )I LLJ1 SC , (1981 )1 SCC490 , [1981 ]2 SCR297 , 1981 (1 )SLJ412 (SC ), 1981 (13 )UJ15 (SC ) is also not applicable in the present case because in the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court that confidential reports relating to later years are of utmost importance. But this would not mean that entire service profile of the petitioner would not be taken into consideration. In the present case there is complaint dated 14. 8. 97 in regard to the misbehaviour of the petitioner and the petitioner admitted his guilt by submitting apology. Therefore, the decision of Brij Behari Lal Agarwal (supra) is also not applicable. ( 10. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.