JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.4.1997 by which the Petitioner, a member of Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch) has been compulsorily retired in exercise of the power under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code (hereinafter called the 'Code'). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the Petitioner was selected in O.J.S. Class-II and posted as Addl. Munsif on Probation on 10.5.1974. Petitioner was promoted in December, 1984 to the rank of Subordinate Judge of O.J.S. Class-I service. Petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 16.9.1991. He had been given compulsory retirement under Rule 71(a) of the Code with effect from 25.4.1997. Hence this writ petition. 3. Sri Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner had a unblemished service record and he had not been awarded any adverse entry except at the fag end of his career. The Petitioner had been promoted to various posts from time to time and thus, adverse entry if any, prior to the date of promotion stood washed off and could not have been taken into consideration. Petitioner was not informed of the adverse entry, if any, therefore, the Resolution of the Court was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was the Secretary of Judicial Officers' Association and therefore he had to place the demands of the Judicial Officers fearlessly before the higher authorities, therefore, Petitioner incurred the displeasure of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District Judge. Thus adverse entry was awarded. The order impugned is liable to be quashed and petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Swain learned Addl. Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition contending that Petitioner's service record had been full of adverse entries from the very beginning. He could not have been retained in service. Even If the Petitioner had been promoted, for the purpose of compulsory retirement, his entire service record is to be seen. Adverse entries prior to his grant of promotion can also be examined. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Adverse entries prior to his grant of promotion can also be examined. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In order to satisfy ourselves, we have examined the entire service record of the Petitioner and following adverse entries are recorded therein. 1977 - Knowledge of law and judicial capacity-very poor Judgments are sketchy. General Reputation-not at all satisfactory. Assessed as a poor officer. 1980 - Needs improvement in disposal of cases as well as no being industrious. Integrity and impartiality- not very high. 1981 - Knowledge of law-He hould improve. 1983 - Knowledge of law- very poor. He has no mind to learn law. Judgments are mostly slip shod General Reputation-very bad. Integriety was very much doubtful-Assessed as poor officer and troublesome. 1991 - Knowledge of law and Judicial Capacity-Needs improvement. 1994 - Reputation of integrity and impartiality-highly Doubtful. In spite of caution, there was no change in his conduct. General Reputation-Not good. Assessed as a poor officer. 1995 - Not industrious General Reputation-Very bad. 1996 - General Reputation - very bad. Integrity - doubtful. Nasty allegations are pending for enquiry. Knowledge of law needs improvement. Assessed as a poor officer. 7. So the question does arise as to whether the person having such a service record could not have been given compulsory retirement. 8. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Another, the Apex Court held that an employee compulsorily retired does not lose any right acquired by him before retirement, as the compulsory retirement is not intended for taking any personal action against the government servant, and the order so passed can be challenged on the ground that either the order is arbitrary or it is not in public interest. No other ground can be available to the government servant who is sought to be compulsorily retired from service. However, it may be subject to the conditions provided under the statutory provisions. 9. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. No other ground can be available to the government servant who is sought to be compulsorily retired from service. However, it may be subject to the conditions provided under the statutory provisions. 9. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. M.E. Reddy and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue involved herein and held that it is a absolute right of an employer to compulsorily retire its employee from service if he falls within the zone of consideration as it may be necessary to weed out the dead wood or remove a person having doubtful integrity and his retirement is in public interest. There may not be material on record to show that the employee is dishonest, but those who had the opportunity to watch his performance from close quarter and are in position to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also reputation that he enjoys. In such a case the principles of natural justice are not attracted. The removal does not cast any stigma and it is not a punishment. 10. In Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab without noticing the judgment in M.E. Reddy (supra) the Apex Court held that the principle of natural justice would apply while giving compulsory retirement to a government employee on the basis of adverse entries which were neither communicated nor representation against the same was considered. 11. In Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another the Supreme Court laid down certain criteria for the Courts, on which it can interfere and they included mala fide, order if based on no evidence, order is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, i.e. if it is found to be a perverse order. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour; the order should be passed in public interest on subjective satisfaction of the Authority and while reviewing the service record, the entire service record is to be considered. However the record of the later years should be given more importance and even uncommunicated adverse entries may be taken into consideration. The Apex Court held as under: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. However the record of the later years should be given more importance and even uncommunicated adverse entries may be taken into consideration. The Apex Court held as under: (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. 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. 12. Similar view has been reiterated in Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, ; Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Another, ; State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, and M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, . 13. In Rajat Baran Roy and Others Vs. 12. Similar view has been reiterated in Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, ; Sukhdeo Vs. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and Another, ; State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, and M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, . 13. In Rajat Baran Roy and Others Vs. State of W.B. and Others the Supreme Court held that there is a very limited scope of judicial review in a case of compulsory retirement and it is permissible only on the grounds of non-application of mind and want of material particulars. 14. In State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (1999) 1 SCC 529 , the Supreme Court held that while considering the case of an employee for compulsory retirement, the public interest is of paramount importance. A dishonest, corrupt and dead-wood deserves to be dispensed with, how much efficient and honest an employee is, it is to be assessed on the basis of material on record which may also be ascertained from confidential reports. However, there must be some tangible material against the employee warranting his retirement. 15. In State of U.P. and Another Vs. Bihari Lal the Apex Court held as under: It is now settled law that the entire service record should be considered before taking a decision to comptilsorily retire a government servant....It is not necessary that adverse remarks should be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorised 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. (Emphasis added) 16. Similarly in Swatantar Singh Vs. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a government servant. (Emphasis added) 16. Similarly in Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: It is sad but a bitter reality that corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralising the honest officers....The reputation of corrupt would ather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke. Sometimes, there may not be concrete or material evidence to make it part of the record. It would, therefore, may be impracticable for the reporting officer or the competent controlling officer writing the confidential report to give specific instances of shortfalls, supported by evidence, like the remarks made by the Superintendent of Police. More often the corrupt officer manipulates in such a way and leaves no traceable evidence to be made part of the record for being cited as specific instance....it is seen that the officers made the remarks on the basis of the reputation of the Petitioner. (Emphasis added) 17. In I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under: Power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of Service Rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms an opinion bona fide that compulsory retirement is in public interest. 18. Similar view has been reiterated in Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa and Another, while dealing with a case of judicial officer. 19. In Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1684 , the Supreme Court held that employee's unsatisfactory performance, coupled with the tendency to resort to litigation, most of which was unsuccessful, rendered him a liability to his employer, and he was rightly retired in public interest. 20. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of a judicial officer, placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India (UOI), wherein it has been held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor any stigma attached to it, rather, further services of a person are dispensed with in public interest. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India (UOI), wherein it has been held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor any stigma attached to it, rather, further services of a person are dispensed with in public interest. The Apex Court held that if an employee has been given the adverse entries regarding his integrity at any stage of his service career, he loses the right of continuation in service, and compulsory retirement, if given, should not be interfered with. 21. In Jugal Chandra Saikia Vs. State of Assam and Another the Apex Court held that where the screening committee is consisting of responsible officers of the State and they have examined/assessed the entire service record and form the opinion objectively as to whether any employee is fit to be retained in service or not. In absence of any allegation of mala fide, there is no scope of a judicial review against such an order. While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed upon a large number of judgments, particularly, upon judgments in S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, ; and M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors. (Supra). 22. In Nawal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another a similar view has been reiterated, observing that formation of an opinion regarding compulsory retirement by the authority is in the nature of a subjective satisfaction. However, it should be based on assessment of the service record. In case of adverse entry regarding the officer is concerned, it should be entertained on the basis of the opinion of a higher officer who had an opportunity to watch the performance of the officer concerned and to form an opinion with regard to overall reputation enjoyed by him. 23. In Shiv Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another the Apex Court dealt with a case where on perusal of the entire service record the High Court came to the conclusion that employee had been assessed as a poor officer, his integrity was found to be doubtful. He was advised to improve his judgment writing. He was directed to be watched for quite some time and quality of case work was found unsatisfactory. The Apex Court refused to interfere. While dealing with the said case, the Court placed reliance on its earlier judgments particularly in State of U.P. and Another Vs. He was advised to improve his judgment writing. He was directed to be watched for quite some time and quality of case work was found unsatisfactory. The Apex Court refused to interfere. While dealing with the said case, the Court placed reliance on its earlier judgments particularly in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Lalsa Ram, and State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, . 24. Thus, the law on the point of 'compulsory retirement' can be summarised that the Authority must consider and examine over-all entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said Authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review. 25. In The State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal a bench of two Judges of Supreme Court held that the adverse entries regarding dishonesty and inefficiency of the government employee in his AC Rs have to be ignored if subsequent to recording of the same he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar as it would mean that while permitting to cross the efficiency bar such entries had been considered and were not found of serious nature for the purpose of crossing the efficiency bar. 26. Similarly a Bench of two Judges in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, had taken a similar view on the issue observing that adverse entries awarded to the employee in the remote past and the fact that he had subsequently been promoted to the higher post loses significance, for the reason that while considering the case for promotion he had been found possessing eligibility and suitability and if such entry did not reflect deficiency in his work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it would be difficult to comprehend as to how such adverse entry could be pressed into service for retiring him compulsorily. When a government servant is promoted to higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and remain on record as part of past history. 27. In Union of India Vs. V.P. Seth and another the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that adverse remarks against the employee and particularly of the integrity would not stand eclipsed by his subsequent promotion while considering the case of compulsory retirement. 28. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ram Chandra Das, (supra) had taken a different view as it had been held therein that as such entry still remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a government servant-compulsorily, such entry do not lose significance, even if the employee has subsequently been promoted. The Court held as under: Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. 29. Similar view has been reiterated in I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others, ; and The State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh, . 30. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, (supra) the Apex Court held that vigour or sting entry does not get wiped out by efflux of time, particularly while considering the case of employee for giving him compulsory retirement as it requires to examine the entire service records including character rolls and confidential reports. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis later entries, the authority is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis later entries, the authority is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not. 'Vigour or sting of an adverse entry is not wiped out' merely it relates to a remote past while considering the case of compulsory retirement. There may be a single adverse entry of integrity which may be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant. 31. In view of the above, the law can be summarized that washed of theory does not have any universal application and it will have some relevance while considering the case of government servant for further promotion but certainly not in a case where the employee is being assessed by the Reviewing Authority as to whether he is fit to be retain in service or require to be given compulsory retirement. Thus, we do not find force in the submissions made in this regard as the same are not found acceptable. 32. The case of the Petitioner is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. It is evident from the record that Petitioner had generally not been assessed as a good officer. He had been awarded adverse entries throughout his career and his integrity was recorded as doubtful several times. Such entries do not stand washed off merely on the ground that Petitioner was granted promotions even after recording of such entries. Some of the adverse entries had been expunged by this Court while considering his represenation against such entries. Petitioner had also been put under suspension but after being exonerated in the Departmental Proceedings, he was granted the required relief. So, it cannot be accepted that Petitioner had not been treated fairly and in accordance with law. 33. In view thereof and considering the facts and circumstances in totality, we are not inclined to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed