Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order-dated 10. 12. 2007 (Annexure p/1) passed by the State Government compulsorily retiring the petitioner in accordance to the provisions of Rule 42 (1) (b), of the MP Civil Services (Pension)Rules 1976 [hereinafter referred to as rules of 1976], petitioner has filed this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed in an arbitrary manner without following the requirements of evaluating the entire service record of the petitioner and the action is taken on extraneous considerations and is influenced by reports appearing in the media, which are adverse to the petitioner. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case, are as under : petitioner claims to be a Post Graduate having obtained a Masters Degree in General Surgery in the year 1982 and it is stated that he joined the services of the respondent department as an Assistant Surgeon in pursuance to the order passed on 29. 5. 82. Subsequently, in November 1983, he was interviewed by the state Public Service Commission and declared as selected on a regular post of assistant Surgeon, after his name was placed at Serial No. 163 in the merit list. Copies of the letters evidencing the aforesaid fact is filed as Annexure P/3. It is stated by the petitioner that he had an unblemished career during his service; he has been awarded various national and international awards - details of which are indicated in the petition; no adverse entries were communicated to him at any point of time during his entire service career and he had been promoted from time to time and finally was holding the post of Director of Health Services, on which post he was promoted on 2. 12. 96 (Annexure P/9 ). It is the specific case of the petitioner that during his entire service, he has never been punished, no adverse confidential reports or entries in his service records ever communicated and for the last five years preceding the date on which action is taken against him, he had either earned A+ or A Gradings. That apart, indicating particulars of various meritorious awards conferred on the petitioner for his outstanding service, petitioner claims to have a very high reputation and it is stated that he has an unblemished service record. That apart, indicating particulars of various meritorious awards conferred on the petitioner for his outstanding service, petitioner claims to have a very high reputation and it is stated that he has an unblemished service record. Various particulars in this regard are indicated by the petitioner in the petition, which pertains to the meritorious services of the petitioner, the national and international awards and achievements in his field of specialization and the fact about earning outstanding and very good CRs during his entire service starting from the year 1980. It is stated that petitioners son one Shri Gaurav Sharma had passed his graduation in BE from Barkatullah University, Bhopal in the year 2004 and thereafter he was pursuing higher studies in the University of Western Sydney, australia. He successfully completed the aforesaid course in the year 2006 and was involved in multifarious business activities and has acquired considerable assets and properties by virtue of the business undertaken by him. It is stated that his son is living separately in his own house, being House No. A-70, Shakti Nagar, bhel, Bhopal, which house was gifted by Shri Gauravs grandmother vide will dated 14. 4. 2000, available on record as Annexure P/16. It is stated that in pursuance to the aforesaid grant made by his grandmother, the house in question was transferred in the name of petitioners son Shri Gaurav Sharma and in the records of the Electricity Board and various other authorities, the house is shown in the name of Shri Gaurav Sharma and proceedings for mutation in the records of Nazul and Municipal Corporation are also under process. It is stated that petitioners son Shri Gaurav Sharma is submitting income tax returns separately and particulars of his income and tax returns have been indicated in this petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is staying in a Government house allotted to him being Quarter No. D-104/9, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal and he is occupying the same by virtue of the allotment order-dated 2. 6. 2006 (Annexure p/19 ). Besides the son Gaurav Sharma, petitioner has one daughter who is suffering from incurable mental disorder. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is staying in a Government house allotted to him being Quarter No. D-104/9, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal and he is occupying the same by virtue of the allotment order-dated 2. 6. 2006 (Annexure p/19 ). Besides the son Gaurav Sharma, petitioner has one daughter who is suffering from incurable mental disorder. Petitioners wife was also earning initially, but after ailment of his daughter, his wife has left the employment, but is managing her own business activities and is an income tax assessee for the last many years and by bringing on record assessment and other papers, it is stated that petitioners wife and son Gaurav Sharma are submitting returns and are assessed to income tax separately. It is the case of the petitioner that the income tax authorities conducted certain search and seizure operation at the residence of petitioners son situated at Shakti Nagar on 7. 9. 2007 in the morning, and it is alleged that in the said search a sum of Rs. 1. 13 crores in cash and foreign currency worth Rs. 4. 5 Lacs were recovered. Search and seizure were also conducted in various other premises belonging to the petitioner and his relatives by the income tax department and the enforcement directorate and proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by the Revenue. Intimation about the aforesaid action by the authorities of the revenue department were made to the competent authority of the State Government telephonically and subsequently by a communication (Annexure R/2) issued to the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh by the office of Director General of Income Tax, Bhopal. It is indicated in the aforesaid communication that on the basis of certain complaints received by the Directorate, investigation were started against the petitioner for possessing wealth without paying tax. It was indicated in this communication that preliminary investigations revealed that substantial money has been generated and the same is being shown as investment in companies and firms, in which petitioners son and wife are partners and share-holders. On the basis of the evidence collected in the investigation, search operation was conducted in the residence of the petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. On the basis of the evidence collected in the investigation, search operation was conducted in the residence of the petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. It is indicated in the report (Annexure R/2) that on being questioned, petitioner has informed that the income and the seizure made are the income of petitioners son, petitioner has disclosed all the income of his family members and attributing the income to be that of his son, petitioner gave explanation. However, indicating that petitioners son was a student till November 2006 and, therefore, his explanation seems to be unsatisfactory, the report (Annexure R/2) indicates that the facts are brought to the notice of the appropriate authority of the State Government for taking action as they may deem fit. This communication (Annexure R/2) further indicates that copy of the appraisal report shall be sent after the completion of the post search and investigations. It is the case of the petitioner that no raid was conducted in his house, the search and seizure was conducted in the house of his son, all the income received by petitioner, his son and his wife have been disclosed and there is nothing to be concealed. It is the case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid communication was received by the Department from the Income Tax Authorities vide Annexure p/20 dated 10. 9. 2007 i. e. . on the same day when the communication was received, petitioner was suspended from service. Petitioner has given various particulars in this petitioner and has also filed documents to show that petitioner and his family members have not concealed any income and has tried to justify the income and has taken the defence that he has not concealed income nor has he committed any default in payment of income tax and has tried to justify his action. However, vide charge-sheet (Annexure P/25) dated 7. 12. 2007, petitioner has been charged for having committed misconduct and departmental proceedings for possessing disproportionate assets and committing misconduct have been initiated against him under the provisions of Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966 and the conduct rules applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner was granted time to submit his reply and it as indicated that disciplinary action will be undertaken against him. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuing the charge-sheet on 7. 12. Petitioner was granted time to submit his reply and it as indicated that disciplinary action will be undertaken against him. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuing the charge-sheet on 7. 12. 2007 without conducting any enquiry into the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet, which is based on the information and communication received by the State Government from the Income tax Department within 3 days the impugned order has been passed compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the ground of public interest under Rule 42 (1) (b) of the rules of 1976. It is the case of the petitioner in the present case that the action taken for compulsorily retiring him is wholly unwarranted, unjustified, illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by the State Government. It is stated that the power has been exercised on extraneous consideration and petitioner is being punished for the alleged misconduct indicated in the charge-sheet (Annexure P/25) without giving him any opportunity of defence. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has an unblemished service career and without considering his entire service record, action is taken to punish him in the garb of proceeding under Rule 42 (1) (b)in public interest, influenced by media reports and extraneous material without granting proper opportunity to explain his conduct in the matter. ( 3. ) SHRI N. S. Kale and Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocates representing the petitioner, by taking me through the documents and other material available on record emphasized that this is a case Where the petitioner who has an unblemished service record of more than 26 years is punished on the basis of a solitary instance and action is taken against him on extraneous considerations without application of mind. It is emphasized by them that no public interest is involved, the entire action is influenced by media reports and is done in an arbitrary manner on the assumption that the imputations made by the Income Tax Department in the communication (Annexure R/2) is correct. Learned counsel emphasized that in the entire matter action is taken merely, on the basis of unconfirmed reports submitted by the Income Tax Department, which prima facie is incorrect. Learned counsel emphasized that in the entire matter action is taken merely, on the basis of unconfirmed reports submitted by the Income Tax Department, which prima facie is incorrect. Learned counsel emphasized that the Income Tax authorities have proceeded under the assumption that the raid conducted by them at A-70, Shakti Nagar, BHEL, Bhopal is in the house of the petitioner, whereas by filing various documents, particularly the will (Annexure P/16), it is emphasized that the house belongs to petitioners son Shri Gaurav Sharma and action is taken against the petitioner without conducting appropriate investigations and enquiry on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. ( 4. ) BY placing reliance on the following judgments, learned Senior Advocates representing the petitioner, argued that in the present case the action taken is contrary to the settled principles of law and compulsory retirement, and the aforesaid action is unsustainable. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior advocates for the petitioner are: SR. Venkatraman Vs. Union of India, 2979 (2)SCC 491; Ram Ekbal Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 SC 1368 ; Baikuntha nath Das and Another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1020 ; State of Gujarat Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 (1) SCC 529 ; State of Gujarat Vs. Umed Bhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 ; and, M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Shree Baboo,, 2002 (9) SCC 704 . ( 5. ) REFERRING to various judgments, it was pointed out that action taken on the basis of unconfirmed media reports is unsustainable. Placing heavy reliance on the facts which were before the Supreme Court in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the present case is similar to with the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), wherein also after issuing a charge-sheet no enquiry was conducted, but recourse was taken to compulsorily retire the employee and while interfering with the matter, supreme Court has laid down various principles which when applied to the present case would make the impugned action unsustainable. Pointing out that the screening Committee, which evaluated the case of the petitioner, did not consider the entire service record, but the recommendations of the Screening committee is based only on the communication made by the Income Tax Authorities vide their letter (Annexure R/2) dated 10. 9. Pointing out that the screening Committee, which evaluated the case of the petitioner, did not consider the entire service record, but the recommendations of the Screening committee is based only on the communication made by the Income Tax Authorities vide their letter (Annexure R/2) dated 10. 9. 2007 and without evaluating the entire service record of the petitioner and without there being any material to indicate that the petitioner is a dead-wood in the department, action is taken on extraneous considerations, which is unsustainable. Learned Senior Advocates appearing for the petitioner emphasized that an arbitrary action in an illegal manner, on extraneous considerations, based on assumptions and presumptions, is taken and such an action cannot be upheld by this Court. Accordingly, they seek for interference into the matter. ( 6. ) REFUTING the aforesaid contention Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, argued that the report received from the Income Tax Department clearly indicates that petitioner was in possession of assets highly disproportionate to his known sources of income. This gives credence to the assumption that petitioners integrity is doubtful and, therefore, action taken in public interest to protect the image of the Government and to repose confidence in the mind of the public at large in the matter of eroding corruption from public life, action is taken. Emphasis was made by the learned counsel for the State to the effect that activities of the petitioner and the raid conducted in his house have undermined the reputation of the Government and its officers in the minds of the public at large and, therefore, it was a fit case where public interest warrants action to be taken against such an officer. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), which was, also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, emphasized that an action taken to retire an employee on compassionate grounds is not a punishment, it does not cast or impose any stigma on the employee and in such cases the principles of natural justice are not applicable. Accordingly, emphasizing that action is taken by the State Government in public interest on the basis of the screening Committees report, respondents have tried to justify their action. ( 8. Accordingly, emphasizing that action is taken by the State Government in public interest on the basis of the screening Committees report, respondents have tried to justify their action. ( 8. ) DURING the course of hearing Shri Samdarshi Tiwari has produced the proceedings of the Screening Committee and the note-sheets leading to passing of the impugned orders. ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on consideration of the facts that have come on record, this Court deems it appropriate to evaluate at the very outset the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the matter of compulsorily retiring an employee on the grounds of public interest. It is the application of this principle in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is required to be done for adjudication of the present petition. ( 10. ) NORMALLY an employee is retired compulsorily in public interest earlier to his normal age of superannuation after he has put in a specified period of service as contemplated under the Rules. In the present case, Rule 42 (1) (b) empowers the state Government to proceed in the matter in public interest if the employee concerned has completed 20 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. In such a case action can be taken by the appointing authority after approval by the State Government. On a close scrutiny of the various judgments available on the subject in question, it would be seen that the courts have taken a general view that for compulsorily retiring an employee grant of opportunity of hearing is not necessary. Challenge to an order of compulsory retirement on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice is not normally available. The aforesaid view is based on the principle that compulsory retirement in public interest does not amount to dismissal, it is neither a punishment nor any stigma is attached to such an action and, therefore, the effected employee need not be heard. The aforesaid principle would be clear on a complete reading of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra ). ( 11. ) JUSTIFICATION or. otherwise of an order of compulsory retirement is done on the basis of requirement of public interest. . The aforesaid principle would be clear on a complete reading of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra ). ( 11. ) JUSTIFICATION or. otherwise of an order of compulsory retirement is done on the basis of requirement of public interest. . In the case of Baldev Raj, Ex-constable vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 984, when it was submitted before the Supreme court that a police officer has been proceeded against and action is taken against him in public interest. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that public interest is an "unruly horse" and once it is alleged that the impugned action is a device to circumvent some decision of the Court or some statutory provision, then it is obligatory for the State to explain as to how the public interest is involved and what is the impending danger in keeping the person in service. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in various cases that the principle idea underlying compulsory retirement or pre-mature retirement is to weed out inefficient employees and deadwood from the department. Action taken in this regard, if not properly structured, is open to abuse. In a series of cases over a period of time Supreme Court and various other Courts have interfered with administrative discretions exercised in the area of compulsory retirement on the ground of abuse of power, taking note of irrelevant consideration or non-application of mind. In the case of Baldev Raj (supra), after taking note of the provisions of rule 56 (j) of the fundamental rules, which is para materia with Rule 42 of the rules of 1966, the Supreme Court and particularly Justice V. Krishna Iyer, for the bench, has observed that while taking action for compulsory retirement, the appropriate authority must form the requisite opinion, not subjective suggestions, but objective and bonafide based on relevant material and the opinion should indicate that retirement of the employee is in public interest and hot on personal, political or other interest. It is held by the learned Judge that the right to retire under this provision is not absolute, naked and arbitrary exercise of power is said to be bad in law and in the guise of public interest unlimited discretion to prematurely retire an employee cannot be granted. It is held by the learned Judge that the right to retire under this provision is not absolute, naked and arbitrary exercise of power is said to be bad in law and in the guise of public interest unlimited discretion to prematurely retire an employee cannot be granted. It is held that the action should not be unreasonable, arbitrary and amounting to disguised dismissal. It is held in the aforesaid case that whenever an order of retirement is challenged, the State must disclose the material so that the Court can analyse the material and from the material produced come to a conclusion as to whether a reasonable man, reasonably instructed in law, would take action in public interest justifying forced retirement of an employee. ( 12. ) AT this stage it would be relevant to consider the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), relied upon by Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate. In the aforesaid case, reliance has been placed on various earlier judgments on the subject, including the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), and the facts of the said case indicates that the employee concerned was an Executive Engineer working in the Narmada development Department of the State of Gujarat. Pending departmental enquiry into allegations of misuse of power in the matter of purchasing tarpaulin, he was suspended on 22. 5. 86. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him, a charge sheet was issued, but before enquiry into the charge sheet could be completed he was compulsorily retired from service. The facts in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra) is similar to the present case. After evaluating the judgments and the principles laid down in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), pertaining to the law governing action to be taken for compulsory retirement, it was held by the Supreme Court that the order of compulsory retirement was based on extraneous reasons and the action was taken which was mainly based on the allegations, which formed part of the charge sheet on which the enquiry was pending and without waiting for conclusion of the enquiry, decision taken on the basis of allegations, which were not proved and in the absence of the entire service record being not adverse, compulsory retirement was quashed. If the case of the petitioner is evaluated in the backdrop of the principles laid down and the facts in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), it would be seen that the present case is somewhat similar to or rather identical to the one which has been decided by the Supreme Court. ( 13. ) IN the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), reference has been made to the principle laid down in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Das, 1996 (5) SCC 331 , and emphasis is placed on the fact that while compulsorily retiring an employee from service, the department should consider the entire record of service of the government servant, including the last reports. ( 14. ) SAME principles are laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of up and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain, 2002 (3) SCC 641 . In the case of Vijay kumar Jain (supra), the Supreme Court has so considered the matter in paragraphs 10,11,13 and 14: "10. Before we advert to the question which we are required to decide, it is necessary to notice the nature of an order of compulsorily retiring a government servant under FR 56 (c ). In shyam Lal v. State of U. P. , (1955) 1 SCR 26 , it was held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor any stigma attached to it and it was held therein as thus: "there is no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compulsory retirement. The two requirements for compulsory retirement are that the officer has completed twenty five years service and that it is in the public interest to dispense with his further services. It is true that this power of compulsory retirement may be used when the authority exercising this power cannot substantiate the misconduct which may be the real cause for taking the action but what is important to note is that the directions in the last sentence of note 1 to Article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputation or charge is not in terms made a condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity," 11. In Union of India v. Col. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity," 11. In Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCR 791 , it was held that an employee compulsorily retired does not lose any right acquired by him before retirement and that the said rule is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servant and that the order, retiring a government servant compulsorily can only be challenged on the ground that either the order is arbitrary or it is not in public interest. No other ground is available to a government servant who is sought to be compulsorily retired from service under the relevant rules subject to the conditions provided therein. 13. In Baikuntha Nath Das and Another v. Chief District medical Officer Baripada and Another, 1992 (2) SCC 299 , this court laid down certain principles, which are as under: "34. (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 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. 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. " 14. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, 1998 (4) SCC 92 , it was held thus: "before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken, the authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. " And, finally the principles are laid down in paragraph 15, in the following manner: "15. The aforesaid decisions unmistakably lay down that the entire service record of a government servant could be considered by the government while exercising the power under FR 56 (c) of the rules with emphasis on the later entries. FR 56 (c) of the rules read with sub-rule (2), empowers the state government with an absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead woods need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. Integrity of a government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The governments right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the government is entitled under Fundamental rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to screening committee or the state government, as the case may be. to find out whether a government servant has outlived his utility in service. It is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll, the government is expected to form its opinion whether an employee is to be compulsorily retired or not. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 15. ) IT is clear from the aforesaid principle that the entire service record has to be evaluated and if the integrity of the government employee is doubtful and there are material to show existence of the aforesaid fact, action can be taken. ( 16. ) SIMILAR principle is laid down in the case of M. L. Binjolkar Vs. State of mp, 2005 (6) SCC 224 . ( 17. ) FINALLY, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP and another Vs. Noor Jama Khan and another, 2002 (3) MPLJ 147 , has taken note of various judgments, including the judgment in the case of Umed Bhai M. Patel (supra), and the principles have been crystallized in the following manner: "the order of compulsory retirement is the prerogative of the Government and it can be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government. Subjective satisfaction cannot be done in a manner which a prudent man can never conceive. Satisfaction like discretion has to be based on proper consideration and weighment of material. In the name of subjective satisfaction no one can be allowed to behave in a whimsical or capricious manner. Fancy has no place in law. Subjective satisfaction cannot be done in a manner which a prudent man can never conceive. Satisfaction like discretion has to be based on proper consideration and weighment of material. In the name of subjective satisfaction no one can be allowed to behave in a whimsical or capricious manner. Fancy has no place in law. Subjective satisfaction cannot be scanned as if done one is sitting in an appeal, but it must meet the requirement of appreciation expected of a prudent man and the appreciation should be relevant and germane to the purpose apropos to its context. It cannot be conceived for a moment that the subjective satisfaction would take away the order from the purview of judicial scrutiny solely on the basis that the committee has been subjectively satisfied. It must indicate the satisfaction of a prudent and fair man and there should be no perversity of approach. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 18. ) IF the case in hand is analysed in the backdrop of the aforesaid principles and on a scrutiny of the entire facts it would be seen that during his entire service period, no charge sheet is issued to the petitioner. Never was any disciplinary proceeding initiated and there is nothing to indicate that there is any adverse communication in his confidential report. In that view of the matter, it is clear that petitioners contention that he has an unblemished service record seems to be correct. It is also a fact that in the light of the communication received from the income Tax Department on 10. 9. 2007, vide Annexure R/2, petitioner was immediately suspended and a departmental proceeding initiated against him. The department was right in doing so. because the facts that had come on record in the report of the Income Tax Department warranted proper investigation and enquiry and, therefore, the Government had moved in the right direction by suspending the petitioner and instituting departmental enquiry. However, after having done so, the matter was referred to a High Powered Committee, consisting of: (i) Shri Vinod Choudhary - Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department; (ii)Smt. I. M. Chahal - Principal Secretary, General Administration Department; and, (iii) Shri M. M. Upadhyay - Principal Secretary, Health Department. The aforesaid committee recommended for compulsorily retiring the petitioner in public interest. The recommendation of this Committee is accepted by the Government and the impugned action taken. ( 19. The aforesaid committee recommended for compulsorily retiring the petitioner in public interest. The recommendation of this Committee is accepted by the Government and the impugned action taken. ( 19. ) RECORDS produced for perusal of this Court by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned government Advocate, indicates that the Committee held its meeting and made the recommendation, a perusal of the Committees Report indicates that the committee has given its finding only on the basis of the communication - Annexure r/2 dated 10. 9. 2007, issued by the Directorate of Income Tax, Bhopal. Except for reproducing the communication made in the said letter, by translating it from english to Hindi, in paragraph 1 of the report, no finding is recorded by the committee as to whether petitioner is a spent force or dead wood for the department, nor his service record perused to evaluate the same. In paragraph 2, the Committee has indicated that the petitioner is suspended because of the aforesaid order-dated 10. 9. 2007. Thereafter, in paragraph 3, reference is made to a Circular of the General Administration Department in the matter of taking action for compulsory retirement of an employee and the guidelines issued in this regard in a Circular issued by the State Government on 22. 8. 2007, which is filed as annexure R/1 It is stated in paragraph 3, of the recommendation of the Committee, that as per this Circular dated 22. 8. 2007, provision is made for premature retirement if the employee completes 50 years of age of 20 years of service, whichever is earlier. Date of birth of the petitioner is indicated and it is held that his case can be scrutinized, as he has completed both 50 years of age so also 20 years of service, as his date of appointment is 29. 5. 82. Thereafter, the guidelines indicated in paragraph 2. 1 of the Circular of Annexure R/1 is taken note of. In paragraph 4, it is indicated that to evaluate the case of the petitioner, Screening Committee has been constituted on 10. 11. 2007, consisting of the following persons; (i) Shri Vinod choudhary - Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department; (ii) Smt. I. M. Chahal- Principal Secretary, General Administration Department; and, (iii) Shri M. M. Upadhyay - Principal Secretary, Health Department. In paragraph 5, it is stated that this Committee has scrutinized the case of Dr. 11. 2007, consisting of the following persons; (i) Shri Vinod choudhary - Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department; (ii) Smt. I. M. Chahal- Principal Secretary, General Administration Department; and, (iii) Shri M. M. Upadhyay - Principal Secretary, Health Department. In paragraph 5, it is stated that this Committee has scrutinized the case of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma in a detailed manner and thereafter reference is made again to the letter of the Income Tax department and the facts indicated in the said letter is reproduced. Finally, in the concluding four lines of paragraph 6, it is indicated that on the aforesaid basis it can be said that the amount seized by the Income Tax Department from the house of Shri Yogiraj Sharma gives rise to serious assumption that the aforesaid amount seized from his house has been earned by him in an illegal manner while in service. It is further indicated that the action taken by the Income Tax Department has been highlighted in various newspapers and the electronic media. These reporting about raid in a residence of a Senior Government official has had adverse effect on the reputation of the State Government and, therefore, in paragraph 6, the committee recommends for his compulsory retirement. This, in sum and substance, is the proceedings, finding and screening done by the so-called High Level committee appointed in the matter. After the report, the CR entries of the petitioner for the period 1992 to 2000-01 is tabulated, but no reference is made to these entries. These entries indicate that continuously from 1997 up to 2001 petitioner had earned A+ entry. Out of the nine entries indicated in this tabulation, petitioner has earned A+ on seven occasions and he has earned A entry on two occasions i. e. . in the year 1993-94 and 1997-97. The recommendations and the CR tabulations were placed before the State Government, the minutes are approved and the action is taken. If the aforesaid procedure followed for taking action against the petitioner is analysed in the backdrop of the principles laid down in the judgments referred to hereinabove, it would be seen that even though the service record of the petitioner placed before the Committee for the previous nine years was very good and outstanding, the Committee has not at all referred to the past record of services of the petitioner. No effort is made by the Committee to find out as to whether the service record of the petitioner indicates that his integrity is doubtful, or he has been proceeded against for similar allegations during the last 26 years of his service. Infact the record of service of the petitioner is not at all looked into and the Committee chose to take action not on the basis of the service record of the petitioner, but only on the basis of a communication (Annexure R/2) dated 10. 9. 2007 received from the Income Tax Department. ( 20. ) THIS is a case where action is taken for compulsorily retiring the petitioner not on a scrutiny of his service record, but on a communication received from the income Tax Department. The communication received from the Income Tax department is nothing, but an intimation with regard to the search and seizure conducted by them and noticing the Government to take action. Finding the allegations imputed against the petitioner in this communication to be serious in nature, petitioner was immediately suspended and a charge sheet was issued to him, as indicated hereinabove. Having done so, it was incumbent upon the State government to conclude a proper enquiry and to record a finding with regard to integrity of the petitioner and the fact as to whether he has amassed properties and assets by misusing his official position, in any manner whatsoever. This was not done, but by accepting the communication made in the letter of the Income tax Department to be correct, taking the allegations to be proved and established and by being influenced by the media reports, it is assumed that petitioner has amassed wealth by misusing his power and action is taken. This action and procedure followed, if evaluated in the light of the principles laid by the Supreme court, is nothing but an arbitrary and whimsical action of the State Government, which is not based on reasonable appreciation of the matter and is not an approach which would be adopted by a prudent and a reasonable person. This action and procedure followed, if evaluated in the light of the principles laid by the Supreme court, is nothing but an arbitrary and whimsical action of the State Government, which is not based on reasonable appreciation of the matter and is not an approach which would be adopted by a prudent and a reasonable person. If the manner in which satisfaction with regard to existence of public interest is evaluated, it would be seen that the State Government has passed the order and the satisfaction is not done in a manner which a prudent man would normally resort to, as held by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Noor Jama Khan (supra), the subjective satisfaction of the State Government is done in a manner, which a prudent man would never conceive of. Satisfaction is not based on proper consideration and the action is taken in a whimsical and capricious manner. As held by the learned division Bench, fancy has no place in law and if the subjective satisfaction in the present case is scanned, it would be clear that the approach is wholly perverse and contrary to what a prudent and reasonable man would have done in the given set of circumstances. ( 21. ) ONCE on the allegations indicated in the communication (Annexure R/1)received from the Income Tax Department, petitioner was suspended and the departmental enquiry ordered, without concluding the enquiry and bringing it to a logical conclusion, action taken by assuming the allegations in the letter to be correct, is nothing but an arbitrary action based on extraneous consideration. Even the communication made by the Income Tax Department to the effect that the raid was conducted in the house of the petitioner seems to be prima facie incorrect, as the records available in the present case shows that the house belonged to petitioners son and, therefore, the search and seizure conducted by the Income tax Department is not in the house of the petitioner, but is in the house of his son and if this fact is considered, then the contention of Shri N. S. Kale, learned Senior advocate, that there is no nexus between the raid conducted in the house of petitioners son and petitioners involvement in the matter becomes relevant. There are various aspects of the matter which requires proper enquiry and scrutiny and without doing so, action taken in the matter is nothing but an arbitrary and unreasonable action based on presumptions and assumptions and, therefore, such an action cannot be sustained. ( 22. ) PRESENT is a case where public interest is evaluated on extraneous consideration, influenced by media reports without there being any supporting material in the service record to substantiate the finding. Without scrutiny of the entire service record and in the absence of service record supporting the allegations levelled in the communication received from the Income Tax Department, action taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner is wholly unjustified and this Court cannot uphold the same. It is a fit case where interference should be made as existence of public interest warranting compulsory retirement of the petitioner is not properly established in the facts and circumstances. That being so, this Court is of the considered view that action is taken against the petitioner on extraneous consideration without evaluating the entire service record of the petitioner and without assessing the requirement of public interest, in a fair manner. That being so, the action has to be and is accordingly quashed. ( 23. ) HOWEVER, as respondents had suspended the petitioner and had issued a charge sheet to him, they are free to proceed in the matter in accordance to law and quashment of the order of compulsory retirement and the observations made in this order shall not be construed in any manner whatsoever, to be a finding which would influence the departmental proceedings. The observations made and findings recorded in this order are provisional and only for the purpose of evaluating the same, for scrutiny of the present action for compulsory retirement and shall not come in the way of the State Government in proceeding in the matter for taking disciplinary action or otherwise, if they so desire. ( 24. ) ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding action of the State to be wholly unjustified, order of compulsory retirement issued vide Annexure P/1 dated 10. 12. 2007, is quashed. Petition is allowed without any order so as to costs. Petition allowed.