JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner was initially appointed as Routine Grade Assistant in the High Court in March, 1971 and was confirmed on 1.2.1978. Subsequent to the same petitioner was promoted as Lower Division Assistant on 3.8.1978 and he joined on the said post on 10.8.1978. Subsequent to the same petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Assistant and was confirmed on the said post on 23.12.1998. Petitioner has stated that he was promoted as Section Officer on 6.8.1999, but his promotion was detained on account of his complicity in Criminal Case No. 314 of 1999, under Sections 420, 489-B, 489-C, P.S. George Town, Allahabad and in Case Crime No. 315 of 1999, under Section 20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. George Town, Allahabad. Petitioner has stated that he was placed under suspension and his suspension was not approved by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5036 (SS) of 2000, wherein suspension order was quashed. Charge-sheet was issued to him on 08.5.2000 and then punishment was imposed on 10.8.2001 stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner has stated that in criminal case for which he was prosecuted he has been convicted by the Additional Session Judge, Allahabad on 26.6.2006. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5114 of 2006 wherein interim protection was accorded to him on 6.9.2006. Said appeal, it has been informed by petitioner is still pending and in the meantime, order impugned has been passed on 22.11.2006 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition, compulsorily retiring the petitioner, exercising and invoking authority vested in Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of Financial Handbook Volume 2 para 2 to 4. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed in the present case, and as per averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit, Character Roll of the petitioner contains various adverse remark. Relevant para 11 is being quoted below : “That in reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that as per the character roll of the petitioner following adverse remarks have been awarded to him for the year 1980-81, 1980-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89. 1980-81 “As Examiner of Lower Court Records he has been found negligent and inefficient in discharging his duties” The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Joint Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. Letter No. C-1626/80 dated 7.10.1980. 1980-81 “As Examiner of Lower Court Records he has been found negligent and inefficient in discharging his duties” The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Joint Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. Letter No. C-1626/80 dated 7.10.1980. 1985-86 (A) “Censured for his act of misconduct in availing 14 days recess from 17.6.1985 without approval of the Additional Registrar and not submitting his explanation asked for in that regard, and also for neglecting the official work and keeping it in arrears.” The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-1594/1985 dated 8.11.1985. (B) “Irregular in work and attendance. Does not take adequate interest in work. Unpunctual. Integrity certified.” The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-200/1987 dated 11.2.1987. 1987-88 On consideration of the enquiry report dated 25.5.1987 submitted by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kamleshwar Nath, Hon’ble the then Chief Justice was pleased to pass the following orders on 14.7.1987 : “He be censured for insubordination and entry be made in the Character Roll.” In compliance of the above order following censure entry has been recorded on 28.7.1987 : “Censured for having misbehaved in an unruly manner which prompted Iqramuddin to land assault at Gauri Shanker Tiwari and his uncalled for insinuation against Hon’ble Senior Judge and that Additional Registrar constitute indiscipline and act of serious insubordination.” The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-986/67 dated 1.8.1987. 1988-89 “As reported by the Section Officer, he did not work since December, 1988. He is also in arrears of comparison work of Paper Book Section. Integrity certified”. The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-1221/1989 dated 26.10.1989. Para 12 of the counter-affidavit deals in respect of Enquiry No. Nil of 1987, same is being quoted below : That in reply to para 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that following three charges were framed against the petitioner In the Enquiry No. Nili of 1987; “1. That he was in huge arrears of work and avoided to sit on the table and had become nuisance for the administration. 2. That he was in huge arrears of work and avoided to sit on the table and had become nuisance for the administration. 2. That he absented from the office off and on and when reports were made against his absence, he threatened superior officers with dire consequences. 3. That he was committing acts of insubordination spoiling the discipline and thus committed gross misconduct.” The record of the enquiry further reveals that a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, Sri O.P. Srivastava, Joint Registrar, High Court, Allahabad and after conclusion of the same he submitted the enquiry report holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Afterwards, on consideration of the said enquiry report, reply and fresh representation of the petitioner, the following order was passed by the then Registrar on 23.12.1998. “A fuli-fledged disciplinary enquiry was initiated against Sri Rakesh Verma, U.D.A. in the year 1987 and it was entrusted to Sri O.P. Srivastava, Joint Registrar. He was also held guilty for the charges levelled against him in that disciplinary enquiry. It appears from the record of the enquiry that a show cause notice together with the report of the enquiry officer asking for his comments was also given to him. Reply to the enquiry appears to have been rejected by then Registrar (Sri A.S. Tripathi) on 21.1.1992. But this order remained on the file and it was not authenticated or communicated to the official concerned nor any memorandum was signed or issued. With the result the matter is pending for consideration. Sri Rakesh Verma has opted for the post of Bench Secretary. For the last four years no complaint with regard to his working has been received. He has also made fresh representation and has also submitted that he has sufficiently suffered during this period. He has also begged excuse for the past conduct, if any, so adjudged to be improper on his part and submits his apology. A period of more than 11 years have already been elapsed from the date of initiation of enquiry. He has also made fresh representation and has also submitted that he has sufficiently suffered during this period. He has also begged excuse for the past conduct, if any, so adjudged to be improper on his part and submits his apology. A period of more than 11 years have already been elapsed from the date of initiation of enquiry. Under such circumstances the order passed by my learned predecessor dated 31.1.1992, which was not acted upon, is recalled and instead of reverting him to the post of Lower Division Assistant he is warned for future.” In compliance of the above order, the following warning was issued to the petitioner and was communicated to him through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-176/Cf(A)/1999 dated 31.3.1999. “He is warned for future for his act of insubordination, spoiling the discipline committee in the year 1986. In this connection, it is further stated that vide D.O. letter No. 337/99 dated 6.5.1999, the then Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow had reported that the petitioner had refused to receive the aforementioned Court’s D.O. letter dated 31.3.1999. In respect of adverse remarks for the year 1988-89 following statement of fact has been mentioned in para 14 of the counter-affidavit, which is being quoted below : “That in reply to para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that in the Character Roll of the petitioner the following adverse remarks were awarded to him for the year 1988-89. “As reported by the Section Officer he did no work since December, 1988. He is also in arrears of comparison work of paper Book Section. Integrity certified.” Similarly in respect of adverse entry for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93, relevant para 16 is being quoted below : "That in reply to para 11 of the writ petition, it is stated -that the petitioner has been awarded adverse entries for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93, which are as under : 1991-92 “The S.O. has reported that his work is not up-to-date. He is working as examiner. Conduct good. Integrity certified”. The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-73/1995 dated 21.1.1995. 1992-93 “As reported by the Section Officer concerned he is habitual late comer and his work is not upto the mark. He is working as examiner. Conduct good. Integrity certified”. The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-73/1995 dated 21.1.1995. 1992-93 “As reported by the Section Officer concerned he is habitual late comer and his work is not upto the mark. Attendance register shows that he came late on 126 days during the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 and he was in arrears of 34,74,060 words upto 20.7.1992. Integrity certified”. The above remarks had been communicated to the petitioner through Additional Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide Court’s D.O. letter No. C-73/1995 dated 21.1.1995. Details have been given in respect of criminal case against petitioner and action taken wherein; Relevant para Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are being quoted below : "19. That the facts stated in para 17 of the writ petition are matter of record. It, is further stated that on intimation by the Police Station, George Town, Allahabad that on 30.8.1999, at about 7.45 p.m., near to Hashimpur Road crossing, Sri Rakesh Verma, Bench Secretary (presently Upper Division Assistant), Lucknow Bench of the High Court was found in possession of 14 counterfeit currency notes each of 100 denomination and ten small packets (pudia) of Ganja and therefore, a case Crime No. 314 of 1999 under Sections 489Kha and 420, I.P.C., and Case No. 315 of 1999 under Section 20, N.D.P.S. Act had been registered against him and consequently, Sri Verma had been sent to police lock up and thereafter sent to jail. After taking into consideration the serious nature of offence, which falls within the definition of moral turpitude, Sri Rakesh Verma was placed under suspension vide O.M. No. 6691/Account (A-1), dated 2.9.1999. Subsequently, the Additional Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench reported that Sri Rakesh Verma, Upper Divisional Assistant, High Court, Lucknow Bench was absent from duty without any information w.e.f. 14.5.1999. Under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice a show cause notice by means of Office Memo No. 6224/Accounts (A-1) dated 16.8.1999 was issued to him asking him to show cause as to why the aforesaid absence from Court’s duty be not treated as break in service and his salary for the period of absence be not withheld, and the said Office Memo could not be served upon Sri Verma in spite of best efforts by the Administration. Moreover, he was also involved in case Crime No. 314 of 1999 under Section 489-Kha and 420, I.P.C. and case Crime No. 315 of 1999, under Section 20 N.D.P.S. Act and he had already been placed under suspension. After taking into consideration of his such long absence and other aspect of the matter, Sri Verma was placed under suspension vide O.M. No. 6918/Accounts(A-1) dated 10.9.1999. 20. That in reply to para 18 of the writ petition, it is stated that with the approval dated 7.5.2000 of the then Registrar General, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 8.5.2000. The following charges were framed against him : “CHARGE No.1 That you were deputed in Bench Secretary Section to work as Bench Secretary Grade-II without; any benefits of allowances and had been reverted back in General Office under order dated 30.4.1999 passed in compliance of the Court’s office memorandum No. 2224/Accounts(A-1) dated 30.4.1999 and you were posted in writ consolidation Section under order dated 5.5.1999. But you neither reported for duty to the Section Officer writ consolidation on 5.5.1999 nor moved any application regarding your unauthorized absence from duty. After a gap of several days an afterthought casual leave application for the period of 5.5.1999 to 13.5.1999 was given to the Section Officer Bench Secretary Section on 12.5.1999, though you were award that you have been transferred from that Section, and thereby you did not maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct in discharge of official duty and in violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956. CHARGE No. 2 That you, while being posted as Upper Division Assistant in writ consolidation Section in the High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in the year 1999 failed to attend the office and remained absent from duty without any information w.e.f. 14.5.1999. A show cause notice by Sri Maqsood Ahmad, O.S.D., High Court, Allahabad vide office memo No. 6224 dated 16.8.1999 was issued to you asking you to show cause as to why the aforesaid absence from duty be not treated as break in service and why the salary for the aforesaid period of absence be not withheld. But even after this you did not join the duties and thereby fail to maintain devotion to duty and committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. But even after this you did not join the duties and thereby fail to maintain devotion to duty and committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. CHARGE No.3 That you are arrested by Police at Allahabad on 30.8.1999. It was obligatory to obtain written prior permission for going out of the city but you did not obtain prior permission from competent authority while leaving for Allahabad and thereby committed gross misconduct, in violation of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956. CHARGE No. 4 That you were arrested by; the Police of Police Station, George Town, Allahabad on 30.8.1999 and it is alleged by the police that you were found in possession of 50 Gms. of Ganja and 14 fake currency notes of Rs. 1,000/-. You were challaned under Section 489Kha/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20 of NDPS Act under case Crime No. 314 and 315 of 1999. The offences are serious in nature and fall within the definition of moral turpitude. The above act diminishes the dignity of the High Court and thereby you committed gross misconduct defined under Rule III of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956. The record of the enquiry shows that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, on consideration of the enquiry report dated 4.12.2000 submitted by the Enquiry Officer and comments of the petitioner, the Registrar General vide order dated 8.8.2001 punished the petitioner by way of withholding 2 increments with cumulative effect. Vide O.M. No. 4559/ Accounts(A-1) dated 10.8.2001 the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. 21. That facts stated in para 19 and 20 of the writ petition are irrelevant for the purposes of the present case. Even otherwise the order dated 10.8.2001 has become final and even otherwise, it is not under challenge in the present writ petition nor can any objection to the same be raised at this stage and at this distance of time. 3. On account of all these material, which has been stated in the counter-affidavit, stand has been taken that action of compulsory retirement is totally justifiable action. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been taken that proceedings are unjustifiable and further only the adverse entry for the year 1985-86 has been communicated. Adverse entry for the year 1986-87 was expunged. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein plea has been taken that proceedings are unjustifiable and further only the adverse entry for the year 1985-86 has been communicated. Adverse entry for the year 1986-87 was expunged. Petitioner submits that except adverse entry for the year 1985-86, 1988-89, 1991-92 and 1992-93, no other entry was communicated to him. Petitioner has denied the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit and has alleged that action taken against him is punitive in nature. 5. After pleadings mentioned above, have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties and apart from this original record in question, on the basis of which decision in question has been taken, has also been produced before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order of compulsorily retirement has been colourably exercised by the authority and no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner before passing the said order and coupled with this as petitioner had been promoted in the past, the entries prior to it could not have been made foundation and basis for passing order of compulsorily retirement, as such order of compulsorily retirement is unjustifiable. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that authority vested under Fundamental Rule 56 of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV has rightly been exercised in the present case and record in question clearly establish that petitioner was dead wood and once there was adverse material against the petitioner in this background conscious decision has been taken, then this Court is not to act as Court of appeal in exercise of its authority of judicial review, as such no interference be made. 8. In order to appreciate respective arguments, Rule 56 of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV is being quoted below : “56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in that Rule, every Government Servant other than a Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. II Part II to IV is being quoted below : “56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in that Rule, every Government Servant other than a Government servant in inferior service 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 may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanctioned of the Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing but he must not be retrained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. (b) A Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. He must not be retained in service after the date, except in very special circumstances and with sanction of the Government. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of [forty five years] or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months : Provided that— (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years and on such retirement the Government servant shall be. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months : Provided that— (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years and on such retirement the Government servant shall be. entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances if any for the period of the notice or as the case may be for the period by which such notice fall short of three months at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately, before his retirement; (ii) It shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice : Provided further that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding the Government servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted. Provided also that the notice once given by a Government servant under clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority : (e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits if any shall be available in accordance with the subject to the provisions of,the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule : Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rules the appointing authority may allow him for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation whichever be less.] Explanation.—(i) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration— (a) any entries relating to; any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration alongwith the entry; or (c) any report of Vigilance Establishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest. (3) The expression “appointing authority” means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire and the expression “qualifying service” shall have the same meaning as in the relevant rules relating to retiring pension. (3) The expression “appointing authority” means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire and the expression “qualifying service” shall have the same meaning as in the relevant rules relating to retiring pension. (4) Every order of the appointing authority requiring a Government servant to retire forthwith under the first proviso to clause (d) at this rule shall have effect from the forenoon of the date of its issue, provided that if after the date of its issue, the Government servant concerned, bona fide and in ignorance of that order, performs the duties of his office his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired." 9. Bare perusal of the Rule quoted above would go to show that Rule 50 of U.P. Fundamental Rule provides for compulsory retirement of Government servant. Rule 56 (c) of the aforesaid Rule further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or the Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of forty five years or after he has completed qualifying service of twenty years. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules provides that in order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under Clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration, the material referred to in clause (a), (b) and (c). Thus, aforesaid Rule empowers the State Government to retire any Government servant on completion of 50 years of age or on completion of qualifying service and such order should be in public interest and appointing authority may take into consideration, any material relating to said incumbent, including such entries relating to any period, before such incumbent was permitted to cross efficiency bar or before he was promoted, as well as entries against which representation is pending, provided that the representation against such entry is taken into consideration. 10. At this juncture various pronouncement qua exercise of authority of compulsory retirement are being looked into : “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 follows : “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 of 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 the case of Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, 1971 (1) SCR 791 , it was held that an employee compulsorily retired does not loose any right acquired by him before retirement and said rule is not intended for taking any penal action against the Government servant and 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. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.D. Ailawadi v. Union of India and others, (1990) 2 SCC 328 has taken view that compulsory retirement is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.D. Ailawadi v. Union of India and others, (1990) 2 SCC 328 has taken view that compulsory retirement is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. Relevant para 8 is being quoted below : "8. An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds as settled by several decision of this Court (i) that the requisite opinion has not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision. In Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha this Court held that if the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffered from any of the above infirmities, the Court has jurisdiction to quash the same. It is not disputed that compulsory retirement under Rule 56(J) is not a punishment as it does, not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. In the instant case, on the basis of the service record, the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and, therefore, should be retired prematurely. We do not think petitioner has been able to place any satisfactory material for the contention that the decision was on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record, the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The service record of more than five years which we have perused shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing officer had also made the entries. Therefore, the reports must be taken to have reflected an appropriate and objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner." 13. In Balikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, 1992 (2) SCC 299 following principles were enunciated which are as under : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. In Balikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, 1992 (2) SCC 299 following principles were enunciated which are 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 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 the Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were; also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basic interference.” 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996)5 SCC 331 , has taken the view that entire service record can be perused, for the purpose of continuation of Government servant in service. Relevant para Nos. 3 and 7 are being quoted below : "3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992. Relevant para Nos. 3 and 7 are being quoted below : "3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992. The respondent while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated August 1, 1983 which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds : (i) the respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after the adverse remarks were made, the records were wiped out; and (iii) the entire record and over all consideration thereof was not done and, therefore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under Section 71(a) was not valid in law. The question is : whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government, before taking such decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, have to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest reports. 7. It is contended for the respondent that adverse entries for the two years referred to earlier and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the Government servant on the premise that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed, it is true that the Government servant was allowed to cross the efficiency bar to enable him to avail the benefits to draw higher scale of pay after crossing the efficiency bar. The adverse remarks made are after promotion. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and character rote. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, never the less remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. Even otherwise, the remarks form part of service record and character rote. The record of enquiry on conduct also would be material. Though minor penalty may be imposed on given facts and circumstances to act of misconduct, never the less remains part of the record for overall consideration to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The object always is public interest. The material question is: whether the entire record of service was considered or not. It is not for the Court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the Government servant is justified or not. It for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries mere made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsorily 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 self-same 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. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits." 15. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, 1998 (4) SCC 92 , it was held as follows : “Before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record to 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. 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 service of the employee will include any un-communicated adverse entries as well.” 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Lalsa Ram, 2001 AIR SCW 881, has held as follows. Relevant paragraph 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are being extracted below : "12. The respondent herein very strongly adverted to the promotion offered and contended that even assuming there were adverse reports and remarks by reason of the promotion being made available, the adverse remarks lost its sting and as such the same does not and cannot be said to be a factor which must have weighed with the concerned authority directing compulsory retirement. Admittedly the law being well settled on this score that in the event of there being a promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee upon assessment of the service career and annual confidential reports the adverse entries lose its sting—in the event however, the promotion is offered only on the ground of seniority without any assessment of the entire career situation, question of adverse entries losing its sting does not and cannot arise. In the contextual facts if it was promotion by way of a selection and not by seniority, no exception could be taken therefore but the facts in the present context depict otherwise since the respondent herein was promoted by seniority only. The fourth principle as enunciated by this Court in Baikuntha Nath’s case (1992 AIR SCW 793 : AIR 1992 SC 1020 : 1992 Lab IC 945) (supra) thus cannot be of any assistance to the respondent herein. The fourth principle as enunciated by this Court in Baikuntha Nath’s case (1992 AIR SCW 793 : AIR 1992 SC 1020 : 1992 Lab IC 945) (supra) thus cannot be of any assistance to the respondent herein. A similar situation arose in the case of I.K. Mishra v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 228 : (1997 AIR SCW 2944 : AIR 1997 SC 3740 : 1997 Lab IC 2866) wherein this Court upon analysis of the factual aspect has the following to state (Para 7 of AIR, Lab IC) : “No doubt the appellant was sent by the respondents to appear in S.A.S. examination in the year 1972-73 after having been found that the appellant complied with the conditions for appearing in the said examination and further the appellant passed the S.A.S. Part II Examination but merely the facts that the appellant was sent to appear in the examination and was declared successful in the said examination are not the end of the matter. In fact passing of the S.A.S. examination entitles an auditor to be considered for promotion to the higher post by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In the present case after the appellant was declared successful in the S.A.S. examination, the Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the service record of the appellant did not recommend his case for further promotion. Applying principle No. 4 as noted in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das the appellant having not been promoted to the higher post the adverse remarks in his character roll remained intact. Since the appellant was not promoted to the higher post by the Departmental Promotion Committee it is not correct to contend that the adverse materials in the annual confidential report of the appellant lost their sting and those materials could not form the basis of order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service.” 13. Rule 56 (c) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules read with sub-rule (2) as noted herein before provides an authority to the Board with an absolute right to retire an employee on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years. The option for the Government servant to voluntarily retire however has been attributed to the concerned employee at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years. The option for the Government servant to voluntarily retire however has been attributed to the concerned employee at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years. The fundamental rules thus confer a right absolute to retire an employee on the happening of certain event namely the latter attains 50 years of age—the right being absolute and in the event the same is not contra to the conditions as embodied in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, question of violation of any legal right of the respondent herein does not and cannot arise. The factum of the doctrine of natural justice being not available to an employee so retired compulsorily stands well settled and we need not dilate thereon. 14. Rule 56(c) seems to be in pari materia with Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 and this Court while considering the same in the case of Gurdas Singh (1998 AIR SCW 1425 : AIR 1998 SC 1661 : 1998 Lab IC 1401) (supra) in para 6 observed : “It will be thus seen that these Rules give absolute right to retire any Government employee on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or as on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice by giving that employee prior notice of three months in writing. This right has to be exercised if in the opinion of the appropriate authority it is in public interest to retire any employee under the Rules.” 15. Incidentally, the five guiding principles as laid down in Baikuntha Nath’s case (1992 AIR SCW 793 : AIR 1992 SC 1020 : 1992 Lab IC 945) (supra) by this Court stands accepted in another three-Judges Bench’s judgment of this Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board v. CSN Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 : (1992 AIR SCW 1362 : AIR 1992 SC 1368 : 1992 Lab IC 1410) wherein this Court observed that whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify a conclusion of compulsory retirement but the same is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of the delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement, the Courts have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of power if arrived at bona fide on the basis of the material available on record : Usurpation of authority is not only unwarranted but contrary to all norms of service jurisprudence. 16. This Court on the basis as above in Gurdas Singh’s case (1998 AIR SCW 1425 : AIR 1998 SC 1661 : 1998 Lab IC 1401) (supra) observed that is on this perspective the matter shall have to be considered as to whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service and the whole record of the service of the employee shall have to be considered including any un-communicated adverse entry as well provided however, the service Conditions/Regulations do not run counter thereto. We also do record our concurrence therewith and record that the same holds good excepting however the issue of mala fides. The issue of mala fides has not been or even raised in the pleadings of the matter in issue and as such we are not called upon to delve into the same. The Appointing Authority upon consideration of the entire service record as required under the rules and having formed its opinion that the compulsory retirement of the respondent being in public interest issued the order and on the wake of the aforesaid, question of any interference of this Court does not and cannot arise. Interference in these matters by the Courts in exercise of its jurisdiction under the constitutional mandate is very restricted and the Courts shall have to tread on the issue with utmost care and caution by reason of very limited scope of interference. The High Court has in fact ignored this aspect of the matter and proceeded solely on the basis of the factum of there being no adverse entry in recent past. Needless to state that adverse entries did not stand extinguished by mere lapse of time but they continued to be on record and it is for the employer to act and rely thereon in the event of there being, a rule permitting an order of compulsory retirement. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR 2002 SC 1345 has held as follows : “14. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, AIR 2002 SC 1345 has held as follows : “14. The aforesaid decisions unmistakable 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, Government has an absolute 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 employees is to be compulsorily retired or not." 18. On the basis of pronouncement noted above it is clear that order of compulsory retirement has no stigma nor it implies suggestion of misbehaviour. Principle of natural justice has no role to play. The order is passed on subjective satisfaction of the Competent authority, forming opinion, that it is in public interest to retire Government servant compulsorily. On the basis of pronouncement noted above it is clear that order of compulsory retirement has no stigma nor it implies suggestion of misbehaviour. Principle of natural justice has no role to play. The order is passed on subjective satisfaction of the Competent authority, forming opinion, that it is in public interest to retire Government servant compulsorily. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion/crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering overall performance of the employee during the whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in service, as per clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rules of Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part II to IV. High Court, on challenge been made, will not act as appellate forum, and will interfere only when satisfaction is recorded, that order passed is (i) mala fide (ii) based on no evidence (iii) same is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material, in short order in questions perverse order. 19. On the basis of principles settled down in catena of decisions noted above and on the basis of original record in question, entire fact of the present case in hand is being look into. On 13.10.2006, High Power Committee, headed by Chief Justice of the Court, vide resolution No. 5 took up the matter regarded suspended employees, and resolved that said Committee would function as Screening Committee for the purposes of compulsorily retirement of High Court employees, who need to be retired compulsorily. Pursuant to said resolution exercise in question has been undertaken. Factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that petitioner was inducted in employment of this Court and on 29.10.1985, petitioner was censured for his act of misconduct, and for year 1985-86, as working of petitioner was irregular, and he was not taking interest, same has not been satisfactory he was awarded adverse entry. On 1.6.1987 petitioner was charge-sheeted, and in the said proceedings, petitioner was warned. In the year 1986-87, also petitioner was awarded adverse entry, but subsequently it was expunged. On 26.10.1989 for the year 1988-89, petitioner was awarded adverse entry. Again in the year 1991-92 and 1992-93, petitioner was awarded adverse entry. On 1.6.1987 petitioner was charge-sheeted, and in the said proceedings, petitioner was warned. In the year 1986-87, also petitioner was awarded adverse entry, but subsequently it was expunged. On 26.10.1989 for the year 1988-89, petitioner was awarded adverse entry. Again in the year 1991-92 and 1992-93, petitioner was awarded adverse entry. Merely because petitioner has been accorded promotion that does not ipso-facto washes the adverse entries, which have been accorded in the past. Promotion of petitioner from his own showing, was not merit based selection rather same was seniority based selection. In the State of U.P. there is specific provision, sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 which mentions that in order to satisfy that it will be in public interest to retire a Government servant under sub-clause (C) of Fundamental Rule 56 of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV, appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to Government servant and nothing herein contained, shall be construed to exclude from consideration any entries relating to any period before such Government savant was allowed to cross any efficiency or before he was promoted to any post. Thus, merely on account of promotion accorded, the entries do not stand wiped out and at the point of time when opinion is to be formed, said material can be very well taken into consideration. In the present case, there is adverse material available on record in the shape of adverse entry awarded to petitioner from time to time and coupled with this in departmental proceeding, petitioner has been punished on 10.8.2001, said order had never been challenged. Apart from this petitioner was arrayed as an accused in criminal case and has been convicted by competent Court of law on 26.6.2006, under Sections 420, 489-B and 489-C and Section 20 NDPS, P.S. George Town, District Allahabad. Merely because against the same, appeal has been filed, therein interim order has been passed, same does has the effect of wiping out aforementioned judgment for the purpose of forming opinion as to whether petitioner is to be retained in the establishment or not. 20. Effect of granting ad-interim order has been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of S.I.T. Association, AIR 1992 SC 1439 . 20. Effect of granting ad-interim order has been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of S.I.T. Association, AIR 1992 SC 1439 . This Court is not an appellate Court, qua the decision taken by Competent Authority while exercising and invoking authority in terms of Rule 56 (c) of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV. Once there is material available on record and conscious decision has been taken, then interference is permissible only in three contingencies : (i) opinion formed is mala fide (ii) decision is based on no evidence (iii) and same is arbitrary decision. In the present case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that opinion, which has been formed in any way is mala fide/based on no evidence or same is arbitrary or there is no evidence to support the same. As there is voluminous evidence available on record, which clearly clinches the issue and substantiates that rightful action has been taken and rightful opinion has been formed. For taking decision there is ample material available on record and once on the basis of material available on record, conscious decision has been taken, which empowers the authority to take decision for cleaning the administration and for maintaining purity in administration, as such action taken, cannot be faulted. This Court is not a Court of appeal and settled ground on which order in question could be assailed, are not available in the present case as opinion has been formed on the material available and said decision could not be termed to be arbitrary. 21. Much reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (2000) 8 SCC 395 . Said judgment will not at all come to the rescue of petitioner, inasmuch as, in the said case while considering case for promotion, has taken the view, that in matter of promotion, consideration of past records may be taken into consideration, but consideration of same must be fair according to establishment principle of service jurisprudence said principles have been extended in respect of compulsory retirement also. In the said case plea of mala fide has been found proved and in spite of clear direction by competent authority to drop proceedings, in utter disregard action was taken. In the said case plea of mala fide has been found proved and in spite of clear direction by competent authority to drop proceedings, in utter disregard action was taken. In the peculiar facts entire benefit has been extended to petitioner therein. In the present case apart from adverse entries, there is other material available on record, which has been referred to above, which prompted the authority concerned to take action. Compulsory retirement is one of the prescribed punishment provided for and therein action taken was not at all subscribed and therein also view has been taken that action must be considered and consideration must be fair. 22. Apart from this petitioner has placed reliance on judgment in the case of J.N. Bajpai v. State of U.P. and others, 1990 (8) LCD 149; Daya Chandra v. District Judge, Meerut, (1992) 1 UPLBEC 5 and judgment in Writ Petition No. 769 (SB) of 2006 Dharm Vijai Singh v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, decided on 28.2.2008. Said judgment will not come to the rescue of petitioner, inasmuch in the present case there is material against the petitioner, which has been taken into consideration and based on the same, decision has been taken, as such no interference is required. Here in the present case there is voluminous material against the petitioner. In the fact and circumstances of the case, said cases will not at all come to the rescue of petitioner. In the present case service record of petitioner alongwith other material has been perused and same clearly reflects that there was material available on record, and on the said basis authority concerned has passed order impugned. 23. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. ————