JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Srivastava for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Since pleadings are complete, as agreed and requested by learned counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement dated 23.3.2007 passed by Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Jhansi under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) as amended in State of U.P. 4. From the pleadings it does appear that the petitioner was appointed as Warder on 19.11.1981 in Jail services and was confirmed w.e.f. 01.01.1991 vide order dated 31.07.1991. He was allowed selection grade pay w.e.f. 19.11.1991 vide order dated 28.02.1996 and super selection grade w.e.f. 19.11.1995 vide order dated 2.5.2000. An additional increment on completion of 19 years of satisfactory service was given w.e.f. 19.11.2000 vide order dated 22.02.2001. The screening committee considered the service record of several jail employees including the petitioner on 22.3.2007. The screening committee consisted of the following : ^^1- Jh vkj0,u0 mik/;k;] ofj"B v/kh{kd] ftyk dkjkxkj] >kWalh-----------v/;{kA 2- Jh vkj0ds0 xkSre] fpfdRlkf/kdkjh] ftyk dkjkxkj] >kWalh-------------------lnL;A 3- Jh ih0Mh0 lykSfu;kWa] dkjkiky] ftyk dkjkxkj] >kWalh--------------------------lnL;A 4- Jh gfj’kadj voLFkh] dkjkiky] ftyk dkjkxkj] mjbZ--------------------------lnL;A** 5. The committee found that in the last about 25 years of service the petitioner has earned, in all, 35 punishments which included warning, drill, fine etc., mostly awarded to petitioner on the ground of security reasons. There were several censure also and though in the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 the petitioner was granted very good (Uttam) entry but it has been diluted by censure or severe warning tendered to the petitioner by Senior Superintendent during the respective period. Consequently, it was decided that the petitioner deserve premature retirement. 6. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner, contended that once it is admitted that in the preceding two years, i.e., 2004-05, 2005-06 the petitioner was given very good (Uttam) annual character roll entries it was not open to the screening committee to observe that they are not acceptable and this part of the findings of the committee is beyond its jurisdiction. Since the recent entries were very good (Uttam), the screening committee could not have said that the petitioner has rendered deadwood and, therefore, the decision of premature retirement is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the screening committee having held that the good entries are not acceptable has erred in law and if this part of observation is ignored, since the decision is subjective, it cannot be said as to what extent the decision for recommending premature retirement is influenced by the above observation, hence the impugned order, being arbitrary and illegal, deserves to be set aside. Lastly, he contended that the broadsheet placed before the screening committee containing details of the punishments etc. of the petitioner shows that all were petty or minor punishments which could have been awarded in a summery manner. It is also contended that there are some other persons similarly situated with the petitioners whose service record is worse than the petitioner but they have been retained in service and, therefore, the action of respondents is arbitrary. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, relying on the averments contained in the counter-affidavit submits that the screening committee has considered the entire aspect at great length and found after the assessment of total service record that he cannot be said to be a worthy employee liable to continue in service and, therefore, a decision was taken to compulsorily retire him in public interest. The decision of the authorities based on consideration of entire service record of the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. Compulsory retirement is a facet of “doctrine of pleasure” embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. The rule holds balance between the rights of individual Government servant and the interest of the public. It is intended to enable the employer to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. The object is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of efficiency and honesty. It does not cast any stigma and cannot be constituted to be a punishment of a Government servant when exercised in public interest under F.R. 56. 10. The object is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain high standard of efficiency and honesty. It does not cast any stigma and cannot be constituted to be a punishment of a Government servant when exercised in public interest under F.R. 56. 10. In Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1954 SC 369 it was held that an officer who has compulsory retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with Rules. There is no deprivation of the accrued benefits. Though from the point of view of the officer/employee concerned, he may think to have been punished for not being allowed to serve till he attains the age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules, but there is distinction between the loss of benefits already earned and loss of prospects to earn something more. It was held that since compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(c) is not a punishment when resorted to in public interest, Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application. 11. In Posts and Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review as under : "An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. F.R. 56(j) authorizes the government to review the working of its employee at the end of the point of their service referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the government to decide upon. The Courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bone fide and on the basis of material available on the record. “ (para 5) (emphasis added) 12. The Courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bone fide and on the basis of material available on the record. “ (para 5) (emphasis added) 12. In S. Ram Chandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 the Apex Court held as under : "It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest." 13. In Allahabad Bank Officers’ Association and another v. Allahabad Bank and others, (1996) 4 SCC 504 , the Apex Court observed as under : "The power to compulsorily retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration." (para 5) 14. In State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331 , the Apex Court held : “........................It is needless to reiterate that the settled 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 administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are 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.” ( para 3) 15. In M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 SC 3058 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. The observation that principles of natural justice have no place in the context of compulsory retirement does not mean that if the version of the delinquent officer is necessary to reach the correct conclusion, the same can be obviated on the assumption that other materials alone need be looked into.” (para 11) 16. Thus, compulsory retirement of an employee is actually a prerogative of the Government. But it is also true that it should be based on material and on the satisfaction of the authority concerned based on record that the Government servant should not be allowed to continue in public interest and be made to retire. 17. It would be useful to refer certain principles in respect to compulsory retirement, culled out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Baikunth Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 which have been reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 held : “(i) When the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off deadwood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 18. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 18. The above guidelines have been referred with affirmance recently in M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, JT 2009(6) SC 263. 19. In Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, JT 2009(8) SC 385 following Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar (supra) the Court further held that : “Principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with and even adverse entries made in the confidential record including uncommunicated entries may be taken into consideration but the same should not be passed in place of or in lieu of a disciplinary proceedings. If an order of compulsory retirement is stigmatic in nature, the same would be bad in law.” 20. Considering the question as to whether order of compulsory retirement in the case in hand can be said to be arbitrary, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder in detail the adverse material which was available to the authorities concerned for the purpose of forming opinion as to whether the petitioner has rendered dead-wood and deserve premature retirement or not : 20-A. The annual character roll entry of the petitioner for the period of 1996-97 to 2005-06 as per the broadsheet is as under : ^^1996&97&vPNk 1997&98&vPNk 1998&99&vPNk 1999&2000&mRre 2000&2001&vPNk 2001&2002&vPNk 2002&2003&vPNk 2003&2004&[kjkc 2004&2005&mRre 2005&2006&mRre** 21. The above entries actually exist in the service record of petitioner is not disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner. His only submission is that since last two years entries are “very good” (Uttam), and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has rendered dead-wood, deserve premature retirement. Once it is not disputed that the entire service record of petitioner is full of various kinds of punishment and adverse material, in my view, it would be difficult to hold that the opinion formed by the authorities that the employee has rendered dead-wood is based on no material. Once it is not disputed that the entire service record of petitioner is full of various kinds of punishment and adverse material, in my view, it would be difficult to hold that the opinion formed by the authorities that the employee has rendered dead-wood is based on no material. When the screening committee says that the effect of the last two years annual character roll entry mentioning very good is not acceptable in view of the minor penalty awarded to petitioner in the respective period and also the punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect by order dated 4.6.2004, it does not mean that the screening committee has refused to accept as such the annual character roll entry of petitioner but in fact what it says is that the effect of annual entry stands diluted on account of above adverse material of the same period. 22. While considering the validity of an order of compulsory retirement passed in public interest under F.R. 56, this Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the competent authority. The employer takes into account various factors emanating from employee’s past record and takes a view whether it would be in the interest of employer to continue service of the employee concerned or not. If it forms an opinion that employee is rendered a dead wood and has outlived his utility, it can certainly pass an order of compulsory retirement. In Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam and another, AIR 2003 SC 1362 the Apex Court observed: “......It cannot be disputed that the passing of an order of compulsory retirement depends on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, of course on objective consideration. Unless it is shown that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without application of mind or that such formation of opinion to retire compulsorily, was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was totally perverse, the Court cannot interfere...” 23. A similar question came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. Lalsa Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 389 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable in U.P. Lalsa Ram was working as Deputy Collector. A similar question came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. Lalsa Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 389 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable in U.P. Lalsa Ram was working as Deputy Collector. At the time when he was compulsorily retired in the year 1998 the screening committee considered adverse entries of 1967-68, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1991-92 as well as censure dated 18.1.86. Although there was no adverse entry in the preceding five years yet considering the constant deterioration in the performance of Shri Lalsa Ram, he was recommended for compulsory retirement. The writ petition filed by Lalsa Ram challenging the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was allowed on the ground that there being no adverse entry in preceding five years and the adverse entries from 1967 to 1982 being old and stale, only on the basis of one adverse entry of the year 1991-92 it was not justified to retire him compulsorily. The Hon’ble Apex Court allowing the appeal of the State Government considering Fundamental Rule 56 held as under : “The Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules governing the service conditions of the respondent herein, in particular, Rule 56(c) & Explanation 2(a), (b) specifically provide that nothing in the Rules should be construed to exclude from consideration any entry relating to any efficiency bar or he was promoted to any post in an officiating or a substantive capacity or on an ad hoc basis. The important words used are : nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration: the exclusion thus is prohibited in terms of the rule. The authority concerned, by reason wherefor has thus a liberty to consider even entries relating to the period before the government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted. It is true that one of the guiding principles as enunciated above in Baikuntha Nath case with regard to performance during the later years ought to be attached more importance but that does not exclude the consideration of the entire record of service.” (para 11) (emphasis added.) 24. Again in para 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Fundamental Rule 56 confers the right absolute to retire an employee on happening of certain event namely, the employee attaining 50 years of age. Again in para 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Fundamental Rule 56 confers the right absolute to retire an employee on happening of certain event namely, the employee attaining 50 years of age. The only guiding factor is the public interest to retire an employee. It also held that the right being absolute, in the event it is not contrary to the condition, as embodied in Fundamental Rule 56, the question of violation of any legal right of an employee would not arise. It further held where the material is sufficient and conclusion of the authority would have been justified, it cannot be a matter of judicial review, since primarily it is for the departmental authority to decide. The delinquency of the entry and whether it is of such a degree as to reflect on the efficiency of the employees has to be decided by the authorities and the Courts have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with such exercise of power, if arrived at bone fide on the basis of the material on record. Usurpation of authority is not only unwarranted but contrary to all norms of service jurisprudence. Showing its agreement with the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalsa Ram (supra) further held as follows : “...................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 in the wake of the aforesaid, question of any interference of this Court does not and cannot arise. Interference in these matter by the Courts in exercise of their 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 the recent past. 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 the 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.” (para 16) (emphasis added.) 25. Following the rule of precedents and also the statutory provision applicable in this case, it is evident that the material which can be looked into for the purpose of compulsory retirement has not been left for the guess of the Court or of the authorities but the legislature has taken care to provide specific provision under Fundamental Rule 56 stating that in order to form opinion whether the government servant should be retired compulsorily or not the appointing authority is entitled to consider the entire service record of the government servant, even if he has been subsequently allowed promotion or crossed efficiency bar etc. However where his representation against the adverse entry is pending, the same may also be considered along with the adverse entry. The reason for giving such a wide power to the appointing authority is easily understandable. Whole purpose of provision made for compulsory retirement is to root out worthless without resorting to bone fide extreme covered by Article 311 of the Constitution. After all the administration to be efficient has to be meant by efficient, competent and prone workers and should not be meant by drones do nothing, incompetent and unworthies. Lacking of efficiency by itself does not amount to a misconduct and, therefore, such incumbent may not be delinquent needs to be punished but may prove to be a burden on the administration, if by insensitive, insouciant, unintelligent or dubious conduct impede the floor or promote stagnation. In a developing country where speed, probity, sensitivity, enthusiastic, creativity and non-brevity process are immediately required, callous cadres and paper logged are the bees setting sin of the administration. Therefore, it is in public interest to retire a never doer person. In a developing country where speed, probity, sensitivity, enthusiastic, creativity and non-brevity process are immediately required, callous cadres and paper logged are the bees setting sin of the administration. Therefore, it is in public interest to retire a never doer person. Some times the reputation or otherwise the information available to the superior officers reflects on the integrity of the employee but there may not be sufficient evidence available to initiate punitive action, but conduct and reputation for continuing of such person is menace in public service and injurious to public interest. In said case also the order of compulsory retirement may be passed by the competent authority. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that most of the penalties are of such which could have been awarded summarily and the petitioner has specifically pleaded in para 13 of the writ petition that he had no knowledge as to how and in what manner the various pecuniary penalties were awarded to petitioner as enumerated in the tabulation chart. In reply to the said averments the respondents in para 12 of the counter-affidavit said that the employees are shown their entire service record every year and before imposing punishment an explanation is called. In respect to some of the penalties the endorsement of the petitioner and communication thereof has also been mentioned in para 12 of the counter-affidavit which has not been denied in para 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. In the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the penalties were not in the knowledge of petitioner. The punishment and penalties certainly constitute relevant and adverse material and it is open to the authority concerned to look into the same for forming its opinion about the continuance of an employee under Fundamental Rule 56(2). 27. Now coming to the next submission that the other persons having inferior service record have been retained while the petitioner has been single out for premature retirement, I find that averment in this regard has been made in para 30 of the writ petition as under : “30. That a perusal of tabular chart and the proceedings of screening committee would further demonstrate that power to compulsorily retire from service has been exercised in a wholly perverse and discriminatory manner. That a perusal of tabular chart and the proceedings of screening committee would further demonstrate that power to compulsorily retire from service has been exercised in a wholly perverse and discriminatory manner. Such employees considered by the screening committee whose service record is far inferior than the petitioner have been retained in service while orders for compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been passed. Attention is specifically drawn to the case of Ganga Sahai considered at SN 5, Mohan Lal Sharma considered at SN 8, Pheran Singh specified at SN 12, Brinda Zaidi specified at SN 14, Lala Ram specified at SN 15 etc.” 28. It has been denied in para 27 of the counter-affidavit and it is said that the other employees were awarded lesser punishment. 29. The tabulation chart of Sri Ganga Sahai, who is a Barbar in the Jail is at page 49 of the paper book and it shows that he was appointed in 1980. Upto October, 2006 he was given 21 minor penalties like severe warning, censure, fine, warning etc. and in the year 1994 his two annual increment without cumulative effect were stopped, in November, 1995 one year increment was stopped without cumulative effect and in 2001 he was awarded censure. However last 10 years of annual character roll entry from 2002-03, are either good or very good. 30. Similarly, Sri Mohan Lal Sharma another Guard appointed in 1981, has earned 13 minor penalties like fine, severe warning, censure and in 1996 and 2002 he was awarded censure. However, his annual character roll in the last 10 years from 1996-97 to 2005-06 is either good or very good and there is no adverse entry in the annual entry therein. 31. In the case of Sri Faren Singh there are 8 minor penalties and one censure vide order dated 13.6.2000 awarded pursuant to an inquiry. His last 10 years service record also contained good and very good entry and there is no adverse entry therein. 32. Sri Bunda Zaidi has 7 minor penalties and two penalties of censure and severe warning after inquiry. His last 10 years service record contains two adverse entries in 1997-98 and 2000-01 but thereafter the entries are good and very good and in one year it is excellent. 33. 32. Sri Bunda Zaidi has 7 minor penalties and two penalties of censure and severe warning after inquiry. His last 10 years service record contains two adverse entries in 1997-98 and 2000-01 but thereafter the entries are good and very good and in one year it is excellent. 33. Ex facie, the service record of these persons cannot be said to be clean and clear but the same is incomparable with the record of petitioner whose service record is ex facie much more stigmatic. The contention that all the persons whose service record is far inferior to petitioner is factually not correct. Whether individually those employees ought to have been retained or not is a matter of the satisfaction of the competent authority considering various relevant factors. This Court cannot sit in appeal over their decision unless it is found that the persons equally situated have been discriminated which is not the case as discussed above. 34. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. 35. Dismissed. 36. No costs. ————