Judgment :- P.D. Kode, J. 1. By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner working as a Constable in Maharashtra Police Service and compulsorily retired w.e.f. from 24.8.2000 under Rule 65 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 has thrown a challenge to common order dated 24.8.2000 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench dismissing Original Application Nos. 159/1996 and 513/1999 preferred by him challenging notice dated 28.5.1995 issued by respondent no.3 informing that he would be retired in public interest w.e.f. 22.8.1995 or after expiry of three months period from the receipt of the said notice and against order dated 24.5.1999 passed by respondent no.3 compulsorily retiring him. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the Tribunal and directing respondents for reinstating and continuing him in service till superannuation. 2. The facts giving rise to the controversy arisen in present petition are as under: The petitioner belonging to Nomadic Tribe was appointed on 10.6.1963 in Maharashtra Police Services. The date of birth of petitioner being 1.7.1943, he was due for superannuation on 1.7.2001 i.e. after completion of age of 58 years. 3. On 19.7.1976 petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable due to having completed 12 years of continuous service. However, thereafter petitioner was neither promoted nor given higher pay-scale in the next promotional post in spite of clean service record i.e. himself being not communicated any adverse remark, nor having received any punishment major or minor, nor being required to face any departmental inquiry. On14.2.1994 he presented an application/representation for promoting him as an Assistant Sub-Inspector i.e ASI since he had completed 12 years unblemished service on the post of Head Constable. 4. While his said application was under process and consideration, respondent no.3 issued to him notice dated 22.5.1995 informing that in public interest he is compulsorily retired w.e.f. 22.8.1995 under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, i.e. at the age of 51 years and 10 months, much prior to attaining superannuation. The petitioner made representations dated 5.6.1995, 3.7.1995 and 24.7.1995 to respondent no.3 against the said notice. However, respondent no.3 failed to consider and/or to decide the same. 5. The petitioner made representations dated 5.6.1995, 3.7.1995 and 24.7.1995 to respondent no.3 against the said notice. However, respondent no.3 failed to consider and/or to decide the same. 5. Original Application No.616/1995 preferred by the petitioner before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the notice dated 22.5.1995 was disposed of by said Tribunal vide order dated 4.12.1995 directing respondents for considering the representations made by petitioner and continuing him in service till same were decided. 6. After receiving an order dated 28.2.1996 from respondent no.3 informing about rejection of the representations, petitioner again approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal with Original Application No.159/1996 challenging said order rejecting his representation dated 4.6.1995. During the pendency of the said application, order compulsorily retiring petitioner in public interest was stayed by Tribunal. 7. In view of the counsel for the petitioner having not attended the Tribunal, the said application was dismissed for default on 18.5.1999. Immediately on next day petitioner filed an application for restoration of said application. The notice of said Civil Application for restoration made returnable after two weeks was served on respondent no.3 on 21.5.1999. 8. It is case of petitioner that respondent no.3 by taking advantage of dismissal of Original Application No.159/1996 in default ,after receipt of notice of application for restoration, had immediately issued an order dated 24.5.1999 of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 24.5.1999. On said date petitioner was of aged 55 years and 10 months and had received approximately gross salary of Rs.8,900/- for the month of April, 1999 paid in May,1999. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed fresh original application bearing No.513/1999 challenging the said order dated 24.5.1999 issued by respondent no.3 compulsorily retiring him. The said application and an application made for restoration of earlier application No. 159/1996 were decided by the Tribunal by said common order dated 24.8.2000 against which the petitioner had approached this Court. 10. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed fresh original application bearing No.513/1999 challenging the said order dated 24.5.1999 issued by respondent no.3 compulsorily retiring him. The said application and an application made for restoration of earlier application No. 159/1996 were decided by the Tribunal by said common order dated 24.8.2000 against which the petitioner had approached this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order passed by the Tribunal and the other orders and prayed for setting aside the same by urging that: a) said notice and order of compulsory retirement is absolutely unfair, illegal, arbitrary, revengeful and unjustifiable; b) the same is issued in violation of the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules; c) the same is not issued in a public interest and order dated 24.5.1999 was passed in revengeful and hasty manner by taking advantage of Original Application No.159/1996 being dismissed in default; d) the compulsory retirement of petitioner ordered at the age of 51 years and 10 months absolutely smacks of mala fides, and is arbitrary in nature as same was not based upon consideration of entire service record of petitioner much a less failing to consider latest confidential records of the petitioner five years prior to the date of compulsory retirement; e) the same being passed by the respondents in violation of guidelines as well as the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments; 11. The learned AGP for the respondents supported the order impugned in the petition by urging that: a) the power vested with respondent no.3 by virtue of Rule 65 (1)(b) of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules to compulsory retire was properly exercised by respondent no.3; b) the same was exercised within the law/guidelines laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment and after considering entire service record of the petitioner no fault can be found with the same; c) the decisions of the Supreme Court revealing that for the purposes of compulsory retirement even non-communicated adverse entries can be taken into account, the grievance tried to be made on such count will not deserve any credence nor the same would render the orders impugned vulnerable; d) the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner are due to confusion made by him about criteria/yardstick for compulsory retirement and for promotion in service i.e. about altogether different matters; e) the respondent no.3 within his rights by virtue of power conferred after subjective satisfaction having taken administrative decision to compulsory retire the petitioner in public interest and same being not found improper, arbitrary, mala-fide or perverse by Tribunal, during judicial review, within narrow permissible compass, would not warrant any interference by this Court in special jurisdiction; f) since no apparent fault can be found with the reasoning given by the Tribunal, apart from all the aspects presently urged being considered by the Tribunal, reveals there being no merits in the present petition. The learned counsel for the parties having placed reliance upon certain decisions having important bearing with the controversy involved , we feel it necessary to extract the relevant paragraphs from the same before dealing with the rival submissions advanced. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court way back in the year 1992 in a case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another .vrs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 pointed out by learned AGP has observed regarding compulsory retirement in paragraph no.32 to the effect: “32. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (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 following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is based on no evidence, or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter – of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This object has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above. (emphasis supplied by this Court) 13. While in another decision pointed out by learned AGP in the case of State of Gujarat .vrs. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus in paragraph no.11: “11. This object has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above. (emphasis supplied by this Court) 13. While in another decision pointed out by learned AGP in the case of State of Gujarat .vrs. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus in paragraph no.11: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever 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 dead wood, 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 was 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. (emphasis supplied by this Court) 14. While the decision in a case of State of U.P. and others .vrs. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 , also pointed by the learned AGP the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus in paragraph no.15, “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 Explanation (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 wood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. FR 56(c) of the Rules read with Explanation (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 wood need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a government employee is foremost becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the Government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest. The Government’s 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 the 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. Now in light of the aforesaid pronouncement considering the rival submission and after perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion of the petition preferred inviting judicial review of the administrative decision taken of compulsory retiring the petitioner being devoid of any merits. We are of such an opinion as the order passed by Tribunal reveals that all the submissions advanced before us being also advanced before the Tribunal and after duly considering the same, the Tribunal was not able to find any fault with the order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent no.3. Without narrating every aspect of the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the said process we record that we are unable to find any fault with the said reasoning either on the count of Tribunal having not considered the aspect of compulsory retirement of the petitioner upon the principles as enunciated by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court or having committed any error or illegality in reviewing the order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent no.3. 16. 16. Additionally we find that while coming to such conclusion the Tribunal had found that appointing authority for the petitioner was duly empowered to compulsory retire him by virtue of powers conferred under Rule 65 (1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 after he had completed the service of 30 years and in the said process respondent no.2 had appointed a special review committee and the said committee after considering entire service record of the petitioner and attaching more importance to the performance/record of the later years of service had recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner and in accordance with the said decisions notice of compulsory retiring petitioner in public interest was issued. 17. Since compulsory retirement is not a punishment, without narrating matters from copies of record which were placed before us, we only observe that the same also fully supports the subjective satisfaction arrived by respondent no3 for passing the relevant order or the Tribunal finding justification in the same. We may add that the law regarding compulsory retirement pronounced by the Apex Court being to the effect that the entire service record and particularly that of later years is to be taken into consideration while considering the question of a compulsory retirement, we are unable to give undue importance to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner of crucial failure having occurred on part of respondent no3 to take into consideration petitioner also having received reward. We add that receiving of reward by itself cannot be said to be a factor non-justifying compulsory retirement in public interest in event of the same being also found nullified by other matters viz. receiving the punishment and general performance being found to be average /poor or there being no progressive improvement. 18. We add that receiving of reward by itself cannot be said to be a factor non-justifying compulsory retirement in public interest in event of the same being also found nullified by other matters viz. receiving the punishment and general performance being found to be average /poor or there being no progressive improvement. 18. Now in order to appreciate submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner of ordering compulsory retirement much after completion of service of 30 years i.e. on 22.8.1995 at the age of 51 years and 10 months being impermissible under the Rules or the same by itself indicates mala fides on the part of respondent no.3 makes it necessary to consider relevant part of the said Rule 65 (1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 which runs as under:- “(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years’, qualifying service, he may retire from service, or he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest: (a) A Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the appointing authority +[ -----] three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; or (b) the appointing authority shall give a notice in writing *[ in from 32] to Government servant + [ ------] three months before the date on which he is required to retire in public interest, or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.” (emphasis supplied) 19. Thus upon plain reading of the said rule, it is apparent that the same can be pressed into service either by employee who intends to retire by giving notice or by the appointing authority intending to compulsorily retire the employee in public interest only after the employee completing 30 years of qualifying service. The same also makes it abundantly clear of no bar being created for considering question of such retirement by the appointing authority prior to employee completing such a service or even thereafter, as the bar relates to not retiring him prior to completing service of 30 years prescribed under rule. In view of the same it is difficult to accept of there being bar for communicating the decision of an employee being retired in public interest under the said rule either after 30 years or even thereafter i.e. as occurred in the case of the petitioner. In view of the same it is difficult to accept of there being bar for communicating the decision of an employee being retired in public interest under the said rule either after 30 years or even thereafter i.e. as occurred in the case of the petitioner. Needless to add that said rule does not require that employee sought to be compulsorily retired must be retired at the nick of day of himself completing service of 30 years. 20. Now in same context careful perusal of the decision in a case of State of Uttar Pradesh .vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam and ors. reported in (1977) 4 Supreme Court Cases 345 relied by learned counsel for petitioner reveals that said case involved question of compulsory retirement effected under All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 framed under All India Services Act, 1951. The decision reveals that under the said Rules compulsory retirement in public interest was permissible for an employee who had completed 30 years of qualifying service or who had attained age of 55 years. The decision reveals that case of respondent employee therein under the said rule was considered after he had completed the age of 30 years but then he was not compulsorily retired under said rule. However, his case was again reviewed by the appellant/State at about 53 years of age of said employee i.e. before completing age of 55 years i.e. at age at which such second review was permissible under said rule. The same being impermissible under the rule, the said second review was held invalid. It also reveals of the same being not held to be invalid on the count of being effected after the age of employee attaining 30 years of the qualifying service. Such a thing having not occurred in case of petitioner it is difficult to accept that the ratio of the said decision can be said to be of any assistance to petitioner. 21. Having regard to the same , it is difficult to accept that it was not permissible for respondent no.3 to communicate the decision arrived by the administrative authority to petitioner at the age of 51 years and 10 months. Hence there will not arise any question of inferring mala fides on the part of the respondents on the said count as tried to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. 22. Hence there will not arise any question of inferring mala fides on the part of the respondents on the said count as tried to be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. 22. Similarly considering the yardstick as explained by the Apex Court for considering question of compulsory retirement and the same amongst other revealing that even adverse uncommunicated entries can be taken into consideration, as the entire service record is required to be considered, we are unable accept the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said count. Thus on the basis of the ratio in the decisions of the Apex Court we find it difficult to accept that in the event of the said adverse remarks being not communicated to petitioner, relying upon the same would amount to not following principles of natural justice while considering question of his compulsory retirement. In view of the same we find it unnecessary to go into the question of the same being not communicated to the petitioner i.e. an aspect refuted by the respondents of the same being conveyed to him orally at the time of sheet remark as per the routine practice of the department and being noted in the service book of the petitioner. 23. Additionally after Tribunal having asked respondent no.3 to consider the representation made by the petitioner and the order of Tribunal revealing of only after rejection of the same petitioner had again approached the Tribunal and so also the copies of the record pertaining to noting produced before us also indicating that in view of the pendency of the same the direction were given to obtain the permission of Court before compulsory retiring the petitioner in event of his petition, if any, being pending before the Court also takes away all the sting, if any, in the submission canvassed of respondent no.3 having hurriedly served order of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by taking advantage of his petition before Tribunal being dismissed for default. Needless to add, we are unable to find any support to the allegations of retirement being made mala-fide, either within the relevant material placed before the Tribunal or any of relevant facets regarding the same being missed by the Tribunal while judging the said aspect. 24. Needless to add, we are unable to find any support to the allegations of retirement being made mala-fide, either within the relevant material placed before the Tribunal or any of relevant facets regarding the same being missed by the Tribunal while judging the said aspect. 24. Thus, no case is made out for coming to the conclusion of order impugned being illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable and passed in a revengeful manner and/or the same being not passed within the parameters of the relevant rules or while passing the same principles of natural justice being violated and on the contrary during the examination of the same Tribunal having found the same being passed after taking into consideration the service record of the petitioner as warranted as per the principles regarding the compulsory retirement explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court has led us to the conclusion as observed earlier. 25. Now carefully considering other decisions in the case of Brijmohan Singh Chopra .vrs. State of Punjab, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 188 , Sukhdev .vrs. Commissioner, Amravati Division, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 103 , M.H. Bindra .vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310 and Devdutt .vrs. Union of India reported in 2008 (4) All MR 438 relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the aspects involved in the said cases being not akin with the aspects involved in the case of the petitioner, we do not deem it necessary to make thread bare dilation about the same and only observe of same being not useful for the petitioner to advance the case. 26. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the petition and consequently dismiss the same. However, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.