JUDGEMENT V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner who has filed supplementary affidavit placing on record the office memorandum dated 05.01.1978, Annexure-6, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India where-under instructions laying down criteria and procedure for compulsory retirement of the Central Government Servants under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules has been issued for guidance of the competent authority vested with the power to compulsory retire the central government servant. Petitioner was compulsory retired under orders dated 30.04.2009, Annexure-1, which was assailed before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14004 of 2009 and this Court under order dated 27.10.2009, Annexure-3, having noticed the fact that the petitioner having been found fit for promotion under movement order No. 1106 dated 06.03.2009 could not have been compulsory retired under order dated 30.04.2009, Annexure-1, allowed him the opportunity to represent before the authorities with direction to the authorities to dispose of the representation in the light of the entries made in the service book of the petitioner as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of the earlier orders of this Court. The representation of the petitioner filed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 27th October, 2009, Annexure-3, has been rejected under order dated 22.12.2009, Annexure-5, which is impugned in the present writ application. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that thereunder the authorities having verified the facts noted that under the movement order referred to in the earlier order of this Court, Annexure-3, petitioner was never promoted but was only found eligible for promotion. The representation filed by the petitioner against the order of compulsory retirement, however, was rejected as from the service book of the petitioner it appeared that he was indicted with one major and six minor punishments and in appreciation of the punishment (s) imposed he was compulsory retired. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the criteria provided in Subparagraph (3)(c) of paragraph 11 of the memorandum dated 5th January , 1978 the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the year 1993 could not have been looked into for the purpose of compulsory retirement of the petitioner as according to learned Counsel for the petitioner service record of preceding five years should have been seen. I regret not to accept such submission as punishments having become final and incorporated in the service book can always be looked into while considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 56(J) which is evident from the opening line of the subparagraph (3)(c) of the instruction dated 5th January 1978. Entries recorded in the service book during last five years is relevant in the case of compulsory retirement of the government servant on the ground of ineffectiveness as also in case of those government servants who have earned promotion in the meanwhile. The authorities have chosen to compulsory retire the petitioner under the impugned orders on the basis of the entries of punishment recorded in his service book which the petitioner never challenged. I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ application is dismissed.