M.M. Kumar, C.J.;— 1. This appeal under 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the appellant-petitioner was rightly retired prematurely from service exercising power under Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations. 2. A brief resume of facts would be necessary to spell out the legal issue. The appellant-petitioner was appointed as Salesman and when he was posted at Sales Depot 'C’ Jawahar Nagar, Rajouri he was placed under suspension on the charges of embezzlement in the year 1987. A criminal challan under Sections 420/409/467/468 RFC resulted in acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri vide order dated 21.11.1994. The appeal preferred by the State met the same fact. 3. The respondent-Commissioner, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department passed an Order No. 94-FS of 1996 dated 18.10.1996 appointing a Commission of Inquiry to hold a regular enquiry against the appellant-petitioner along with another official Jagdish Lal. The Inquiry Officer found both of them guilty of charges of embezzlement of public funds. It was found that appellant-ptitioner and Jagdish Lal had embezzled an amount of Rs. 6,30,848.51/- and Rs. 3,28,980.75/- respectively. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.09.1997. The appellant-petitioner, however, was reinstated in service vide Order dated 26.10.1998 pending decision concerning his suspension period and it was further held that an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month shall be recovered from his salary. The suspension period of the appellant-petitioner was also decided in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in SWP no. 2336/2000 decided on 30.07.2000. Vide order dated 23.01.2003, his period of suspension was treated on as spent on duty w.e.f. 31.08.1987 to 25.10.1998, but the arrears of salary were adjusted towards the outstanding amount which was to be recovered from his salary. 4. On account of the aforesaid proved charges of embezzlement and misappropriation, respondent no. 2 passed an order on 09.12.2003 prematurely retiring the appellant-petitioner from service w.e.f. forenoon of 09.12.2003. 5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing writ petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. 4. On account of the aforesaid proved charges of embezzlement and misappropriation, respondent no. 2 passed an order on 09.12.2003 prematurely retiring the appellant-petitioner from service w.e.f. forenoon of 09.12.2003. 5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing writ petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned Single " Judge has held that the order of premature retirement is based on relevant consideration as set out by Article 226(2) of the Regulation and that he was rightly retired at the age of 48 years. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the concluding para of the judgment and order, which reads as under: - "The petitioner as indicated above, was involved in an embezzlement case and was found to have misappropriated public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 6,30,848.51/- and Rs. 3,28,980.75/- in connivance with another employee of the department concerned namely Jagdish Lal. The Inquiry Officer had recommended that an amount of Rs. 3000/- per month was being recovered from his salary. Therefore, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having a doubtful integrity and that his performance was satisfactory. By no stretch of imagination, such a Government employee can be said to have maintained efficiency and initiative in service, rather, such an act as committed by the petitioner is a misconduct for which he has rightly been declared as a dead wood and compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 48 years which is in accordance with Article 226(2) and J&K CSR, referred to above and thus the action of the respondents in passing the order impugned, in my view, does not suffer from any illegality. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed." 6. Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner has vehemently argued that one adverse entry in the service record of an employee may not constitute sufficient material to pass an order of compulsorily retirement. According to him, an order of compulsory retirement must be passed in public interest and should be rooted in the close examination of whole service record. Mr. According to him, an order of compulsory retirement must be passed in public interest and should be rooted in the close examination of whole service record. Mr. Raina states that in the present case, whole service record of the appellant-petitioner has not been examined and on the basis of one inquiry the appellant-petitioner has been declared unfit to continue in service. In support of his submission the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the view taken by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of J&K and others v. Ghulam Rasool Magray (LPA no. 95-1/2005 decided on 20.10.2009) which in turn follows various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Basotra, learned Senior AAG appearing for the respondent-State has, however, submitted that a single entry concerning doubtful integrity would constitute sufficient material to weed out an employee from public service and such an order would serve the larger public interest. According to Mr. Basotra the exercising of such a power would be wholly within four comers of Regulation 226 (2), because aim of compulsory retirement is not to punish an employee but to get rid of the dead wood, inefficient and dishonest ones. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Ors, (2010) 10 SCC 693 . 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the view that the instant appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. Article 226 (2) of the Regulation deals with the principles which are required to be followed for deciding the issue, "whether an employee should be retired compulsory after completing 22 years of service or on attaining 48 years of age". Article 226 (2) of the Regulation deals with the principles which are required to be followed for deciding the issue, "whether an employee should be retired compulsory after completing 22 years of service or on attaining 48 years of age". The aforesaid Article is set out in extenso which reads as under:- "226 (2): Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, require any Government servant other than the one working on a post which included in Schedule II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years/44 completed six months periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexures A and B hereto as the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3-months of pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be granted pensioner benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the date of such retirement...." 9. In order to decide the controversy, we are tempted to place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Balkuntha Nath Dass and anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 . In para 34 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down five principles for exercising power to award compulsory retirement, the same reads as under :- "(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (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. 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 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 excommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 10. A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment nor does it imply any stigma as the order of compulsory retirement is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Courts are not to sit as a Court of appeal over the order of compulsorily retirement because such orders are passed by the State Government on forming the opinion that it is passed in the public interest. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. There is limited scope of judicial review in the case of a compulsory retirement and the same can be set aside on the ground of malafide or it is based on no evidence and that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the available material. There is limited scope of judicial review in the case of a compulsory retirement and the same can be set aside on the ground of malafide or it is based on no evidence and that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the available material. The Committee has to consider the entire record of service attaching more importance to record and performance during the later years. An order of compulsory retirement cannot be set aside merely on the ground that excommunicated adverse remarks were take into consideration. 11. When we apply the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the integrity of the appellant-petitioner was doubted when he was found guilty of embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs. 6,30,848.51/- in connivance with Jagdish Lal who was also found guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 3,28,980.75/-. In the regular departmental inquiry, findings have been recorded as the Inquiry Officer has recommended recovery of an amount of Rs. 3000/-from the salary of the appellant-petitioner. There is nothing on the record to urge that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from malafide or it is based on no evidence or it is arbitrary to such an extent that no reasonable person would pass such an order on the given material. 12. We further find that it is well settled proposition of law that one event and enquiry doubting integrity of an employee is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement. It has come on record that the appellant-petitioner has been found guilty of misappropriating sum of Rs. 6,30,848.51/-. Following the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pyare Mohan's case (supra), we are of the considered view that one single adverse entry is sufficient to get rid of a dishonest and a corrupt officer. The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pyare Mohan's case (supra) would directly apply to the facts of the present case. The following para 29 of the Judgment propounds this proposition of law and the same reads thus: "29... The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pyare Mohan's case (supra) would directly apply to the facts of the present case. The following para 29 of the Judgment propounds this proposition of law and the same reads thus: "29... The law requires the authority to consider the "entire service record" of the employee while assessing whether he can be given compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries. More so, a single adverse entry regarding the integrity of an officer even in remote past is sufficient to award compulsory retirement." 13. The judgment rendered in Gulam Rasool's case (supra) would not advance his case, because in the said case the order of compulsorily retirement was passed without examining the service record and the order of compulsory retirement was based on an allegation touching upon his integrity without any enquiry. However, in the present case, respondent-authorities have taken into account the findings of inquiry Officer recorded in the regular departmental inquiry where the appellant-petitioner has been found guilty in an embezzlement case for a sum of Rs. 6, 30,848.51/-. Even recovery of Rs. 3000/-per month was ordered to be effected from his salary whereas in the case of Gulam Rasool there was merely an allegation. Thus, there is vital difference between the facts of Ghulam Rasool's case and that of one in hand. We are unable to persuade over selves to accept the aforesaid proposition. 14. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel that the whole service record of the appellant was not examined and only on the basis of one enquiry he has been prematurely retired. In all cases when the department makes recommendation then whole service record is sent for examination. It is not believable that only enquiry report was placed before the committee constituted by government to examine service record of all employees. Thus the contention does not merit acceptance and the same is hereby rejected. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.