JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dated 31.3.2010 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court. 2. The facts that culled out are that the petitioner was initially selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1989 and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1997 and promoted on the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in the year 2003 and thereafter in the cadre of RHJS as Additional District & Session Judge vide order dated 11.1.2008. 3. While the petitioner was working as an officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 30.11.2009 to consider the cases of such of the judicial officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost its utility for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre conditions contemplated under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996, however, one of Hon'ble Judge who stood retired, hence, Hon'ble the Chief Justice reconstituted the committee of remaining four Hon'ble Judges and the committee in its meeting held on 2.3.2010 considered the cases of good number of judicial officers including petitioner and after examining overall record of service, personal and other files of the officer and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved by the Full Court vide order dated 20.3.2010 to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order dated 31.3.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996. 4. Order dated 31.3.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996. 4. Apart from merits of the order regarding compulsory retirement, the petitioner made oral submission assailing the virus of R. 53(1) of Rules 1996 to the extent it qualifies such of the officers who completed 15 years of service for compulsory retirement but we do not find any prayer clause to this effect assailing validity of R. 53(1) of the Rules 1996 and there is no sufficient pleadings on record as well as to how R. 53(1) of the Rules 1996 is not in conformity with the mandate of law. 5. The main thrust of the petitioner is that overall remarks about his service history are overwhelming in his favour and the material considered for his compulsory retirement are not sufficient for passing of the order impugned. 6. He further submits that total service record if taken into consideration even men of ordinary prudence would not arrive to a conclusion for his compulsory retirement and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned action being taken against him, hence without calling for explanation & taking a decision of compulsory retirement have no foundation and deserves to be quashed being arbitrary exercise of power of the authority. 7. Petitioner has tried to persuade this Court that total record of service and the material which has been placed on record does not sustain the adverse remark and overall record of the officer was to be looked into while taking decision as to whether one has become a dead wood or looses its utility to continue in service but from the minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted by Hon'ble Chief Justice who examined the record of service of the petitioner it appears that it has not looked into the overall record of service and subjective satisfaction which has been arrived based on partial service record and decision of compulsory retirement of the officer is not legally sustainable & deserves to be quashed. 8. 8. The respondent filed their reply and while supporting the order impugned submits that from overall assessment of service record including personal and other files of the officer, he has proved himself to be a liability upon judicial service and therefore in the public interest he was recommended for his compulsory retirement as he is facing departmental enquiries u/R. 16 & 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 as well and as such recommended that such enquiries be dropped. The recommendation of the committee dated 2.3.2010 for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest was placed before the Full Court and the Full Court in its meeting dated 20.3.2010 after scrutinising the entire service record and other files of the officer accepted the recommendation of the committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and unanimously was of the view that recommendation of the committee deserves acceptance and it will be in public interest to compulsory retire the petitioner and consequently vide Govt. Order dated 31.3.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R. 53(1) of Rules 1996. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. 10. At the very outset, we would like to quote section 53(1) Rules 1996 under which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and extract of the rule which is relevant for the purpose reads ad-infra. "At any time, after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned Government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest after following the procedure laid down by the Government in Department of Personnel/Administrative Reforms Department. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension". 11. It would be seen from R. 53(1) which gives right to the competent authority to retire any Government servant who has completed 15 years of qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years whichever is earlier after recording subjective satisfaction of the authority forming opinion that it is in the public interest to premature retire Government servant from service. 12. 12. Before adverting to the question whether the compulsorily retirement order suffers from any legal infirmity, we would consider it appropriate to refer to the report of the Committee constituted of four Hon'ble Judges who examined overall service record of the petitioner in its meeting held on 2.3.2010. The report reads ad-infra: 13. The Hon'ble Committee in its report dated 02.03.2010 observed as under: "He was born on 01.07.1960 and presently posted as Additional District Judge, Sambhar, Jaipur District. The Officer entered in the services of Rajasthan Judicial Service cadre in the year 1989. His working from start was only average. In First part of 1994, his disposal of work was not found adequate and the officer was found average. The adverse entries were communicated to him, against which he submitted representation which was considered and rejected. In the year 1996, Hon'ble Chief Justice recorded that his disposal is inadequate. In II Part of 1996, The District Judge concerned reported that his capacity to control the proceedings in the court with firmness and follow the procedure of law was unsatisfactory. His judgments were cyclostyle only and the amount of fine is filled up. When his Court was inspected on 02.04.1997, the files were not found properly. In case No. 2466/1995, it has not been shown as to who presented the complaint and under what Section cognisance was taken and under what Section he was punished. Only the amount of fine was entertained. The ld. District Judge annexed copies of some of the order-sheets in all cases where fine was not deposited by the accused, no personal bond was taken so as to ensure the attendance of the accused in case of non-payment of fine. In large number of cases follow up action for recovery of fine has not been taken. There were several other defects pointed out by the District Judge. The adverse remarks were communicated to the Officer, upon which he submitted representation which was considered and the remark regarding inadequate disposal was treated as advisory and rest of the remarks were maintained, which reflects upon the work of the officer. In the year 2005, Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge reported him to be an average Officer and Hon'ble the Administrative Judge recorded that keep watch on him. In the year 2007, the Officer's disposal was average and the Officer was rated as below average. In the year 2005, Hon'ble the Inspecting Judge reported him to be an average Officer and Hon'ble the Administrative Judge recorded that keep watch on him. In the year 2007, the Officer's disposal was average and the Officer was rated as below average. He was advised not to take much leave. The Officer facing two enquiries for major penalty under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, wherein there are serious allegations of corruption against the Officer and also there is allegation of malafide and dishonest intention. The totality facts which came out from the service record of the Officer and from the personal files of the Officer and after going through his total work done and the manner in which work has been done, particularly, with poor disposal also because of some cyclostyle type orders, he appears to be a dead wood facing serious allegations of corruption, therefore, holding no good reputation in the public, Bar and judicial fraternity, he is dead wood also. In view of overall assessment of the service record including personal and other files of Shri Prashant Yadav, he has proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service and, therefore, in the public interest such judicial officer may be compulsorily retired immediately. It is further recommended that enquiry, if any, pending against him under Rules 16 and 17 of the CCA Rules, may be dropped. It is further recommended that the Officer may be given a Bank Draft of the amount equivalent to three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice period along with order of retirement." 14. Apart from it while he was posted as Additional District Judge, Jaipur City from 4.8.2008 to 31.12.2008 his integrity was withheld and general reputation and honesty was also found not good. There were many complaints against the petitioner in the judicial service and narration of such complaints regarding serious allegation of corruption have been made against him, details of complaints which were made at different point of time against the officer have also been submitted by the respondent in para-6 of their reply. It will be relevant to quote the complaints which reads ad-infra- File No. A/R/V/116/90: While the petitioner was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer, a complaint was filed against the petitioner regarding corruption. The same was ordered to be filed. It will be relevant to quote the complaints which reads ad-infra- File No. A/R/V/116/90: While the petitioner was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer, a complaint was filed against the petitioner regarding corruption. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. A/R/V/133/94 (R/V/268/94): While the petitioner was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, District-Jaipur, a complaint was filed by a widow lady class IV employee of his court against the petitioner regarding harassment. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/176/99 (R/G/V/222/99): While the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge (SD) & ACJM, Shahpura, District-Jaipur, a complaint was filed by class IV employees of his court against the petitioner regarding harassment. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/115/2000: A complaint was filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, passed an administrative order by misusing his power against the law for obtaining the jurisdiction of Police Thana Sadar, District-Dholpur in his court. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/116/2000(R/G/V/195/2000): A complaint was filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur alleging that while the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, the petitioner resided with Mr. M.S. Naruka, the than Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur in his bungalow No. DR 118, but the petitioner did not pay any house rent for the same. He also used the telephone facility available at the bungalow. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/498/2001(R/G/V/375/2001): While the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District-Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had received illegal gratification through an advocate and always used to leave his Court on 2-3 O'clock to go to Jaipur. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/11/2002(R/G/V/398/2001): While the petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District-Jaipur, anonymous complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner daily up down from Jaipur to Shahpura along with lecturers and agents; he had allowed a lecturer to reside in his govt. accommodation at Shahpura, and he was corrupt. The same was ordered to be filed. accommodation at Shahpura, and he was corrupt. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/212/2004(R/G/V/C/271/2004): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner decided a civil suit, having received bribe. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/C/110/2004(R/G/V/C/98/2004): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur, a complaint was received against the petitioner about pronouncing the judgment in a civil suit without giving an opportunity of hearing. The same was culminated into an enquiry u/R. 17 CCA Rules, 1958 against the petitioner. After conducting an enquiry in the matter petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). File No. R/V/79/2005: While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that in spite of the fact that bail application of one accused was rejected twice by Hon'ble High Court, petitioner enlarged three main accused on bail in a criminal case having received bribe. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/C/113/2005(R/G/V/C/233/2005): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner passed a judgment illegally in a Civil Suit. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/C/38/2008(R/G/V/C/40/2008): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner was a corrupt officer. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. Estt. B2(iii)10/2008: While petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging that petitioner pronounced judgment in a suspicious circumstances in a sessions case before hearing complete arguments from the prosecution and presenting case law in the matter. The same was culminated into an enquiry u/R. 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1958 and a memorandum dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) was issued in this regard which was pending at the time of considering the petitioner for compulsory retirement. The same was culminated into an enquiry u/R. 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1958 and a memorandum dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) was issued in this regard which was pending at the time of considering the petitioner for compulsory retirement. File-No. R/V/C/300/2010(R/V/JD/C/454/2010): A complaint was made against the petitioner regarding sexual harassment while the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. This complaint was received after the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. File No. R/V/C/161/2008(R/V/JD/C/298/2008): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner doing partiality with the complaint and favouring the opposite party, in a Civil Suit. The same was ordered to be filed. File No. R/V/C/4/2009(R/V/JD/C/5/2009): While petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging to dispose of a criminal revision in an arbitrary manner. The same was culminated into an enquiry u/R. 16 CCA Rules. File No. Estt. B2(iii)105/2009. A memorandum dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) was issued in this regard which was pending at the time of considering petitioner for compulsory retirement. File No. R/V/C/17/2009(R/V/JD/C/19/2009: While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner regarding passing orders illegally and without jurisdiction to favour opposite party. File No. R/V/C/255/2009(r)/V/JD/C/414/2009): While the petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake, District-Jaipur, a complaint was received against the petitioner regarding corruption. File NO. R/V/C/298/2010(R)/V/JD/C/527/2009): An unknown person came to the office of Registrar (Vigilance), Jodhpur and handed over an envelope containing photocopies of six orders (bail) passed by the petitioner while he was posted as ADJ, Sambhar District, Jaipur with a request to enquire the matter. 15. File NO. R/V/C/298/2010(R)/V/JD/C/527/2009): An unknown person came to the office of Registrar (Vigilance), Jodhpur and handed over an envelope containing photocopies of six orders (bail) passed by the petitioner while he was posted as ADJ, Sambhar District, Jaipur with a request to enquire the matter. 15. It is indeed settled that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour and is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority and this principle has been consistently followed by Apex Court that the authority is under obligation to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision of compulsory retirement of course attaching more importance of service record of later 5-10 years but it goes without saying that as regards the honesty and integrity of officer is concerned, even a solitary instance could be considered to be sufficient and there cannot be any compromise as regard honesty and integrity of a judicial officer. The principles which emerge and laid down for consideration for testing the validity of order of compulsory retirement have been considered in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1020 has laid down certain guiding principles for the Courts, on which it can interfere in the order of compulsory retirement and that include mala fides, if the order is based on no evidence, or if the order is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person with ordinary prudence would form the requisite opinion on the given material, if it is found to be a perverse order. The Court held 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 the 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 loose 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 un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference". 16. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board and ors. v. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368 ) and the Apex Court has observed ad-infra: "There was a very limited scope of judicial review in a case of compulsory retirement and it was permissible only on the grounds of non-application of mind; mala fides; or want of material particulars. Power to retire compulsorily a Government servant in terms of Service Rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest". 17. And taking note of later decision of the Apex Court, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in, AIR 2010 SC 3753 in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand And Ors. 17. And taking note of later decision of the Apex Court, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in, AIR 2010 SC 3753 in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand And Ors. observed ad-infra- "Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, as prescribed in the Statutory Rules". 18. The above settled principles as regards judicial service came to be examined by the Apex Court in Nawal Singh v. State of U.P. And Anr. Reported in, (2003) 8 SCC 117 which reads ad infra- "The judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. If such evaluation is done by the Committee of the High Court Judges and is affirmed in the writ petition, except in very exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court would not interfere with the same, particularly because the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority. The present appeals are required to be decided on the basis of the said principles". 19. This fact cannot be ruled out that judicial service is not a service in the sense of employment and as is commonly understood Judges are discharging their functions exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. There is no manner of doubt that the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility. 20. Compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retrial benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit. 21. 20. Compulsory retirement is neither dismissal nor removal and differs from both of them, in that it is not a form of punishment prescribed by the rules and involves no penal consequences, inasmuch as the person retired is entitled to pension and other retrial benefits, proportionate to the period of service standing to his credit. 21. It is also settled by the consistent view of the Apex Court that the order of compulsory retirement does not have adverse consequence and, therefore, the principles of natural justice has no role to play and un-communicated ACR on record can be taken into consideration and an order of compulsory retirement cannot be set aside for the reason that such un-communicated entries was taken into consideration. The incumbent has not been afforded an opportunity to represent before the same was taken into consideration for passing the order of compulsory retirement, cannot vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. However, the authority has to take into consideration the entire service record of the officer concerned but more attention to the later 5-10 years of record which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also. 22. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs. And Others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) And Others, (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 which reads ad-infra: "It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that while considering the case of an officer as to whether he should be continued in service or compulsorily retired, his entire service record up to that date on which consideration is made has to be taken into account. What weight should be attached to earlier entries as compared to recent entries is a matter of evaluation, but there is no manner of doubt that consideration has to be of the entire service record. The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. The fact that an officer, after an earlier adverse entry, was promoted does not wipe out earlier adverse entry at all. It would be wrong to contend that merely for the reason that after an earlier adverse entry an officer was promoted that by itself would preclude the authority from considering the earlier adverse entry. When the law says that the entire service record has to be taken into consideration, the earlier adverse entry, which forms a part of the service record, would also be relevant irrespective of the fact whether the officer concerned was promoted to higher position or whether he was granted certain benefits like increments etc." 23. It is also settled that formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned. The Courts can certainly look whether valid material exists or not, or whether the order of compulsory retirement is based on some material or not but sufficiency of material cannot be ground for setting aside the order of compulsory retirement. 24. In the instant case, the respondent have placed on record the complete record of service of the officer which he rendered as judicial officer and was considered by the committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the meeting dated 2.3.2010 and while examining overall record of service and after evaluation arrived to the conclusion that the officer has become a dead wood facing serious allegations of corruption not holding good reputation in the public, Bar and judicial fraternity, becomes a dead wood and proved himself to be a liability upon the judicial service and in the public interest such judicial officer deserves to be compulsorily retired. It is further recommended that enquiry, pending against him under Rules 16 & 17 of the CCA Rules, may be dropped. 25. In the instant case, the committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court examined the entire service record and report of the committee was placed before the Full court and the Full Court took decision unanimously after due deliberation and there hardly remains any chance of allegation of non application of mind and no where it has been alleged malafide in the process which was adopted by the High Court in taking decision in regard to compulsory retirement of the officer. 26. 26. As regard the submission made with respect to the validity of R. 53(1) of Rules 1996 is concerned, the officer present in person has made casual & feeble attempt before us but we do not find appropriate pleadings & consequential prayer in the original petition or in the amended petition, but at the same time, oral submission made by the petitioner is that qualifying service of 15 years is too short a period of an officer for taking decision of his compulsory retirement and as he did not attain the age of 50 years, the action of the respondent could not be held to be valid in the eye of law for taking a decision of compulsory retirement invoking R. 53(1) of Rules 1996 is without substance for the reason that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality or validity of a legislation and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that it is invalid and at the same time it is also settled that a subordinate legislation can be challenged if there is a lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution or violation of any provision of the Constitution or in enactment there is a manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness but that is not the case pleaded and submitted before the Court to call upon to examine the validity of R. 53(1) of Rules 1996. In our considered view, if the rule making authority in its wisdom has considered 15 years of qualifying service to be sufficient for compulsory retirement that cannot be considered to be arbitrary on mere asking and half hearted submission even otherwise is not convincing to us and sustainable in law and deserves outright rejection. 27. Consequently, in our view, on the material which has come on record, we do not find any error being committed by the respondent in taking impugned decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner which is based on record of service and further no stigma has been attached to the order impugned. 28. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the matter and the petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No cost.