JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Government Order No. 188-GAD of 2012, dated 13.02.2012 whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (J & K CSR), he was given notice that he, having already rendered 22 years of service, shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 13.02.2012. Petitioner has further sought mandamus to command the respondents to allow him to continue in service till he would attain the age of superannuation according to the Rules, and to give him all the consequential benefits as envisaged by law. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer vide Government Order No. 75-P.W. of 1992, dated 30.04.1992. He was, thereafter, placed as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer by Government Order No. 548-Works of 2001, dated 28.12.2001. While the petitioner was posted as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer at R & B Sub-Division, Magam, on the complaint of one Altaf Ahmad Ganai, that he was demanding a bribe of Rs. 2000 from him for processing his bill of the contractual works executed latter, the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir (VOK), is alleged to have laid a trap against him. Case FIR No. 16/2007 under Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Section 161 RPC was registered against the petitioner and the challan was produced before the court of competent jurisdiction. The charge against the petitioner was that he had demanded bribe of Rs. 2000.00, from the complainant, received the bribe money from him, that he was caught red handed by the trap party, and, that the bribe money was recovered from his possession. 2. Pursuant to his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the Government issued Order No. 135-P.W. (R & B) of 2007, dated 02.04.2007 ordering that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 22.03.2007, i.e., the date he was arrested by the State Vigilance Organization. However, subsequently, in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 31 of the J & K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the petitioner was reinstated with immediate effect vide Government Order No. 375-P.W. (R & B) of 2008, dated 20.06.2008. 3. However, subsequently, in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 31 of the J & K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, the petitioner was reinstated with immediate effect vide Government Order No. 375-P.W. (R & B) of 2008, dated 20.06.2008. 3. It was about a month thereafter that the petitioner was charge sheeted on 21.07.2008 by the Additional Special Judge Anti-corruption, Srinagar, Kashmir, for the commission of offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act and Section 161 RPC. 4. While the prosecution was leading its evidence in the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner, the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 226(2) J & K CSR issued and served on the petitioner Order No. 188-GAD of 2012, dated 13.02.2012 giving him notice that he, having already rendered 22 years of service, shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 13.02.2012. He was allowed three months' pay and allowances in lieu of three months' notice. 5. Meanwhile, the learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Srinagar, Kashmir, by judgment dated 31.12.2013, acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him and discharged him of his bail bonds. The learned Judge in its aforesaid judgment held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case at the trial and that neither the demand, nor acceptance of bribe was established, nor recovery of the amount from the accused was satisfactorily proved. 6. After his acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging Government Order No. 188-GAD of 2012, dated 13.02.2012, INTER ALIA, on the grounds that the respondents have not considered the entire service record of the petitioner or even his service record for the last five years. It is submitted that the service record of the petitioner all along had remained unblemished throughout his service career. To evidence this submission, the petitioner has annexed photocopies of the three of his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 as annexures to the writ petition. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, respondent No. 1 had no power, authority or competence to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. It is next submitted that a Government servant can be prematurely retired in public interest. It is submitted that, in that view of the matter, respondent No. 1 had no power, authority or competence to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. It is next submitted that a Government servant can be prematurely retired in public interest. In the instant case, since there was no basis for issuing such order, the impugned order is, therefore, rendered arbitrary. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind to the facts of the case of the petitioner and without any objectivity. It is stated that since the only ground on which the petitioner was prematurely retired vanished with his acquittal in the criminal case, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and he has a right to be directed to be reinstated in service with all service benefits. It is also stated that the impugned order is punitive in nature inasmuch as it has lowered down the image, prestige and status of the petitioner in the estimation of his friends, relatives and family members. It is further stated that the respondents, while issuing the impugned order, have not taken into account the guidelines issued by the Government in the year 1999. The impugned order is also said to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India read with Section 126 of the State Constitution and Articles 226(2) of the J & K CSR. 7. The respondents in their reply have stated that in order to remove deadwood from the Government machinery, a Committee was set up vide Government Order No. 32-GAD(Vig) of 2011, dated 16.05.2011 comprising of senior officers headed by Chief Secretary to scrutinize the record/activities of such officers/officials and recommend premature retirement in terms of Article 226(2) and 226(3) of the J & K Civil Service Regulations, 1956. It is averred that the Principal Secretary to Government, PWD; IGP, CID, J & K; and IGP, Vigilance, J & K, were invited to participate as special invitees in respect of the case of the petitioner. It is averred that the Principal Secretary to Government, PWD; IGP, CID, J & K; and IGP, Vigilance, J & K, were invited to participate as special invitees in respect of the case of the petitioner. The Committee on the basis of the reports from the concerned Department and various agencies as well as the opinion from the public in general held series of meetings and after scrutinizing the records and other relevant factors of various officers/officials, including the petitioner, came to the conclusion that it was in the interest of public that the petitioner be prematurely retired from Government service. 8. In the para-wise reply of the reply affidavit, it is stated that the impugned order has been issued on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee of High Level Officers which has formed its recommendations on the basis of the inputs from various agencies including the overall service record and performance of the petitioner. The impugned order is based on the satisfaction arrived at by the Committee of officers headed by Chief Secretary which found that the petitioner had outlived his utility to the public. 9. It is stated that the petitioner may have been performing at any point of time but at the time of consideration of his overall service record and performance by the Committee, he was found fit for premature retirement. The Committee after considering his case recorded reasons and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has dubious integrity and was caught red handed while accepting bribe. 10. The respondents in their reply have categorically denied that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) have been written by the department. It is averted that it was reported to the Committee that the ACRs of the petitioner were not available in the department and the non-availability of ACRs has been duly certified by the Administrative Department of the petitioner, obviously, because the ACRs have not been accepted by the accepting authority. It is submitted that, as such, the ACRs cannot be taken as final and complete. It is also denied that the impugned order was passed on unfounded and baseless considerations having no nexus with public interest. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. The respondents have produced two files for perusal of the Courts. It is also denied that the impugned order was passed on unfounded and baseless considerations having no nexus with public interest. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. The respondents have produced two files for perusal of the Courts. One of the two files bearing CD No. 00823498 opened on 15.10.2010 captioned "VIGILANCE SECTION File No. GAD(Vig) 19-Adm/2010, Subject Encouragement of Honest and Weeding out of the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials from Government service" contains the original record; whereas the other file bearing File No. GAD(L)FF-329/2012 concerning SWP No. 322/2012, contains the copy of the writ petition with its annexures, objections filed by the respondents and the papers ancillary thereto. 12. The learned counsel for the parties have argued the case on the lines of their respective pleadings and, of course, repeated the same, except that the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited and relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of his submissions: 1. S. Ramachandraraju v. State of Orissa, 1995 AIR (SC) 111 2. State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, 1999 (1) SCC 529 3. State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 4. Rajesh Gupta v. State of J & K 5. Mohd. Mehraj-ud-Din Khan v. State of J & K, 2006 (3) JKJ 240 [HC] 6. Zareena Bano v. State, 2008 (3) JKJ 106 [HC] 13. The law on premature retirements is loud and clear: that if the integrity of an officer is doubtful, his retention in public service cannot be said to be in the public interest. In such matters, it is difficult to accept that such a person has been prematurely retired by way of punishment. But, in order to arrive at such a satisfaction, that the integrity of an officer is doubtful, his entire service record is to be taken into consideration. At least, last five years' record, including the ACRs of the government servant, as on the date his case is considered, has to be taken into account. Before discussing what the original records speak and disclose in the instant case, I think it would be appropriate first to give a resume of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the aforementioned cases cited at the Bar. 14. Before discussing what the original records speak and disclose in the instant case, I think it would be appropriate first to give a resume of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the aforementioned cases cited at the Bar. 14. In S. Ramachandraraju v. State of Orissa (supra), the appellant before the Supreme Court was initially appointed as a Lecturer in 1965 and was later transferred to another College in 1971. For the year 1987-88, the Principal made adverse comments against him. The appellant made a representation against the adverse remarks, alleging that the same had been recorded due to MALA FIDES and personal vendetta by the Principal. Meanwhile on 20.03.1991, he was promoted as Reader. However, by the proceeding dated 28.05.1991 he was compulsorily retired from service. The appellant challenged the said order before the Administrative Tribunal which dismissed the petition. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the government, while exercising its power of compulsorily retiring the appellant under Rule 71(a) of Orissa Service Code and GA Department Circular No. 30495/GA, dated 24.11.1987 had exercised is power in the public interest and the order was legal? It was contended in the counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court as well as in the Tribunal that the sole foundation for the exercise of the power of retiring the appellant compulsorily from service was the 'gross adverse remarks for the period 1.4.1987 to 29.2.1988' and the recommendation of the Review Committee. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Shyam Lal v. State of UP, (1955) ISCR 26: AIR 1954 SC 369 ; Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, (1971) ISCR 791 : AIR 1971 SC 40 ; B.R. Chadha v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321 ; and Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC, laid down as under: "9. 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 deadwood need to be removed to augment efficiency; integrity in public service need to be maintained. The deadwood 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. The entire service record of character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaches the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by this Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service, if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in exercise of its judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service." 15. As is seen from a bare perusal of the aforesaid passage from the judgment, the Apex Court has laid down the crystal-class principles which have to be borne in mind by the government or the competent authority while proceeding to prematurely retire a government servant. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court, holding as under, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the compulsory retirement of the appellant: "11. The facts are eloquent. From 1973-74 the appellant started with a commendation of his performance to the 'satisfactory' to 'fair' in the year 1990-91. Would it be comprehensible that in the year 1987-88 whether, he would suddenly drop down and become an average or below average teacher? When he was a responsible teacher and he had cordial relations with the student community, and was taking pains to impart lessons to the students, would it be believable that he avoids to take classes and drops down 'if not watched'? When anterior to or subsequent to 1987-88 he was a man of ability and of integrity, the same would become below average only for the academic year 1987-88 without discernible reasons. It would speak volumes on the objectivity of assessment by the reporting officer, i.e., the Principal. This conduct is much to be desired. This case would establish as a stark reality that writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the reporting officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make objective assessment. It is needless to emphasize that the career prospects of a subordinate officer/employee largely depend upon the work and character assessment by the reporting officer. The latter should adopt fair, objective, dispassionate and constructive commends/comments in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the officer/employee concerned during the relevant period, for the above objectives if not strictly adhered to in making an honest assessment, the prospect and career of the subordinate officer being put to great jeopardy. The reporting officer is bound to lose his credibility in the eyes of his subordinate and fail to command respect and work from them. The constitutional and statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their duties and make it impossible to the superior or controlling officers to extract legitimate work from them. The constitutional and statutory safeguards given to the government employees largely became responsible to display callousness and disregard of the discharge of their duties and make it impossible to the superior or controlling officers to extract legitimate work from them. The writing of the confidential reports is contributing to make the subordinate work at least to some extent. Therefore, writing the confidential reports objectively and constructively and communication thereof at the earliest would pave way for amends by erring subordinate officer or to improve the efficiency in service. At the same time, the subordinate employee/officer should dedicate to do hard work and duty; assiduity in the discharge of the duty, honest with integrity in performance thereof which alone would earn his usefulness in retention of his service. Both would contribute to improve excellence in service." 16. In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah (supra), the respondent before the Supreme Court was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Food Controller, Ahmedabad, and after about twenty-one years of service, he was promoted as an Assistant Food Controller (Class II) in the office of Food Controller, Ahmedabad. In 1983 certain complaints were received against him regarding permits for cement having been issued illegally by him and, therefore, he was placed under suspension and an enquiry by the State CID was ordered into the matter of issuance of bogus cement permits. On receipt of the CID enquiry report, which PRIMA FACIE made out a case of issuing cement permits to bogus institutions which were not in existence in Ahmedabad, a first information report under various sections of IPC read with the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was filed against the respondent. Another FIR was lodged against him on the same day in respect of offences committed by him by fabricating the rubber stamp of the Government and fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties. By order dated 21.7.1988, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service in public interest. This order was challenged by him before the Gujarat High Court. Whereas the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, the Division Bench on appeal allowed the appeal as well as the Writ petition. Against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the State of Gujarat went in appeal to the Supreme Court. 17. This order was challenged by him before the Gujarat High Court. Whereas the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, the Division Bench on appeal allowed the appeal as well as the Writ petition. Against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the State of Gujarat went in appeal to the Supreme Court. 17. It may be observed that the Review Committee in the aforesaid case had doubted the integrity of the petitioner and it was opined that it was not advisable to continue the petitioner in service for a further period. 18. The Supreme Court, while explaining as to what was 'public interest' in paragraph 11 of the judgment laid down as under: "11. What is 'public interest' was explained in the classic decision of this Court in Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458 . It was pointed out that the object of premature retirement of a government servant was to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest employees from the government service. The public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service, while the services of the dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost deadwood, are to be dispensed with...." 19. Relying on and discussing its earlier decisions in H.C. Gargi v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 158 ; Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1980) 4 SCC 226 : Kailash Chandra Agarwal v. State of MP, (1987) 3 SC 513 : Union of India v. M.E. Reddy, (1980) 2 SCC 15 : Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt. Medical Officer (supra): Posts & Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 : K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 162 , S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 491 : Baldev Raj Chanda v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321 , the Apex Court in the aforesaid case held as under: "27. Medical Officer (supra): Posts & Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 : K. Kandaswamy v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 162 , S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 491 : Baldev Raj Chanda v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321 , the Apex Court in the aforesaid case held as under: "27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a government servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a deadwood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would dependent upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence alleged committed by the employee. (Underlining Supplied) 28. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll entries subsequent to the respondent's promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. The Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement of the respondent." 20. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. The Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement of the respondent." 20. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra), the respondent before the Supreme Court, during the relevant time, was an Executive Engineer working in Narmada Development Department of the State of Gujarat. He was placed under suspension on 22.5.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry was initiated against him alleging that he had committed acts of misuse of power in connection with purchase of tarpaulin. While the respondent was continuing under suspension, the Government of Gujarat passed order of compulsory retirement by invoking Clause (aa)(i)(D of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 with effect from 13.2.1987, while he was to retire on superannuation by the end of August, 1988. It was stated that the case relating to continuance of the respondent in Government service beyond the age of 50 to 55 years was reviewed. The respondent challenged the order of his retirement before the High Court of Gujarat and by the judgment impugned before the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order on the ground of the same being punitive in nature and having been passed with an oblique purpose to punish the respondent for the charges which were neither investigated nor had the respondent been given reasonable opportunity of hearing. 21. The Supreme Court again, relying on its earlier decisions in number of cases, mostly mentioned above, held that there were absolutely no adverse entries in respondent's confidential record. In the rejoinder filed in the Supreme Court also, nothing has been averred that the respondent's service record revealed any adverse entries. The respondent had successfully crossed the efficiency bar at the age of 50 as well as 55. He was placed under suspension on 22.5.1986 pending disciplinary proceedings. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed and the Government was given three month's time to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which, it was directed, the respondents would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to him. 22. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed and the Government was given three month's time to comply with the directions of the Division Bench, failing which, it was directed, the respondents would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% for the delayed payment of the pecuniary benefits due to him. 22. In Rajesh Gupta v. State of J & K (supra), a case relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed as Soil Conservation Assistant in the Department of Agriculture Production in March 1981. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in REW in September, 1988. On 5.3.2003, the Government of J & K, General Administration Department, by Government Order No. 306-GAD of 2003, constituted a Committee to consider the cases of officers/officials for premature retirement in terms of Article 226(2) and 226(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956. On 01.04.2003, further directions were issued by the Government indicating the circumstances which would be relevant for making a recommendation for premature retirement of a public servant. On 09.05.2003 the appellant was directed to be attached to the office of the Director, Rural Development, Jammu, pending an enquiry into some allegations on the appellant. On 22nd July, 2003, an enquiry report was submitted into the suspected irregularities in the execution of rural department works in the eleven Blocks of Jammu and Kashmir. During the performance of his official duty, the appellant was required to issue technical sanctions, approve estimates and allot work to mates as well as conducting test checks of the works allotted by the Block Development Officer. The enquiry officer recorded the conclusions, inter alia, that the Executive Engineer, had confessed having accorded such sanctions on spot and all this clearly indicated that no proper records were maintained by him and some sanctions were issued out of record and no record/register of bills/test checks was maintained. However, no action was taken on the basis of the report so made by the enquiry officer. Instead, the appellant was directed to be prematurely retired by order dated 26.4.2005 on the basis of the recommendations made by the High Powered Review Committee. The conclusion on the basis of which the recommendations for retirement of the appellant were made was as under: "5. Instead, the appellant was directed to be prematurely retired by order dated 26.4.2005 on the basis of the recommendations made by the High Powered Review Committee. The conclusion on the basis of which the recommendations for retirement of the appellant were made was as under: "5. As per inputs provided by the Additional DG, CID the officer has amassed property disproportionate to his known sources of income which include a palatial house at Krishna Colony Kathua built over about 3 kanals of land; two shops in Kathua market; six kanals of land in Kathua town; one kanal of land at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu (Sector No. 3); two kanals of land at Trikuta Nagar extension; three kanals of land at Greater Kailash Colony, Jammu; 10 marla plot at Bhatindi and bank account and lockers in United Commercial Bank, R.N. Bazar and Vijay Bank, Purani Mandi, Jammu." It was also reported that three FIRs had been registered against the appellant by the State Vigilance Organization while he was posted as Executive Engineer (REW, Kathua) and upon investigation all the FIRs were found to be not proved. 23. The appellant's writ petition challenging his order of premature retirement was dismissed by the learned Writ Court. The Division Bench on appeal also concluded that the decision of the High Powered Committee to recommend the appellant's premature retirement was based on the inputs received from the Additional DG, CID, regarding the assets of appellant which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and the information received from the Rural Development Department that the appellant had issued back dated sanctions to some departmental works and passed bills and estimates in respect thereof. The Division Bench concluded that there was sufficient material before the Committee constituted to consider the case of the appellant to recommend his premature retirement. 24. During the course of submissions before the Supreme Court, the State Government accepted that there was no material with regard to properties at serial Nos. 1 to 5. As regards the two other properties it was shown that the same were not purchased by the appellant. Concluding, the Supreme Court held that the conclusion was inescapable that the order passed by the State Government suffered from vice of arbitrariness and that the High Court erred in arriving at conclusions which were not borne out by the record produced before the High Court. Concluding, the Supreme Court held that the conclusion was inescapable that the order passed by the State Government suffered from vice of arbitrariness and that the High Court erred in arriving at conclusions which were not borne out by the record produced before the High Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was, accordingly, allowed. In the following terms: "31. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the premature retirement of the appellant dated 26th April, 2005 is quashed and set aside. It is brought to our notice that the appellant has still not reached the age of superannuation. He is, therefore, directed to be reinstated in service. In view of the fact that the appellant has not challenged the order of retirement on the ground that the action taken by the Government was mala fide, it would not be appropriate in this case, to follow the normal rule of grant of hull back wages on reinstatement. We, however, direct that the appellant shall be paid 30% of the back wages from the date of order of premature retirement till reinstatement. He shall not be entitled to any interest on the back wages." 25. The two judgments rendered by this Court in Mohd. Mehraj-ud-Din Khan v. State of J & K [ 2006 (3) JKJ 240 [HC]] (supra) and Zareena Bano v. State, 2008 (3) JKJ 106 [HC] (supra) proceed on identical lines. 26. The consistent view of the Supreme Court, thus, as seen above, is that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. However, 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 incompetent. 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 may be such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record of character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. But his conduct and reputation may be such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record of character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaches the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service, if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such BONA FIDE exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by MALA FIDE or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrariness in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service." 27. In regard to premature retirements ordered merely because of involvement of a government servant in criminal cases, it was held that the involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. It has been laid down, however, mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would dependent upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence alleged committed by the employee. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity cannot be said to have been doubted at any time. Where the character roll entries subsequent to the government servant's promotion to the next higher post were not available, it could not be concluded that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could it be concluded that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was held to be punitive having been passed, for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. 28. Where the allegations and inputs of the Additional DIG, CID, that the appellant had amassed properties disproportionate to his known sources of income were proved wrong, the Supreme Court held that the conclusion was inescapable that the order passed by the State Government suffered from vice of arbitrariness. 29. In the present case, perusal of the original records produced by the respondents reveals that with a view to encouraging honest and to weeding out the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials, the Government, vide its Order No. 62-GAD(Vig) of 2010, dated 12.10.2010, constituted a committee comprising the Chief Secretary, as its Chairman; the Chairman, J & K Special Tribunal, as Member; and Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, as its Member Secretary to make necessary recommendations in this regard. The order also provided that the Committee shall secure, whenever required, necessary inputs from Commissioner of Vigilance and Inspector General of Police (CID), who shall be associated with the Committee as Special Invitees and that the Committee shall make recommendations to the State Government within a period of one month. 30. The order also provided that the Committee shall secure, whenever required, necessary inputs from Commissioner of Vigilance and Inspector General of Police (CID), who shall be associated with the Committee as Special Invitees and that the Committee shall make recommendations to the State Government within a period of one month. 30. From the record, it appears that earlier in 2003, the Government had constituted a similar Committee. The said Committee had taken note of the principles which, according to it, had crystallized through various judgments of Hon'ble Courts on the issue of compulsory retirements, which, according to them, included the following (para 6 of note at p. 5): (i) Order of compulsory retirement was not regarded as a punishment under the Constitution of India or the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir; (ii) An employee who had outlived his utility could be compulsorily retired in public interest; (iii) If the general reputation of the official was not good, he could be compulsorily retired in public interest Keeping the above broad principles in view, the aforesaid Committee constituted in 2003 had resolved that cases: (i) Where there is evidence that a Government employee was responsible for any defalcation of Government money; (ii) Where prosecution had been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or the Crime Branch; or (iii) in which Government employee, in an investigation, is found to have committed moral turpitude, shall fall under the category (iii) of para 6 and liable for compulsory retirement. 31. The Committee constituted in 2010, however, in terms of the minutes of its meeting held on 20.10.2010, after considering the rule position and the observations and orders contained in various judgments of the Hon'ble Courts, held that the entire service record would be required to be screened while making recommendations for premature retirement of any Government employee and these would include the following documents: (pp. 21, 20 of the original record) (a) APR folder of the Government employee with particular reference to the entries in the APRs for the last five years; (b) details about any promotions given in favour of the employee in the last three to five years; (c) number and nature of complaints, if any, received by the parent Department/office of the employee or the State Vigilance Organization against the official; (d) enquiries, if any, conducted by the State Vigilance Organization or by the Department concerned and the outcome thereof; (e) cases, if any, registered/investigated by the State Vigilance Organization, nature of the allegation and the outcome of the investigation; (f) adverse reports, if any, received by the CID about the reputation of the official and the gist of such reports supported by evidence; (g) gist of irregularities committed by the employee, like in the matter of appointments, etc. supported by documents; (h) brief mention about failure, if any, in achieving the targets set out for him by the Government/Department with supportive details; (i) Warning and censurers issued to the employees. The Committee also recommended that: (para 5 pp 20, 19 of original record) (1) all Administrative Secretaries be requested by the General Administration Department to forward to the said Department the names of officers/officials both who have outlived their utility in service by 15th November, 2010 for consideration of the committee supported by such of the documents referred to above as are relevant in each case; (2) the Vigilance Commissioner and IG (CID) be requested to provide their inputs about the officers/officials both from civil and police as have come to their adverse notice in the light of the parameters mentioned above supported by documents for further consideration of the Committee. 32. Pursuant to the above, letters dated 25.10.2010 were addressed by Special Secretary to Government, General Administration Department to all Administrative Secretaries to Government with request to forward to the GAD the names of officers/officials who had outlived their utility in service by 15th November, 2010 for consideration by the Committee supported by such of the documents referred to above as were relevant in each case. Letters of even date were also sent to the Inspector General of Police (CID), J & K, Srinagar; and the Commissioner of Vigilance, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, to provide the necessary inputs to the Department by the same date for consideration of the Committee. Letters of even date were also sent to the Inspector General of Police (CID), J & K, Srinagar; and the Commissioner of Vigilance, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, to provide the necessary inputs to the Department by the same date for consideration of the Committee. However, no such information or inputs were received by the GAD consequent upon which it issued reminder dated 24.11.2010. This was followed by a DO letter dated 07.12.2010 written by the Chief Secretary of the State to all the Principal Secretaries; Commissioner/Secretaries and Secretaries to Government, but without any yield. A few of the Departments responded with nil reports; whereas most remained silent. Then the GAD wrote reminders dated 28.01.2011, 10.03.2011, 18.04.2011 and 27.04.2011 to the various Administrative Departments, with copies thereof to the Inspector General of Police (CID), J & K Srinagar; and the Commissioner of Vigilance, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, requiring them to do the needful. 33. While the process of seeking the requisite information was still on, or, one may say, had aborted, the Government issued Order No. 32-GAD (Vig) of 2011, dated 16.05.2011 in supersession of all previous orders on the subject, constituting a fresh committee comprising: (i) the Chief Secretary, as its Chairman; Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, as its Member; and Commissioner/Secretary to Government, GAD, as its Member Secretary, to consider cases of officers/officials for premature retirement in terms of Article 226(2) and 226(3) of J & K Civil Services Regulations. By this order, no roll at all was assigned to the Inspector General of Police (CID) and the Commissioner, Vigilance; consequently, no say in the matter was reserved, preserved or provided to them. 34. After the constitution of the aforesaid new Committee, Deputy Secretary to Government, GAD, wrote communication No. GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010, dated 26.05.2011 to all the Administrative Secretaries with copies thereof to the Divisional Commissioners of Kashmir and Jammu and all Heads of Department and District Development Commissioners reminding and recapitulating therein the exercise undertaken by the Department pursuant to the constitution of the earlier Committee, the lack of response to the series of reminders seeking the requisite information and requesting them as under: "The issue regarding provision of details about corrupt/non-performing and inefficient officers/officials to the GAD also came up for discussion in the meeting of Administrative Secretaries on 21.5.2011. It was noted with concern that none of the departments have undertaken any serious exercise as a result of which no progress could be achieved in this regard. The undersigned is, therefore, directed to request all the Administrative Secretaries to kindly furnish the names of officers/officials who have outlived their utility in service for consideration of the Committee within two weeks positively. The case of each officer/official should be supported by necessary documents as mentioned in earlier communications of this department. Copies of the communications referred above are also enclosed." 35. This was followed by reminders dated 20.06.2011, 07.07.2011, 11.07.2011, 25.07.2011 and 15.12.2011 with no fruitful results, except that 11 departments made nil reports. 36. In view of the above situation, there was not a single paper, document or any kind of information received with respect to the petitioner in the General Administration Department to be considered by the Committee. At least there is no evidence on the original record, not worth the name, that anybody sent any information about him, muchless the information that was sought in terms of communications dated 25.10.2010 and 26.05.2011 and the numerous reminders issued in that regard. Notwithstanding that, the record reveals that, on 19.01.2012, the Additional Secretary to Government, GAD, addressed communication, OM No. GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 to the Principal Secretary to Government, PWD, to the following effect: "Sub: Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of (1) Khursheed Anwar Shah, S/o. Habib Ullah Shah presently posted as AEE PMGSY Division Ganderbal and (2) Ajaz Ahmad Kirmani, S/o. Ghulam Nabi presently posted as AEE, J & K PHC, Srinagar. In reference to the subject cited above I am directed to refer the Principal Secretary to Government, PHE, PWD Department and say that the complete ACRs dossier (particularly last ten years) of the aforesaid government servants of his department may kindly be forwarded to the undersigned by 20.01.2012 (3:00 P.M.) positively. A duly certified note in case of non-availability of ACRs may be given by 20.01.2012 (3:00 P.M.) positively Matter may be treated extremely urgent." 37. A duly certified note in case of non-availability of ACRs may be given by 20.01.2012 (3:00 P.M.) positively Matter may be treated extremely urgent." 37. The record of the minutes maintained on the file at page 23 dated 30.01.2012, at note No. 70, reads as under: "70 The Committee set up by the Government vide Government Order No. 32-GAD of 2011, held its meeting on 17th, 25th and 27th of January, 2012 to consider the cases of the Government servants who have outlived their utilities to public for retirement under Article 226(2) of J & K CSR." 38. I have minutely gone through this file. Curiously, the minutes of the meetings, professed to have been held on 17th, 25th and 27th January, 2012 to consider the cases, are not recorded on this file. The last note, bearing No. 69 recorded at the end of page 22 is dated 15.12.2011 and it reads 'Draft reminder placed alongside for approval' pursuant to which reminder dated 15.12.2011 referred to in paragraph 36 hereinabove, seems to have been issued. 39. Then, note No. 71 is missing from the note sheet, as if it has been skipped. The Note 72 that follows at page 23 records as under: "72. Apart from the members of the Committee, the following officers also participated in these meetings as special invitees: 1. Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department; 2. Principal Secretary to Government, Power Dev. Deptt.; 3. Principal Secretary to Government, P.W. (R & B) Deptt.; 4. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Forest Department; 5. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, RDD; 6. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PHE, I & FC; 7. IGP, CID, J & K; 8. IGP, Vigilance, J & K; 9. Director, School Education, Jammu. 40. At note 73, thereafter, it is recorded as under: "73. Based on the detailed deliberations held in the aforementioned meetings, names of the following Government servants, who were caught red handed by the State Vigilance Organization while demanding and accepting bribes in trap proceedings, came under consideration and were finally recommended for retirement under Article 226(2):-" 41. The list reproduced under note 73 contains 13 names amongst whom the petitioner's name figures at serial No. 5. The notes recorded at serial Nos. 74, 75 and 76 may also be extracted hereunder: "74. The list reproduced under note 73 contains 13 names amongst whom the petitioner's name figures at serial No. 5. The notes recorded at serial Nos. 74, 75 and 76 may also be extracted hereunder: "74. Apart from the aforementioned officials the Committee also considered the cases of the following government servants which could not be recommended because of the reasons recorded as under: 1.......... 20........ 75. The recommendations of the Committee duly signed in respect of the Government servants mentioned at note para 73 ante are placed on the of side. 76. We may, if approved, place the case before the HCM for consideration and approval, as recommended by the Committee." 42. Note Nos. 78, 79 and 80 put up for approval of the Chief Minister record as under: "78. The Committee reviewed the record of such personnel who have had a doubtful reputation of integrity and infact were trapped accepting bribe. Individual case records summaries and the conclusion of the Committee in respect of 13 individuals listed at para 73/N are on of side 79. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, HCM may consider the 13 cases (as per para 73/N) for retirement u/s. 226(2) J & K CSR. If approved, it is also proposed that these (thirteen) individuals be paid 3 months' pay and allowances in, lieu of notice, as provided in the rules. 80. For approval." 43. The recommendation concerning the petitioner, referred to at Note 75 dated 30.01.2012 quoted above, is placed at page 195 of the original record. It read thus: "Case under Article 226(2) of J & K CSR, 1956 Public Works (R & B) Department Name of the Government servant : Khursheed Anwar Shah S/o Late Kh. Habib Ullah Shah Present place of posting : AEE, PMGSY, Ganderbal Date of Birth : 18.2.1961 Date of Appointment : 01.5.1989 Number of years in service : 22 years The Committee set up by the government vide Government Order No. 32-GAD of 2011 held its meeting on 17.01.2012 and 25.01.2012 under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary and considered the case of Sh. Khursheed Anwar Shah of PWD (R & B) for retirement under Article 226(2) of CSR. Following officers also participated in the meeting as special invitees: 1. Principal Secretary to Government, PWD; 2. IGP, CID, J & K; 3. Khursheed Anwar Shah of PWD (R & B) for retirement under Article 226(2) of CSR. Following officers also participated in the meeting as special invitees: 1. Principal Secretary to Government, PWD; 2. IGP, CID, J & K; 3. IGP, Vigilance, J & K. It was reported that the officer does not enjoy good reputation in public. Based on a specific complaint a trap was laid against Sh. Khursheed Anwar Shah, who was posted as AEE, PWD, Magam and was found demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000/- for releasing an outstanding payment in favour of a contractor for the public works executed by the contractor. Accordingly, an FIR was registered vide No. 16/2007 of P/S VOK. The officer was caught red handed by the vigilance in the trap proceedings and the money was recovered from him. The case already stands challaned in the court of law. It was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officer were not available in the department and the non-availability has been duly certified by the administrative department. The Committee took special note of the fact that the officer while holding a gazetted rank (AEE, PWD), in an important sector like Roads & Buildings (PWD), was caught demanding and accepting bribe for release of payments for the execution of public works, thereby substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public. Since the officer has dubious integrity and was caught red handed while accepting bribe, therefore, it is recommended that Sh. Khursheed Anwar Shah be retired from Government Service in the public interest under Article 226(2) of J & K CSR. It is further recommended that Sh. Khursheed Anwar Shah be given three months of pay and allowances in advance, as admissible, in lieu of the notice. Sd/ (Deepak Kumar) IGRP, Vigilance Sd/25/1/12 (B. Srinivas) IGP, CID Sd/25/1/2012 (M.S. Khan) Commissioner/Secretary, GAD Sd/ (K.B. Agarwarl) Principal Secretary PWD(R&B) Sd/ (B.R. Sharma) Principal Secretary Home Sd/-25.1.12 (Madhav Lal) Chief Secretary." 44. It is further recommended that Sh. Khursheed Anwar Shah be given three months of pay and allowances in advance, as admissible, in lieu of the notice. Sd/ (Deepak Kumar) IGRP, Vigilance Sd/25/1/12 (B. Srinivas) IGP, CID Sd/25/1/2012 (M.S. Khan) Commissioner/Secretary, GAD Sd/ (K.B. Agarwarl) Principal Secretary PWD(R&B) Sd/ (B.R. Sharma) Principal Secretary Home Sd/-25.1.12 (Madhav Lal) Chief Secretary." 44. A bear look at the aforesaid document, stated to be the recommendation dated 25.01.2012 prepared pursuant to the minutes dated 30.01.2012 together with the minutes in question, makes certain things conspicuous, rendering the whole exercise highly doubtful, ingenuine; bereft of bona fides, violative of the orders passed by the Government and the procedure which had been laid to be followed by the Committee, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, quoted hereinabove and thereby making it precarious: (i) It has been signed by six officers, namely, the IGP, Vigilance; the IGP, CID; the Commissioner/Secretary, GAD; the Principal Secretary, PWD (R & B); the Principal Secretary Home; and the Chief Secretary. It is astonishing to notice that whereas the Notes at serial Nos. 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 on the original record file, professed to be the decisions taken by the Committee, are shown to have been recorded and signed on 30.01.2012, the aforesaid document, stated to be recommendation, has been signed on 25.01.2012, inasmuch as IGP, CID; Commissioner/Secretary, GAD; and the Chief Secretary have given the date 25.1.2012 under their respective signatures-putting the cart before the horse. (ii) Whereas by Government order No. 62-GAD(Vig) of 2010, dated 12.10.2010 the Committee constituted thereunder was given the discretion to secure, whenever required, necessary inputs from the Commissioner of Vigilance and IGP (CID) who were also ordered to be associated with the Committee as Special Invitees; Government Order No. 32-GAD(Vig) of 2011, dated 16.05.2011, passed in supersession of all previous orders on the subject, did not contain any such provision either allowing the Committee to secure any inputs from the Commissioner of Vigilance or the IGP, (CID), or to associate any of them or any other person or persons, officer or authority with the Committee as Special Invitees. In the instant case, it is not comprehendible in what capacity, under whose authority and with what power the IGP, Vigilance; the IGP, CIU; and the Principal Secretary, PWD (R & B) have associated themselves in the decision making process and have been party to the actual decision in the shape of the recommendations formulated on 25.01.2012, i.e., 5 days before the actual meeting was held and the minutes thereof were recorded on 30.01.2012; (iii) Even if it be assumed that the Committee constituted by the Government in terms of Order No. 32-GAD(Vig) of 2011, dated 16.05.2011, had any power, discretion or authority vested in, or conferred on, it to associate the nine officers in its meetings, with the decision making process and in the formulation of the actual recommendations; or that any officer, at his discretion, could sit in the meetings of the Committee and take active part therein and in the formulation of the decision to recommend premature retirement of any Government Officer - whether taken prior to holding of the actual meeting or thereafter - why have all the nine of them not signed the actual recommendation formulated on 25.01.2012; the recommendation has actually been signed only by three of them; (iv) Whereas the Record Note 72 of the minutes dated 30.01.2012 maintained on the original record file depicts that, apart from the members of the Committee constituted by the Government in terms of Order No. 32-GAD(Vig) of 2011, dated 16.05.2011, nine named officers had participated in the meeting, the recommendation formulated on 25.01.2012 records that only three of them, i.e., Principal Secretary to Government, PWD, IGP, CID, J & K; and IGP, Vigilance, J & K had participated in the meeting as special invitees. How is it that in the presence of so high officials of the government such a huge discrepancy has crept in the records; or, this Court has reason to say so, such big a lie is recorded on the official record in respect of so sensitive a matter which concerns not only one's livelihood, but also his and his family's status, reputation and prestige in the society and amongst his friends and relatives; (v) Then, whereas the minutes dated 30.01.2012 do not record any reason which had prompted the Committee to formulate the decision as contained in the recommendations dated 25.01.2012, the actual recommendation mentions that "it was reported that the officer does not enjoy good reputation in public". Who reported it, is not disclosed either in the minutes or in the recommendations. It may be noted here that having gone through the record file very minutely, there is not even a whisper made anywhere therein with regard to any such report having been made by any officer or authority, muchless those who had been associated with the meetings of the Committee and in the decision making process. The whole exercise is without any evidence; (vi) Normally, the record of minutes note the decision making process undertaken by the Members and the participants of a meeting, the actual decision taken and the reasons supporting such decision. Here is a case, where the decisions are shown to have been taken earlier and then the matter is discussed in the meeting; (vii) Record Note 78 of the minutes reads that "the committee reviewed the record of such personnel who have had a doubtful reputation of integrity and, in fact, were trapped accepting bribe". The fact of the matter is that there is not even a single leaflet of paper bearing the name of the petitioner existing on the original record file which could be said to be record pertaining to him placed before, perused or considered by, the Committee. There is nothing of that sort on the record. As mentioned earlier, numerous reminders were sent to Administrative Heads by the General Administration Department to send their reports with respect to any employee in their respective departments who, according to them, required to be honoured or weeded-out of service, but the exercise was mostly in vain. At least, no report pertaining to the petitioner exists on the record file. As mentioned earlier, numerous reminders were sent to Administrative Heads by the General Administration Department to send their reports with respect to any employee in their respective departments who, according to them, required to be honoured or weeded-out of service, but the exercise was mostly in vain. At least, no report pertaining to the petitioner exists on the record file. The Note 78 itself, placed before none other than the Chief Minister is, therefore, highly doubtful and I have reason to say, it is wholly wrong and incorrect insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 45. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as seen above, the respondents, in the instant case, have not considered and taken into account the service record or the confidential reports of the petitioner which would furnish the back drop material of the petitioner for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority to arrive at, or assume, the requisite satisfaction. It is settled law, as seen above, that an opinion, that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service, can be formed only on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances; therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. In the instant case, the respondents have not considered any of the service records of the petitioner. They have solely relied on the allegations on the basis of which the criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The recommendation against the petitioner has, thus, been formulated without any basis. Such recommendation by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a bona fide exercise on the part of the Committee/respondents. That being the factual position, it can safely be said that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the impugned order is unfounded, baseless, having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The order is, therefore, vitiated on account of lack of bona fides and obviously has been actuated by considerations extraneous to the exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. 46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the impugned order is unfounded, baseless, having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The order is, therefore, vitiated on account of lack of bona fides and obviously has been actuated by considerations extraneous to the exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. 46. This Court, as laid down by the Supreme Court, has a duty cast on it to exercise the power of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised and whether the order is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration. Having considered the matter, this Court is left with no option, but to hold that the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 47. As mentioned earlier, the recommendations have been formulated by the Committee constituted by the Government only on account of involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case. Involvement of the petitions in the criminal case did not mean that he was guilty. The respondents ought to have borne in mind that the petitioner was still to be tried in a court of law and the truth was to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution was ultimately conducted. But before that stage was reached, it was highly improper to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement in the case. It is true that there were some severe allegations levelled against the petitioner, but on mere allegations such a grave action was unwarranted. The Government could have awaited the decision in the case. There was no reason to show such a promptitude in exercise of power under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. Awaiting the result of the trial was more necessitated because there was no other material which would warrant compulsory retirement of the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not exercised their power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. 48. Apart from that there being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the service records and ACRs of the petitioner, his integrity could not be said to have been doubted at any time. 48. Apart from that there being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the service records and ACRs of the petitioner, his integrity could not be said to have been doubted at any time. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's department had informed that his ACRs were not available more tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner. If the ACRs were not available, then how could it be concluded that the petitioner was a man of doubtful integrity or that he was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. This would rather reasonably and justifiably supply a sound ground to conclude that there was no material available to hold that the petitioner's integrity was not doubtful or that no ground existed to compulsorily retire him from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, cannot, but be termed as punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. It may be mentioned here that the fact of the matter is that petitioners ACRs for latest three years were readily available with the respondents, the details and entries recorded wherein are reproduced hereunder, but the respondents seem to have made no efforts to have them from the respondents. The entries recorded in these ACRs belie the stand of the respondents and render their action taken against the petitioner as arbitrary: A) ACR for the year 2008-2009: Remarks of the Initiating Officer: (i) At page (4), under item 3.1(b), against the column 'Quality of Output, the recorded entry in pen is "Performance has remained satisfactory". (ii) At pages (4) and (5), all entries under item Nos. 3.2 to 3.6 "knowledge, Knowledge about usage of Computer, Attributes, Managerial ability, and Aptitude and potential", all the relevant entries are ticked. (iii) At page (5), under the caption "General", against column 4.2 - "Integrity: Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings and also by drawing attention to the qualities, if any, not covered by the entries above", the marks entered are: "The officer is hardworking, intelligent as well as trustworthy. (iii) At page (5), under the caption "General", against column 4.2 - "Integrity: Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings and also by drawing attention to the qualities, if any, not covered by the entries above", the marks entered are: "The officer is hardworking, intelligent as well as trustworthy. The integrity of the officer is highly appreciable." (iv) Then at the same page (5), under the same caption, against column 4.3 - "General assessment: Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings, the marks entered are: "Good, Planner, job Knowing, good administrator". (v) At page (6), under the same caption, against column 4.4 -"Grading: (An officer should not be graded outstanding unless exceptional qualities and performance has been noticed. Grounds for giving such a grading should be clearly brought out), the marks entered are: "Very Good". Remarks of the Reviewing Authority: (i) The significant remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority at page (7) agonist serial No. 5.4 "General remarks with specific comments" and at page (8) against serial No. 5.5 "Has the officer any special characteristics and/or any abilities", respectively, are as under: (a) "The officer has been discharging his duties very efficiently. He is very hardworking. He has good experience of planning and execution of various civil engineering works". (b) "The officer having an individualistic approach of various work assignments can be given more and more responsibilities". (B) ACR for the year 2009-2010: Remarks of the Initiating Officer: (i) At page (4), under item 3.1(b), against the column 'Quality of Output, the recorded entry in pen is "The Performance of the officer has remained quite outstanding". (ii) At pages (4) and (5), All Entries under item Nos. 3.2 To 3.6 "Knowledge, Knowledge about usage of Computer, Attributes, Managerial ability, and aptitude and Potential", All The relevant entries are ticked. (iii) At Page (5), Under the Caption "General", Against Column 4.2 - "Integrity: Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with Reference to his/her strength and shortcomings and also by drawing attention to the qualities, if any, not covered by the entries above", the marks entered are: "The officer is Dynamic, hardworking as well as intelligent. The integrity of the Officer IS beyond any doubt". The integrity of the Officer IS beyond any doubt". (iv) Then at the same page (5), under the same caption, against column 4.3 - "General assessment: please give an overall assessment of the officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings, the marks entered are: "The officer is job knowing, Good planner and responsible". (v) At page (6), under the same caption, against column 4.4 - "Grading: (an officer should not be graded outstanding unless exceptional qualities and performance has been noticed, grounds for giving such a grading should be clearly brought out), the marks entered are: "Very Good". REMARKS OF THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY: (vi) The significant remarks recorded by the reviewing authority at page (7) against serial No. 5.4 "general remarks with specific comments" and at page (8) against serial No. 5.5 "has the officer any special characteristics and/or any abilities", respectively, are as under: (a) "The officer has performed in a satisfactory manner during the period under reviews i.e., 2009-2010 ending 03/2010". (b) "The officer is capable and deserves encouragement". (C) ACR for the year 2010-2011; Remarks of the Initiating Officer: (i) At page (4), under item 3.1(b), against the column 'Quality of Output, the recorded entry in pen is "The performance of the officer has been excellent during the period of report in regard to the standard of work. He is dynamic energetic and forceful in materializing of achieving prescribed objectives." (ii) At pages (4) and (5), all entries under item Nos. 3.2 to 3.6 "Knowledge, Knowledge about usage of Computer, Attributes, Managerial ability, and Aptitude and potential", all the relevant entries are ticked. (iii) At page (5), under the caption "General", against column 4.2 - "Integrity: Please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings and also by drawing attention to the qualities, if any, not covered by the entries above", the marks entered are: "The officer is hardworking, dynamic, besides being trustworthy in discharging his official duties. Moreover, the integrity of the officer is beyond any doubt." (iv) Then at the same page (5), under the same caption, against column 4.3 - "General assessment: please give an overall assessment of the Officer with reference to his/her strength and shortcomings, the marks entered are: "The officer is job knowing, skilful, dependable and aware of all assignments and responsibilities." v) At page (6), under the same caption, against column 4.4 "Grading: (An officer should not be graded outstanding unless exceptional qualities and performance has been noticed. Grounds for giving such a grading should be clearly brought out), the marks entered are: "Very Good". Remarks of the Reviewing Authority: (vi) The significant remarks recorded by the Reviewing Authority at page (7) against serial No. 5.4 "General remarks with specific, comments" are "A. dynamic engineer". From the above Annual Confidential Rolls of the petitioner pertaining to the period of three years immediately preceding the date of his premature retirement on the ground of his integrity being doubtful, it is clear that he has consistently been graded as "very good" and as regards his integrity, it has again consistently been recorded to be beyond any doubt or appreciable. These ACRs, admittedly, have not been taken into consideration by the Committee in question. In light of the remarks recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner during the period immediately preceding the recommendations formulated by the Committee, without looking into his records, it is hard to believe that anyone would have made the recommendations as have actually been formulated. Since the ACRs in question have not been taken into account, it becomes axiomatic that the petitioner's service record was not considered. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be termed as bona fide, and the impugned order passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 49. The denial of the respondents in their affidavit about the existence of the ACRs or that the same, for not having been accepted by the Accepting Authority, cannot be taken as final and complete, are statements immaterial and of no legal consequence. Such statements represent only the crown of the hush, hush mannerism and eyes-shut attitude resorted to by the concerned Committee members to somehow pass on the burden. Such statements represent only the crown of the hush, hush mannerism and eyes-shut attitude resorted to by the concerned Committee members to somehow pass on the burden. The members of the Committee, on account of their failure to gather information from the Administrative Heads of Department, seem to have been anxious to somehow show to the Chief Minister that they were so efficient that they had caught the causative of the corruption prevailing in the public services. It may be observed here that it is also not a fact that all the three ACRs did not contain the endorsement of the Accepting Authority. One of them, namely, the ACR for the year 2008-2009 also contains the remarks of the Accepting Authority, named Mir Shafi, Chief Engineer, P.W. (R & B) Department, Kashmir recording "Remarks OF S.E. are ACCEPTED (PERIOD Sep 2008 to MARCH 2009)". Even otherwise, it is not the duty of an officer who is reported upon to ensure that the ACRs are taken to the Accepting Authority. The fault, if at all there is one, lies in the administrative set up of the Department whereunder the ACRs have not reached the Accepting Authority in time. That apart, once the immediate officers of the petitioner, who have closest supervision on the functioning of the officer, have recorded remarks based on personal knowledge, the same cannot be brushed aside and rendered ineffective, meaningless or inconsequential because of non-availability of the remarks of the Accepting Authority thereon. If that had been so, then the remarks of the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer's would be immaterial even for the Accepting Authority. The entries recorded by the Initiating and the Review Authorities supply a lead to the Accepting Authority in understanding the functioning of the officer reported upon and unless there is anything contrary available with him against the officer, the remarks recorded by the first two immediate officers would prevail and, in any case, would not be rendered meaningless. The stance thus taken by the respondents is totally unsustainable. 50. As noted earlier, the petitioner was prematurely retired while the trial of the criminal case against him was still continuing in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Committee seems to have been heavily influenced by the allegation that he had been caught red handed demanding money and accepting it. The stance thus taken by the respondents is totally unsustainable. 50. As noted earlier, the petitioner was prematurely retired while the trial of the criminal case against him was still continuing in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Committee seems to have been heavily influenced by the allegation that he had been caught red handed demanding money and accepting it. Admittedly, there was no other information, evidence or report available with the Committee against the petitioner. The report that his reputation for integrity was doubtful, in absence of any written report on the file, seems to have been a hoax or a concoction with an anxiety to lend some kind of support to the devised action. The ACR, as noted above, spoke contrary to the allegation. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the Committee to wait for the decision in the criminal case. That was not done. Then, at the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the offences levelled against him. The charges levelled against him were denied by the complainant as well as the lone eye witness. This is borne out from the judgment dated 31.12.2013 of the trial court, the relevant portion whereof is quoted hereunder: "Thus, the complainant and independent witness though admitted the status given to them by prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. Complainant denied that any demand of bribe was ever made by the complainant from him and in fact stated the money was placed by him in the pocket of the jacket worn by accused and also denied that the independent witness accompanied him inside the office of the accused. The independent witness also admitted that it was the complainant who alone entered inside the office room of accused while he waited outside and the door of the room was shut and that he as such neither heard any conversation between the complainant and accused, nor saw any demand or acceptance of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant. None of the other witnesses have stated having witnessed the demand or acceptance of bribe. The I.O. has deposed minutes of investigation conducted and the statement deposed by him in itself exhibits the callous manner in which investigation has been conducted by him. None of the other witnesses have stated having witnessed the demand or acceptance of bribe. The I.O. has deposed minutes of investigation conducted and the statement deposed by him in itself exhibits the callous manner in which investigation has been conducted by him. The prosecution was required to prove by way of reliable evidence the guilt of the accused, but the witnesses produced by the prosecution having made contradictory statements, the prosecution has failed to establish its case at trial. Neither the demand nor the acceptance of bribe has been established and even the recovery of the amount from accused has not been satisfactorily proved. For the said reasons prosecution case fails and is accordingly dismissed and accused acquitted of the charges levelled against him and discharged of his bail bonds.". In light of the above, the petitioner having been cleared of the allegations and the charges on the basis of which he was prematurely retired from service, the impugned order is rendered wholly undesirable, illegal, unconstitutional and unsustainable. 51. Lastly, it appears that the Committee which made the recommendations against the petitioner appears to have been influenced by what was evolved by the earlier Committee constituted by the Government in 2003. The said Committee, as mentioned earlier, had devised a novel method to recommend compulsory/premature retirement of government servants. It had decided that if the general reputation of the official would not be good, he could be compulsorily retired in public interest. As to which case would fall within such category, it had been decided that cases: (a) where there is evidence that a government employee was responsible for any defalcation of government money; (b) where prosecution had been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or the Crime Branch; or (c) in which government employee, in an investigation, was found to have committed moral turpitude, shall fell under the said category. In other words, it had been decided that production of a challan by the Vigilance Organization before the court against a government servant would be a conclusive proof against such government servant that his general reputation was not good and that he could be compulsorily retired in public interest. This is exactly what the respondents have relied upon in the instant case because there is hardly any difference what was evolved then and what has been actually done in the present case. This is exactly what the respondents have relied upon in the instant case because there is hardly any difference what was evolved then and what has been actually done in the present case. Merely because there was a criminal case registered against the petitioner, the Committee dubbed him as possessing dubious integrity and an officer of not a good reputation and accordingly, recommended him for being compulsorily retired in public interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be said to be meeting any public interest. 52. For all what has been discussed above, this petition deserves acceptance and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 53. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned Order No. 188-GAD of 2012, dated 13.02.2012 issued by respondent No. 1 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of 10 days from today and thereafter, within three months allow him full wages from the date he was illegally and without there being any material prematurely retired from service. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits, including increments, seniority, promotional benefit which he would have otherwise earned but for the impugned order. These consequential benefits shall also be released in his favour within the period of three months as stipulated above. 54. No order as to costs is, however, made. The original records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents for perusal of the Court are returned to him in the open Court.