JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajesh Kumar, J.—This is an appeal arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 57241 of 2013 filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a Class-III employee of the Ghazipur Judgeship. It appears that a committee has been constituted to identify the persons, who have attained the age of 50 years and has completed 20 years of service. Although the Screening Committee has not recommended the name of the appellant for compulsory retirement, however, having regard to the material on record, the District Judge, Ghazipur, vide order dated 17.8.2013, has passed an order compulsorily retiring the appellant. The District Judge, while retiring the appellant compulsorily, has taken a note that several punishments were awarded to the appellant and on consideration of materials on record, it was found that it would not be appropriate to keep him in service. The District Judge, while retiring the appellant compulsorily, has taken a note that several punishments were awarded to the appellant and on consideration of materials on record, it was found that it would not be appropriate to keep him in service. The District Judge has recorded the following findings : “mDr lfefr dh vk[;k fnukWd 20&2&2013 ds vuqiky esa lEcfU/kr deZpkjhx.k dh lsok vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rks ik;k x;k fd mDr lfefr dh vk[;k vfèkdka'k fcUnqvksa ij loZFkk =qfViw.kZ gSA vusd ,sls deZpkjh ftudh lsok;sa lUrks"kizn ugh jgh gS vkSj mUgsa dnkpkj ,oa nqjkpj.k dh izfrdwy izfof"V;kW iznku dh x;h gS vkSj vfHkys[kksa dks xk;c djus dk nks"kh ik;k x;k gS vFkok ,sls xEHkhj vijkèkksa ds fy, dHkh mudh osru o`f+);kW jksdh x;h gSa rks dHkh fuEu osru esa izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k gS] bu rF;ksa dks vius le{k jgrs gq, Hkh Ldzhfuax desVh }kjk fdlh deZpkjh dks Ldzhfuax ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;kA tks bl lfefr }kjk nh x;h fjiksVZ dks vfo'oluh; vkSj =qfViw.kZ iznf'kZr djrk gSA mDr lfefr dh fjiksVZ esa deZpkfj;ks dks fn;s x;s n.M dk Hkh fooj.k vafdr gS ftuesa dqN ds n.M vR;Ur xHkhj gSa rFkk dqN dks feys n.Mksa@vid`R;ksa dk u rks ftdz fd;k x;k gS vkSj u mu ij fopkj fd;k x;k gSA vr% ,sls deZpkfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa Ldzhfuax desVh dh vk[;k vLohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA 'kklukns'k la[;k 13@48@85&dkfeZd&1 y[kuÅ fnukWd 26&10&1985 ds izLrj&6 esa vafdr gS fd Ldzhfuax desVh dks dksbZ fof/kd fLFkfr ugha izkIr gS vkSj mldk xBu dsoy fu;qfDr vfèkdkjh dh lgk;rk ds fy, fd;k tkrk gS rFkk Ldzhfuax ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh es fufgr gksrk gSA bu izkfo/kkuksa ds ifjisz{; esa Jh f=yksdh jke ds ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;k] ftUgs Ldzhfuax desVh ds fjikVZ esa lcls vf/kd n.Mksa ls nf.Mr fd;k tkuk iznf'kZr fd;k x;k gSA ewy fu;e foRrh; gLr iqfLrdk [k.M&2 ¼Hkkx nks ls pkj½ ds fu;e 56 ds vuqlkj ljdkjh lsod dks uksfVl nsdj fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Rr fd;k tk ldrk gS tks 50 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh dj pqdk gks vkSj vFkok 20 o"kZ dh vgZ lsok iwjh dj pqdk gksA bl fu;e ds vuqlkj uksfVl dh vof/k rhu ekl dh gksxh] ij fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh pkgs rks uksfVl ds cnys rhu ekl dk osru e; HkRRkk vnk dj ldrk gS] ml fLFkfr esa uksfVl dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA Jh f=yksdh jke us fnukWd 1&7&1983 dks tuin U;k;ky;] xkthiqj esa fyfid ds in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k vkSj mudh tUefrfFk 2&1&1959 gSA bl izdkj os 50 o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh dj pqds gSa vkSj mudh 20 o"kZ dh vgZ lsok Hkh iwjh gks pqdh gSA Jh f=yksdh jke] fyfid vius lsok vofèk esa fuEufyf[kr iz'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ksa esa nf.Mr gq, gS%& 1& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 27&1&1997 }kjk ewy okn la[;k 319@1989 gfj'kadj cuke dykorh ds okn esa lwphi= ,oa vkns'k i= izFke iUuk xk;c gksus ij Jh f=yksdh jke fyfid] U;k;ky; flfoy tt tw0fM0 lSniqj xkthiqj dks psrkouh nh x;h rFkk funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd Hkfo"; esa ,slk O;ogkj u djsa ftlls fd dksbZ izys[k vfHkys[k ls xqe gksA 2& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 14&7&1997 }kjk Jh f=yksdh jke ds lsok iqfLrdk esa lsalMZ dh izfo"V vafdr dh x;hA 3& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 9&1&1998 }kjk xyr LFkkukUrj.k HkRrk fcy izLrqr djus ds dkj.k Jh f=yksdh jke dks psrkouh nh x;h vkSj izLrqr fcy [kf.Mr fd;k x;kA 4& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 3&10&1998 }kjk lsalMZ dh izfof"V buds pfj= iaftdk esa bl dkj.k ls vafdr dh x;h fd Jh vf[kys'k nwcs] “k”Ve~ vij flfoy tt tw0fM0] xkthiqj ds fjiksVZ ij ewy okn la[;k 694@1988 ls ih0MCyw0&2 dk c;ku xqe gksus ij rhu fnu esa Li"Vhdj.k fnukWd 19&9&1998 dks ekWxk x;k ij Jh f=yksdh jke }kjk Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;kA 5& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 2&2&2008 }kjk vfUre tkWp la[;k 13@2004 esa nf.Mr fd;k x;k rFkk bUgsa U;wure osrueku 3050&75&3950&80&4590 esa vkns'k fnukWd 2&2&2008 }kjk inkour (Revert) fd;k x;kA 6& vfUre tkWp la[;k 03@2004 esa ikfjr vfUre vkns'k fnukWd 7&1&2009 ds vuqlkj Jh f=yksdh jke dks LFkk;h :i ls rhu okf"kZd osru o`f);kW jksds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 7& vfUre tkWp la[;k 03@2010 esa Jh f=yksdh jke dks ifjfuUnk ds n.M ls tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 30&5&2012 }kjk nf.Mr fd;k x;kA 8& tuin U;k;k/kh'k] xkthiqj ds vkns'k fnukWd 3&1&2013 }kjk ewy okn la[;k 01@2009 lqnkek flag cuke fjD[kh ds felIysl gksus ds dkj.k ,d okf"kZd osru o`f) LFkk;h :i ls jksdh x;hA mijksDr rF;ksa ij fopkj djus ls izrhr gksrk gS fd fiNys vusd o"kksZ ls Jh f=yksdh jke] fyfid dk dk;Z] vkpj.k vkSj O;ogkj cgqr [kjkc jgk gSA os vusd ckj i=kofy;ksa vkSj egRoiw.kZ vfHkys[k xk;c djus ds nks"kh ik;s x;sA ij muds lkFk ges'kk ujeh dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k vkSj mUgsa psrkofu;kW nh x;ha rFkk izfrdwy izfo"V;kW Hkh mudh lsok iqfLrdk esa vafdr gksrh jgh] ij muds vkpj.k es lq/kkj ugha gqvkA mUgksaus u dsoy vius drZO; ikyu esa vkSj vfHkys[kksa ds j[kj[kko esa fu;fer :i ls ykijokgh cjrh gS cfYd vU; dk;ksZ esa Hkh muds }kjk vR;Ur xEHkhj =qfV;kW vkSj nqjkpj.k fd;s x;s gSA mUgksaus ekWxus ij Li”Vhdj.k ugha fn;k] xyr ;k=k fcy izLrqr fd;k vkSj vfHkys[kksa vkSj i=kofy;ksa dks vusd ckj xk;c fd;kA blfy, mudh inkour dh x;h vkSj vusd ckj osru o`f);kW jksds tkus dk n.M fn;k x;kA ij dHkh muds dk;Z esa lq/kkj ugha vk;kA ,sls O;fDr ij jktdh; dks"k dk lkoZtfud èku O;; djds mls ukSdjh esa j[kuk vuqfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ,sls O;fDr dks lsok es j[kus ls u dsoy bl izfr”Bku dks {kfr igqpsxh cfYd mlds dkj.k vU; jktdh; dk;Z Hkh izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor gksaxsA vr% tufgr esa Jh f=yksdh jke] fyfid dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Rr djuk gh vkSfpR;iw.kZ vkSj bl U;kf;d izfr"Bku ds rFkk lkoZtfud fgr esa mfpr gksxkA ,sls O;fDr ls U;k;ky; ds fyfid ds vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ in ij dk;Z ysus ls U;k;ky; ds eqdnesa dh i=kofy;ksa dh lqj{kk fnu izfrfnu [krjs es jgrh gSA vr% tufgr esa ;g mfpr izrhr gksrk gS fd mudks rhu ekg dh uksfVl nsus ds ctk, mUgsa rhu ekg dk osru iznku djds lsokfuo`Rr ds leLr ykHkksa ds lkFk vfuok;Z lsokfuo`Rr dj fn;k tk,A vr% Jh f=yksdh jke] fyfid ¼orZeku oknfyfid] U;k;ky; f}rh; vij flfoy tt tw0fM0] eqgEenkckn] xkthiqj½ dks rkRdkfyd izHkko ls vfuok;Z :i ls lsokfuo`Rr fd;k tkrk gSA mUgsa rhu ekg dk osru iznku fd;k tk, vkSj os lsokfuo`fRr ds lHkh ykHkksa dks fu;ekuqlkj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA” 3. Against the order of learned District Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition. Before the writ Court, it was contended that the punishment order dated 2.2.2008, by which, he has been reverted to the lowest pay scale, has been set aside by the Administrative Judge in appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge found that the material referred in the order of the District Judge was sufficient to arrive to the conclusion that his utility was not required in service. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the various decisions of the Apex Court and has observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It is prerogative of the Government/competent authority to retire a person compulsorily on the basis of the material available on the satisfaction being arrived that the said Government servant should not be allowed to continue in public interest. The said order is being challenged in the present appeal. 6. Heard Shri Shakti Dhar Dube, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manish Goyal appearing on behalf of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the other reasons referred in the order, have also been referred in the order dated 2.2.2008, whereby the appellant has been awarded punishment of reversal to the lowest pay scale and once the order dated 2.2.2008, is set aside and all the charges which is referred in the order dated 2.2.2008 stood set aside, the order of the learned Single Judge is not justified. It is further submitted that some of the entries have not been communicated to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not get the opportunity to represent. Therefore, such entries cannot be made basis for the compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that Screening Committee has not expressed its opinion to retire the appellant compulsorily, as against the 47 employees, the appellant has only been singled out and has been compulsorily retired. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary, without any valid ground and reasons and is liable to be set aside. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary, without any valid ground and reasons and is liable to be set aside. The reliance has been placed in the various decisions, namely, Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 13 SSC 758, M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221 , Pritam Singh v. Union of India and others, (2005) 9 SSC 748, State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 . It is submitted that the entries awarded whether the adverse entries, if not communicated, can be treated adverse or not, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others, (2013) 9 SCC 573 . 9. It is further submitted that compulsory retirement is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged conduct and liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in the case of Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Ltd., 2014 (6) AWC 6405 (SC) and State of M.P. and others v. Hazarilal, 2008 (2) Supreme 51 . 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. The compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It is pre-mature retirement after assessing performance of a Government servant and forming an opinion that the employee has rendered to be deadwood and has lost his utility. The Apex Court has held that an order of punishment under F.R. 56 (i) authorises the Government to review the working of its employees at the end of their services referred to therein and to require the Government servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Judicial scrutiny of any order imposing compulsory retirement is permissible, if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. 12. It would be useful to refer certain principles in respect of compulsory retirement, culled out by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Judicial scrutiny of any order imposing compulsory retirement is permissible, if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. 12. It would be useful to refer certain principles in respect of compulsory retirement, culled out by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. In Baikunth Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 , the Apex Court has categorically held that the judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide. The principle of natural justice has no place in the context of compulsory retirement. The Apex Court further held that any adverse entries in the confidential record shall be taken note and shall be given weight in passing such order even uncommunicated entries can also be taken into consideration. 14. In Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1954 SC 369 , it was held that an officer who has compulsory retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with Rules. There is no deprivation of the accrued benefits. Though from the point of view of the officer/employee concerned, he may think to have been punished for not being allowed to serve till he attains the age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules, but there is distinction between the loss of benefits already earned and loss of prospects to earn something more. It was held that since compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(c) is not a punishment when resorted to in public interest, Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application. 15. In Posts and Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review as under : “An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. F.R. 56(j) authorizes the Government to review the working of its employee at the end of the point of their service referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The Courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record. “ (para 5) (emphasis added) 16. In S. Ram Chandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 , the Apex Court held as under: “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 dead wood 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.” 17. In Allahabad Bank Officers’ Association and another v. Allahabad Bank and others, (1964) 4 SCC 504, the Apex Court observed as under : “The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.” (para-5) 18. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration.” (para-5) 18. In State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331 , the Apex Court held: “ ........................It is needless to reiterate that the settled position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service.” (para 3) 19. In M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 SC 3058 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. The observation that principles of natural justice have no place in the context of compulsory retirement does not mean that if the version of the delinquent officer is necessary to reach the correct conclusion, the same can be obviated on the assumption that other materials alone need be looked into.” (para 11)” 20. In State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 , the Apex Court held: “(i) When the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 21. The above guidelines have been referred with affirmance recently in M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, JT 2009(6) SC 263. 22. In Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, JT 2009(8) SC 385, following Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar (supra) the Court further held that: “Principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with and even adverse entries made in the confidential record including uncommunicated entries may be taken into consideration but the same should not be passed in place of or in lieu of a disciplinary proceedings. If an order of compulsory retirement is stigmatic in nature, the same would be bad in law.” 23. In the recent decision in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir, the Apex Court held as follows : “Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgement in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgements, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the Government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non application of mind, mala fide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily, the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.(See Posts and Telegraphs Board v. L.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 )” 24. From the perusal of the order of the learned District Judge, we find that the learned District Judge in its order has referred 08 adverse materials against the appellant to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has lost his utility in the service. From the perusal of the order of the learned District Judge, we find that the learned District Judge in its order has referred 08 adverse materials against the appellant to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has lost his utility in the service. Out of the 08 adverse materials, one is the order dated 2.2.2008, by which, the appellant has been reverted to the minimum pay scale, which has been set aside in appeal but rest of the adverse materials still survive and the appellant is not able to demonstrate that any of the adverse order referred in the order, except the one referred herein above have been set aside in appeal. In the writ petition, only in paragraph No. 8, it is stated that adverse entries dated 30.5.2012 and 3.1.2013 have not been communicated to the appellant hence the appellant could not make representation. Apart from the aforesaid two entries, it is not the case of the appellant that the other entries have not been communicated. The Apex Court, in the case of Baikunth Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 and in the case of State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) and Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) has held that even uncommunicatd entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. The Apex Court, in the case of Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir (supra) has held that compulsory retirement should be based on appraisal of overall performance during whole tenure of service having regard to the entire service record of employee and upon taking an holistic view. Old adverse entries do not loose significance or get washed off for the purpose of considering compulsory retirement even after grant of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar and hence should be taken into consideration alongwith recent entries. 25. In view of the above, we find that the order of the District Judge was neither arbitrary nor mala fide nor based on no evidence material. On the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————