ORDER : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the order of compulsory retirement Annexure P/1 dated 14.6.2001 passed by respondent no.2 and relieving order Annexure P/2, this petition has been preferred, seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner inter alia contended, that he was appointed as Process Writer and posted at Mandsaur. In the year 1995 with mala fide intention he was transferred and posted in the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain. While posting at Ujjain, he was subjected to harassment and mental agony, however, compelled to take leave, which was not sanctioned and treating it as unauthorized absence, a charge sheet was served. On filing the reply, a departmental enquiry was initiated wherein he was found guilty and negligent in discharge of duties. The disciplinary authority inflicted the major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It is said that except the said penalty, he was not subjected to any departmental enquiry during his entire service period and no adverse communication has been made. The petitioner belongs to reputed family of Sitamau, District Mandsaur and his wife contested the election of President, Nagar Panchayat however, the opponent made a complaint regarding participation of petitioner in the election, but it was found frivolous and in preliminary enquiry the said complaint was rejected, but his constant harassment continued. However, the orders impugned Annexure P/1 and P/2 were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is said that the order Annexure P/1 is a non-speaking order passed on the recommendation of Screening Committee without considering the entire service record. It is said that singular order of punishment cannot form the basis to pass an order of compulsory retirement. It is further said that the Scrutiny Committee has not followed the norms and procedure specified vide Government circular dated 22.8.2000 and without approval of the State Government, order impugned is not in conformity with law. As the cases of other similarly situated persons have not been considered while recommending the case of the petitioner to retire him in public interest, though the statutory functionary is bound to act fairly and to assign the reasons to support their findings. However, to single out the petitioner order impugned has been passed. 3. As the cases of other similarly situated persons have not been considered while recommending the case of the petitioner to retire him in public interest, though the statutory functionary is bound to act fairly and to assign the reasons to support their findings. However, to single out the petitioner order impugned has been passed. 3. Respondent no.2 by filing the return, inter alia contended that Rule 42(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules) empowers the appointing authority to retire a Government servant in public interest on completion of 20 years of service or 50 years of age. The State Government has issued a circular dated 22.8.2000 laying down the criteria, how and in what manner the scrutiny is to be done. As per the said circular a Committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutiny of the employees who comes within the said criteria. The said Committee comprises of Special Judge and two Additional District & Sessions Judges, Ujjain. They scrutinized the service record of 47 employees including petitioner, and after overall assessment, made the recommendation against petitioner and four others to retire them compulsorily leaving others to continue in employment. It is said that the Committee while considering the cases of 47 employees applied the uniform norms to all, and also in case of petitioner, thus, the plea to single out the petitioner recommendation was made by Committee, is incorrect hence denied. The averments regarding political motivation or mala fide intention were also specifically denied. It is said the Scrutiny Committee has considered the over all performance including CRs and made the recommendation based on the objective assessment. Thus, recommendation of Committee is based on bona fides, however, said interference in the facts is beyond the scope of judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. The respondent no.2 has again filed a detailed reply clarifying that after scrutiny of the service record of 47 employees, five persons were recommended and the petitioner is one of them. The said recommendations were placed before the appointing authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain who after perusal has approved those recommendations. It is further said that the service record of the petitioner was not found satisfactory due to a departmental enquiry wherein he was punished vide order dated 2.6.1999, inflicting major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. The said recommendations were placed before the appointing authority i.e. District & Sessions Judge, Ujjain who after perusal has approved those recommendations. It is further said that the service record of the petitioner was not found satisfactory due to a departmental enquiry wherein he was punished vide order dated 2.6.1999, inflicting major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. As the Screening Committee has not found him fit to be retained in the Government service, however, recommended to retire him compulsorily. The fact regarding approval of the recommendation by the State Government, as per circular dated 22.8.2000 has been denied in reference to the instructions of the High Court dated 27.6.1985 Annexure R/3. It is stated that the said instruction has not been superseded, as apparent from the note sheet of the District & Sessions Judge Annexure R/4. It is further said that one other employee retired by the same Scrutiny Committee along with the petitioner namely Santaji Rao Bhonsle, had filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No.3378/2001 assailing his order of compulsory retirement, which is dismissed on 16.9.2008 vide Annexure R/5 accepting the recommendation of the Committee. Thus, petitioner has rightly been retired compulsorily by passing the order impugned which do not warrant any interference in this petition. 5. The respondent no.1/State has filed its brief return adopting the return filed by respondent no.2, however, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the service record of the petitioner remained unblemished, however, without assessing the overall performance and the record, the recommendation of the Committee accepted by respondent no.2 is without recording its subjective satisfaction. In fact, petitioner remained in the benchmark of "Good" during the entire service career which is one of the vital consideration, however, ignoring the same, the recommendation made against him is not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the Committee has further considered the various other remarks, but without supplying those documents made him handicapped to put effective defence, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Pension Rules and as per the circular dated 22.8.2000, on making recommendation, approval of the State Government is necessary, however, without such approval order of compulsory retirement is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Pension Rules and as per the circular dated 22.8.2000, on making recommendation, approval of the State Government is necessary, however, without such approval order of compulsory retirement is illegal and without jurisdiction. Lastly, it is urged that the action taken by the respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory because the case of various other similarly situated employees have not been considered while making recommendation against him. In support of the said contentions reliance has been placed on the judgments in the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 , and Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi and others, (2013) 7 SCC 243 , therefore, prayed for quashment of the orders impugned, allowing this petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 has produced the original recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee for perusal of the Court and argued with vehemence that overall performance of the petitioner was not upto the mark and he was found below the benchmark "good". In the year 1999 on account of unauthorized absence and having negligent in discharge of duties, a departmental enquiry was conducted, wherein he was found guilty and the major penalty of withholding two increments was directed, thus the recommendation is based on objective assessment. The argument regarding competence of respondent no.2 to pass order without approval of the State Government has been seriously objected in view of the corrigendum of the High Court vide Annexure R/3 and R/4. It is further submitted that the plea of discrimination as raised by the petitioner is without any basis, therefore, no relief, as prayed in this petition can be directed. 8. After perusal of pleadings and hearing rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, as per the Pension Rules 42(1)(b), the appointing authority may retire a Government Servant in Public interest at any time on completion of 20 years of service, or on attaining 50 years of age whichever is earlier. 8. After perusal of pleadings and hearing rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, as per the Pension Rules 42(1)(b), the appointing authority may retire a Government Servant in Public interest at any time on completion of 20 years of service, or on attaining 50 years of age whichever is earlier. The procedure which is to be applied in scrutiny of the cases, has been reiterated in the G.A.D circular dated 20.8.2000, however, relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under :- 1- Nkuchu dj vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ekun.M%& 50 o"kZ dh vk;q vkSj vFkok 20 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus okys 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fy;s ewyHkwr fu;e 56 ,oa e/;izns'k flfoy lsok isa'ku fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 42 ds v/khu Nkuchu djrs le; vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr djus ds fy;s fuEukuqlkj ns[kk tk;s%& 1- bZekunkjh rFkk lR;fu"Bk lansgtud gksukA bl gsrq lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dk laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ns[kk tkdj vuq'kalk dh tk,A 2- 'kkjhfjd {kerk esa dehA 3- [;kfr ,oa dk;Z{kerk dk ewY;kadu lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod ds lsokdky ds laiw.kZ vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sA ;g vko';d ugha gS fd izR;sd izfrdwy vH;qfDr vFkok ,slh vH;qfDr ftls izfrdwy vH;qfDr dks laKk nh tk ldrh gS] 'kkldh; lsod dks lalwfpr dh xbZ gksA jkT; 'kklu] m0iz0 ,oa vU; fo:) fcgkjh yky] 1994 dh flfoy vihy dzekad 6307 , vkbZ vkj 1995 lqizhe dksVZ 1161 4- lEiw.kZ lsokdky ds vfHkys[kksa dk lexz ewY;kadu& vPNk & [k Js.kh ls de gksukA blds lkFk ;g Hkh ns[kk tkos fd 'kkldh; lsod dh dk;Zn{krk esa fxjkoV rks ugha vk jgh gSA fo'ks"kdj fiNys 5 o"kksZa ds dk;Z dk Lrj ?kV rks ugha jgk gSA 9. In addition to the said guidelines specified by the State Government for scrutiny of the employees to recommend them to retire compulsorily Honble the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 and in the case Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) has laid down the certain guidelines required to be considered and followed while making recommendations for compulsory retirement which is reproduced as thus :- The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus:- (i) Whenever 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 the 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. (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 was 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. 10. In view of the above, the broad guidelines are that honesty and integrity ought to be beyond doubt, an employee must be capable and his/her assessment ought to be done on the basis of entire service record giving weightage to the passing of adverse remarks. Even uncommunicated adverse entries may be taken into consideration. The service record of the employee should not be less than the benchmark "Good". It is further required to be seen that his efficiency has not reduced particularly during last five years. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain, (2002) 3 SCC 641 held that even an isolated adverse entry is sufficient to form an opinion to retire an employee compulsorily. Further, in the case of State of U.P. v. Bihari Lal, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 593, the Apex Court held that if the general reputation of an employee is not good, though there may not be any tangible material against him, he may be given compulsory retirement in public interest but the decision is to be taken bona fide. Honble Apex Court in the case of Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam (2003) 4 SCC 59 has observed that the Scrutiny Committee shall form an opinion objectively with a view whether any employee is fit to be retained in service or not. The said opinion must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority. 11. Honble Apex Court in the case of Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam (2003) 4 SCC 59 has observed that the Scrutiny Committee shall form an opinion objectively with a view whether any employee is fit to be retained in service or not. The said opinion must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority. 11. It is to be noted here that if broad guidelines have been observed by the Scrutiny Committee and the order of compulsory retirement has been passed to chop off the dead wood in public interest, the scope of judicial review is very limited. In this regard guidance may be taken from the judgments Posts and Telegraphs Board and others v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 ; Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati and another, (1996) 5 SCC 103 ; I.K. Mishra v. Union of India and others, (1997) 6 SCC 228 ; M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others, (1998) 7 SCC 310 and Rajat Baran Roy and others v. State of W.B. and others, (1999) 1 SCC 529 . Recently Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2010) 10 SCC 693 has restated the same principles indicating the scope of judicial review and observed that if decision is taken by the authority forming his opinion objectively on the basis of the material brought before him after subjective satisfaction in absence of having any allegation of mala fide or to show non application of mind in arbitrary exercise of powers, interference by the court is not warranted. 12. In the context of the norms so determined by the State Government as well as legal position reiterated by the Honble Apex Court by various judgments as discussed herein above to analyse the arguments of the petitioner with respect to malafide due to non-consideration of the case of other employees, non-consideration of the entire service record though he is having benchmark "Good" and without supplying the document, passing an order is required to be adverted to. In the said context the record of the Scrutiny Committee, placed for perusal of the Court is seen whereby it is clear that the cases of the 47 other employees have also been considered along with the case of the petitioner, and the performance of all the employees have been considered looking to the entire service record, CRs of last five years in particular and overall performance and other entries. By the said assessment, the Scrutiny Committee recommended retirement of petitioner along with four other persons. The performance chart of petitioner has already been brought to the notice of this Court which is reproduced as under :- ACRs Chart of Shri Noor Mohammad Pathan Year ACR (Grading) Heads under adverse remarks given Remark 1977-78 No remark 10 ----------fdUrq rkehyh izfr'kr esa lq/kkj vko';d gSA 1978-79 No remark 10 mls vius dk;Z esa vkSj lq/kkj ykuk pkfg;s mldk bl U;k;ky; ls LFkkukUrj fd;k tkosA 1981-82 . . Seen. He should improve his percentage. He is educated and if he improves and gives better performance he may have good prospects of being considered for promotion communicate. 1983-84 "P" POOR 6 lk/kkj.k] fdUrq uk0 ukftj }kjk crk;s rkehyh dk;Z ds le; fookn djuk o >xM+ukA . . 8 Bhd] izk;% 'kklu }kjk nh xbZ cnhZ ugha igurs gSaA -------------fdUrq fouezrk ughaA vkns'k dk ikyu ugha djrsa] bl ckor~ tq0uk0uk0 us fyf[kr izfrosnu fn;k gSaA . . 9 "P" POOR . . 10 LFkkukUrj gksuk vko';d] D;ksafd vU; izkslsl loZj Hkh buds ns[kk&ns[kh O;ogkj dj jgs gSaA 1984-85 No remark 6 vPNh ugha gS D;ksafd og okjaV dh rkfeyh fcYdqy ugha djrk vkSj dbZ ckj ldZy dh frfFk lekIr gksus ds ckn nsj ls eq[;ky; okil ykSVrk gSA . . 10 mldk dk;Z lUrks"ktud ugha gS D;ksafd vkerkSj ij rkfeyh cgqr de gSA og dbZ ckj nsj ls eq[;ky; okil ykSVk ftlds dkj.k nsj ls ykSVusa dh vof/k vkdfLed ekuh xbZ lEHkor% mldk LFkkukUrj lhrkem ls vlarks"ktud dk;Z ds dkj.k ;gkWa gqvk gSA 01-10-91 to 31-03-92 No remark 12 An average worker. . . 14 Need improve. 31-05-91 to 30-09-91 No remark 5 Talkative and slow worker. . 10 Not fit for promotion. 31-03-92 to 10-04-93 No remark 5 Slow in worker. . . 7 Require guidance. 1994-95 "D" Below average. . "D" Below average. . . 14 Need improve. 31-05-91 to 30-09-91 No remark 5 Talkative and slow worker. . 10 Not fit for promotion. 31-03-92 to 10-04-93 No remark 5 Slow in worker. . . 7 Require guidance. 1994-95 "D" Below average. . "D" Below average. 97-98 "C" GOOD 13 fu;fer :i ls mifLFkfr u gksus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; tkWap dh tkdj nks badzhesaV lap;h izHkko ls jksdus dh 'kkfLrA 1998-99 "C" GOOD 14 dk;ZLrj vkSj c<+k;s tkus dh vko';drk gSA Year ending 31-03-2000 "C" GOOD . isfUMax dk;Z dk fuiVkjk vkSj vPNh xfr ls djuk pkfg;sA On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that in the remark column, he was found to be average worker, slow worker, talkative, need improvement, not discharging his duties efficiently and not fit for promotion. In the year 1983-84, he has been categorized in the category "Poor", in the year 1994-95 he was graded "Below Average" (D). In the year 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000 he was graded as "Good" but in the departmental enquiry of 1997-98, a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was directed vide order dated 2.6.1999. In such circumstances, looking to the entire service record, gradation and over all performance, reputation of petitioner, it is clear that the opinion formed by the Scrutiny Committee is based on the objective assessment, which cannot be regarded without due application of mind or any mala fide intention. In addition, the argument regarding the mala fide without joining by name and making specific allegation against the members of the Screening Committee and appointing authority in this petition is hereby repelled. It is seen, the case of the petitioner has been considered along with other 47 employees, therefore, the allegation of arbitrary exercise of power to single out him is also unfounded. As the entire service record has been brought before this Court and after perusal thereto, it cannot be said that without any basis the order impugned has been passed prejudicing the right of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the argument regarding non-supply of the document is of no substance and is hereby rejected. Thus, in our considered opinion, the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee and taking decision by appointing authority retiring the petitioner compulsorily is not open for judicial review. In that view of the matter, the argument regarding non-supply of the document is of no substance and is hereby rejected. Thus, in our considered opinion, the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee and taking decision by appointing authority retiring the petitioner compulsorily is not open for judicial review. In-fact, the Scrutiny Committee has applied its mind to arrive at a conclusion that retention of the petitioner is not in public interest. The said recommendation and the order is based on subjective satisfaction of appointing authority which is beyond the scope of judicial review. 13. Now, reverting to the point of passing an order without approval of the State Government by the respondent no.2 is concerned, it is seen from the record that High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur has issued memorandum dated 27.6.1985 in the matter of screening of the employees for compulsory retirement, and to pass the order. The said memo is reproduced as under :- " : : HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR : : : : MEMORANDUM : : No . B/5666/Jabalpur III-18-117/84 (Durg). Dated the 27/June, 1985. To, The District and Sessions Judge, Subject: - Screening of Government Servants for compulsory retirement. * * * I am directed to invite your kind attention to instructions contained in the General Administration Department Memo.No.F/C/3- 24/84/3/1 dated 20.7.84 and to advise you to take necessary steps to scrutinize cases of all such Government Servants, who have put in 25 years of qualifying Service in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time and to make necessary recommendations under Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 42 of the M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1976 for approval of the Government. 2. I am further directed to make it clear that in view of the instructions contained in G.A.D. Memo. Dated 20.7.84 referred to above the District Judge's himself competent to retire a non-gazetted Government Servant compulsorily on attaining, the age of 55 years Under F.R.56(3) after screening of their cases. (Y.B. Suryavanshi) Registrar 14. As per the instructions of the High Court, the recommendation made against the petitioner has been placed before the respondent no.2 in reference to the said circular which is accepted by him and directed to issue the order. (Y.B. Suryavanshi) Registrar 14. As per the instructions of the High Court, the recommendation made against the petitioner has been placed before the respondent no.2 in reference to the said circular which is accepted by him and directed to issue the order. However, considering the memorandum dated 27.6.1985 the appointing authority recorded subjective satisfaction being competent and directed to proceed further by writing a note sheet which is reproduced as under :- ^^jkT; 'kklu us Kkiu fnukad 22-08-2000 ds vuqlkj lsok fuo`fRr dh vk;q 55 o"kZ ls ?kVkdj 50 o"kZ dh gS tks ewyHkwr fu;e 56 esa dh xbZ blds vykok isa'ku fu;e 42 ch esa Hkh bls tksM+k x;k gSA rc ;g r; fd;k tkuk Fkk fd D;k 50 ls vf/kd o"kZ dh vk;q iwjh djus ij fdlh deZpkjh dks fu;ksDrk vf/kdkjh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dj ldrk gS vFkok ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh lgefr vko';d gS D;ksafd mDr vkns'k fnukad 22-08-2000 ds }kjk iqjkus ftu ifji=ksa dks lekIr fd;k x;k muesa ifji= fnukad 27-06-1985 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk Kkiu ch@5666@rhu&18&117@84@nqxZ ls Hksts x, ifji= lekIr ugha gqvk gSA fQj Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls bl laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu pkgk x;k FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds Kkiu fnukad 14-11-2000 ls ,slk ugha dgk x;k gS fd ,sls deZpkfj;ksa dk ekeyk lgefr ds fy, muds ikl Hkstk tk, cfYd jkT; 'kklu ds ykxw fd, x, ifji= ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkus dh jk; nh xbZ gSA rc ifji= fnukad 27-06-1985 ds izdk'k esa 50 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q ds deZpkjh ftudh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr Nkuchu lfefr us vuq'kaflr dh gS] dks vfuok;Z :i ls lsok fuo`Rr fd;k tk ldrk gS vr,o rnuqlkj uksfVl fn;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ,u0 ds0 xqIrk ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] mTtSu e0iz0^^ 15. In view of the above by the memorandum of the High Court dated 27.6.1985, the GAD Memo dated 22.7.1984 was clarified, that the District Judges were themselves competent to retire non-gazetted government servants compulsorily on attaining the age of 55 years or 20 years of service under Rule 42 of Pension Rules or under Fundamental Rules 56(3). However, looking to the memorandum of the High Court, the competence of the District & Sessions Judge, cannot be doubted in absence of having any material to supersede the said memorandum of the High Court. However, looking to the memorandum of the High Court, the competence of the District & Sessions Judge, cannot be doubted in absence of having any material to supersede the said memorandum of the High Court. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel regarding competence of respondent no.2 or that the order cannot be passed without prior approval of the State Government is devoid of any merit, hence rejected. 16. In view of the above discussion and looking to the over all performance of the petitioner, and grading which reflects from the chart articulated herein above and also taking note of the adverse communications and the major penalty inflicted on 2.6.1999 vide Annexure P/6, the recommendations made by the Screening Committee is based on the opinion formed objectively with bona fides with due application of mind, and not arbitrary. The competent authority thereafter recorded subjective satisfaction on perusal of such recommendation while passing the order of compulsory retirement of petitioner. Thus, as per the discussion made, in fact situation of this case, interference is not warranted. 17. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned Annexure P/1 and P/2 retiring the petitioner compulsorily in public interest and to relieve him have rightly been passed, consequently the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed being devoid of any merit. In the facts of this case, parties to bear their own costs.