JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-a former Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax has prayed for the following reliefs:- 9(A) to admit this petition. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Respondents dated 02/06/2009 where by petitioner has been retired prematurely vide order at Annexure-A. (C) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, to stay and suspend the execution, implementation and operation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 02/06/2009 passed by the Respondents where by petitioner has been retired prematurely vide order at Annexure-A, (D) to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:- 2.1. The petitioner was serving on the post of Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax at Varaval. It is his case that he was performing his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty. According to him, his service record is reasonably good and he had worked to the satisfaction of his superior officers. 2.2. It is also his case that there were no adverse remarks against him in his confidential reports. It appears that on attaining the age of 50, his performance was reviewed in accordance with the Rule 10(4)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. The Screening Committee after taking into consideration the relevant materials gave an opinion that the petitioner should be made to retire prematurely. Based on the opinion expressed by the Screening Committee, the State Government passed the impugned order dated 02/06/2009 of premature retirement. 3. Hence this writ-application. 4. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order is erroneous in law. According to Mr. Desai, the State Government ought not to have relied upon the opinion of the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of reviewing the performance of the petitioner. Mr. Desai would submit that what weighed with the Screening Committee was the four departmental inquiries, which were instituted against the petitioner. The first inquiry was instituted in the year 1997 followed thereafter in the years 2001, 2004 and 2005. 5. According to Mr. Desai, the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the various Government Resolutions and instructions. Mr. Desai would submit that what weighed with the Screening Committee was the four departmental inquiries, which were instituted against the petitioner. The first inquiry was instituted in the year 1997 followed thereafter in the years 2001, 2004 and 2005. 5. According to Mr. Desai, the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the various Government Resolutions and instructions. According to him, the impugned order is tainted with mala fide. Mr. Desai, in such circumstances, prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Desai, has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) (2013) 3 SCC 514 Rajesh Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2) 1990 (Supp) SCC 771 R.P. Malhotra Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala & Ors (3) (1980) 4 SCC 321 Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India & Ors. (4) 2000 (0) GLHEL-HC 205307 Jagdish B. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat (5) 2000 (3) GUI 283 Ishwarbhai Marghabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 7. On the other-hand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents. He submits that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order. According to the learned AGP, all the relevant aspects were taken into consideration by the Screening Committee and based on the opinion expressed by the Committee, the impugned order came to be passed by the State Government in public interest. He would submit that no stigma is attached to the impugned order. He would submit that the necessary procedure prescribed in the Rules were complied with. He would submit that the scope of interference at the end of this Court is very minimal and having regard to the materials on record, this Court may not disturb the order. 8. The learned AGP has placed reliance on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner relying upon the Government Resolution dated 12.1.1999 more particularly clause-3 wherein its resolved that the committee shall consider the details of inquiries which are completed and consider the charges which are held to be proved and then the punishment can be imposed. 6. 1. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner relying upon the Government Resolution dated 12.1.1999 more particularly clause-3 wherein its resolved that the committee shall consider the details of inquiries which are completed and consider the charges which are held to be proved and then the punishment can be imposed. 6. The petitioner has also raised the contentions about belated decision as almost after 4 to 5 years. An inquiry, the impugned order has been passed, it is also contended by the petitioner that when he was about to turn 50 in the year 2009, the respondent herein deliberately sit tight over the inquiry reports for years and with a view to harass the petitioner an order of premature retirement has been passed. The petitioner has also relied upon the fact that Resolution dated 12.1.1999 and a prayed to consider his case on the ground that the inquiry was held earlier been completed and therefore as contended that the impugned order premature retirement on the ground on habitually causing monitory loss to the organization is beyond the scope of consideration of reviewing committee as add in finding him negligent and such finding stigma upon the officers and therefore also the impugned order and premature retirement is bad in eye of law and is required to be quash and set aside. It is further contended that the findings of the reviewing committee regarding petitioner honesty is not well-founded as dishonest and negligence cannot go together. The petitioner has also tried to rely upon the case of one Mr. Ashok J. Shah who was serving as Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, whereby the same department had also passed an order of premature retirement vide order dated 31.7.2007. The petitioner relying upon his case as further relied upon the order dated 5.9.2008 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Special Civil Application No. 28296 of 2007 At the last the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner was entitled for first higher pay scale in the year 1995 itself. In view of the Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994, the respondent herein has denied the petitioner the benefit of first higher pay scale which goes to show the harassment made by respondent herein. 7. At the outset, I am humbly say and submit that the petitioner herein has preferred this petition challenging the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the respondent no. 7. At the outset, I am humbly say and submit that the petitioner herein has preferred this petition challenging the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the respondent no. 1 herein whereby the petitioner who was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Sales-Tax has been prematurely retired considering Rule 10(4)(a) of Government Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 as well as in the larger public interest has passed the impugned order of the premature retirement of the petitioner, which is in accordance with due procedure of law. 8. I further humbly say and submit that the petition has been filed in the year 2009 and thereafter no interim order has been passed by this Hon'ble Court stay the execution, implementation and enforcement of the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 and therefore, since the passing of the order dated 2.6.2009 till date substantial period has passed and the petitioner has not remained in the service all throughout these years. I therefore say and submit that the Hon'ble Court may not entertain the present petition as the petitioner has only challenged the order premature retirement which has been passed by the respondent herein. 9. I say considering the larger interest of public and as per the procedure prescribed under the Rule 10(4)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, the order in question is passed. The same is just and proper and in accordance with law. 10. I say at this stage crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to place on record factual details relevant to the case of the petitioner more particularly the details of the four inquiries held against the petitioner wherein though the inquiry officer has exonerated him of the alleged charges but on plain reading of the alleged charges the reviewing committee has found the petitioner being habitually negligent in performing of his duty, which is ultimately resulted into gross review loss to the State. 11. I say so far as the first inquiry is concerned the same was initiated to by serving charge-sheet dated 26th September, 1997 upon the petitioner when he was serving as Sale-Tax Officer Class-1, Division-3 at Ahmedabad during 6th May to 28th March, 1991. The same was initiated as he had not reported the use "C" forms documents at the time of initiating over the charge. The same was initiated as he had not reported the use "C" forms documents at the time of initiating over the charge. That the petitioner was further found negligent in his duties more particularly when the said "C" forms were not transferred and therefore due procedure was followed by the department by initiating department inquiry against the petitioner. Upon such inquiry, the inquiry officer had found the petitioner negligent perform the duties. After following due procedure, the State Government had come to a conclusion that delinquent petitioner was negligent in his duties as "C" form were missing and based upon the fact finding inquiry report, the State Government has proposed and decided to impose punishment. The petitioner however, consulted with Government public service commission, as per rules, the State Government had imposed a major penalty and reducing to one stage lower in pay scale for a period of 1 year without future effect vide resolution order dated 23.8.2002 annexed herewith and marked at Annexure-R/1 is the copy of Financial Department order dated. 23.8.2002. 12. I say in the second case the petitioner was found to be negligent inasmuch as that he had not scrutinize the changes in a proper manner and had not taken proper care to take security, before holding registration number to one trader namely M/s. Jignesh Enterprise then during inquiry it was found for the said traders had got bogus registration number and was found to be involved in illegal activities of tax evasion. In the said inquiry it was found that gross of the negligent and lack of the integrity of the petitioner, the State Government had suffered loss. The petitioner was also charged to issue four books of forum 24B and one book of form 'A' in proper manner. The charge-sheet was issued by the finance department on 28th June 2001 and through the inquiry the aforesaid charges were found to be proves against the petitioner. 13. I further humbly say and submit that based upon the fact that finding inquiry of the inquiry officer, the State Government had decided to impose penalties considering the fact that gravity of charges proved against the petitioner that vide order dated 28.12.2006, the final order came to be pass imposing penalty of staged of a one increment for a period of 2 years without future effect. 14. 14. I say, in the third case, at that time the petitioner was serving as a Sale Tax Officer Class-1, Circle four at Ahmedabad wherein he was found to have acted inquiry in preferring C form and H form and the said forms have been founded to be rubbed and scrubbed out which is ultimately given under favour, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 13.4.2005 and the inquiry officer had conducted inquiry and the charges were not found to be proved against the petitioner. That based upon such act findings inquiry report, the State Government vide order dated 16.1.2007 had passed the order penalizing the petitioner that has been of one increment for a period of 1 year without future effect herein. 15. I say in fourth case, at that time the petitioner was served as a Service Sale-Tax Officer-1, Ghatak-4, Ahmedabad during the period of 3.7.1996 to 30.04.1998 and thereafter, from 1.5.1998 to 11.5.2000 as sale tax officer-1, City Unit-27, Ahmedabad. At that time the petitioner was found to be negligent in not taking due care of RPO (Refund Payment Order) books which otherwise are considered as important documents and are required to be placed in a safe and secure place. That the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 30.7.2004 wherein five charges are levelled against him regard to missing of refund payment order book bearing Sr. No. 6921 to 7000. That the petitioner even failed to instructed the petitioner for immediately payment having known about the missing of RPO book. Based on such charges the departmental inquiry was initiated and upon the conclusion of the department inquiry the inquiry officer held that all the 5 charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. The State Government thereby in consultation with the government public service commission passed an order dated 20.11.2007 imposing major upon of reducing one such lower in pay scale for one year without future effect. 16. In view of the aforesaid four department inquiries held against he petitioner, I humbly say and submit that two charges were there found to be the cases were major penalty have been imposed upon the petitioner and rest of the two penalties are minor penalties imposing against the petitioner. Therefore, strongly denied that the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by respondent no. Therefore, strongly denied that the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 passed by respondent no. 1 herein is illegal, unjust, and unfair or is passed with any mala fide intention to harass the petitioner or to spoil his reputation by having any grudge against the petitioner. 17. I further strongly denied that out of 4 inquiries held against the petitioner most of the charges against the petitioner were proved by the inquiry officer. On the contrary and on plain reading of all the 4 decisions of the State Government imposing major/minor penalties indicates that primary the petitioner was found to be negligent in his duties. 18. I humbly submit that the petitioner being a responsible state officer was required to perform his duty with utmost care and with responsibility further on plain reading of the aforesaid orders of the State Government one founds that on 4 different occasions the petitioner was found to be negligent and as in fact not proper taken care to see to pay that may documents of the State Government which are otherwise required to be kept in safe custody were found to be missing. One can note that though the RPO books were issuing in the month of July 1997, the petitioner lodged the complaint in the Court almost after 2 and half years which otherwise indicates the lack of integrity and lack of devotion of his duty. 19. I humbly say and submit that in view of the Government Circular dated 21.7.1989 being no. CRA-1098-CM.28-G.2 issued by the General Administrative Department, whereby the State Government has constituted a reviewing committee consisting of Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Sale-Tax Commissioner, State of Gujarat, Chief Secretary (A.B.), Finance Department and Deputy Secretary (K.G.), Chief Administrative Department whereby after assessing the performance of the officers who have reached age of 50 to 55 years, decision is taken by the reviewing committee whether to continue such officers in service or to premature retirement. 20. I further humbly say and submit that] while assessing the performance of the officer the past Confidential Report about the service of the officer more particularly of such 10 years which places before the reviewing committee with assess the performance of said officer. 20. I further humbly say and submit that] while assessing the performance of the officer the past Confidential Report about the service of the officer more particularly of such 10 years which places before the reviewing committee with assess the performance of said officer. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned confidential reports of last 10 years of the petitioner starting from year 2000-2001 where to be placed further in case of petitioner the confidential reports of the year 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 could not be submitted has he was suspended during this period. So far as remaining confidential reports of year 2003-2004 to 2009-2010 (7 years confidential reports) were placed before the reviewing committee wherein performance was "good". While assessing the performance of the petitioner the reviewing committee had also gone through the department inquiries and the charges leveled against the petitioner in the respective inquiries as well as had also administrative the State Government orders imposing two major penalties and two minor penalties. Taking into consideration overall confidential reports as well as the departmental inquiries records as well as the charges and the order of imposing penalties, the reviewing committee arrived at a findings that the petitioner was grossly negligent in performing his duty and infact he was in habitually negligent which had ultimately resulted into loss of government revenue public exchequer is suffered. At the end of the revenue the committee purpose to premature retire the petitioner in terms of rule 10(4)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. 21. I therefore humbly say and submit that the respondent herein upon receipt of such proposal from the reviewing committee was placed to pass the impugned order dated 2.6.2009, premature retiring the petitioner considering the overall assessment of the performance of the petitioner during the tenure as sale-tax officer wherein he was found to be grossly negligent in performing his duties which had ultimately resulted in financial loss to the State Government. I further humbly say and submit that even otherwise as per the various precedents laid downs. (See J.N. Sinha & Anr., 1970 2 SCC 458 ). 22. I further humbly say and submit that even otherwise as per the various precedents laid downs. (See J.N. Sinha & Anr., 1970 2 SCC 458 ). 22. I say so far as the contentions of the petitioner that the petitioner has been wrongly premature retired without appreciating the Government Resolution dated 12.1.1999, more particularly on the ground that in the past inquiries there was no conclusion with regard to the monitory loss is beyond the scope of reviewing committee is totally misconceived and I strongly denied the same. 23. I humbly say and submit that on perusal of all the orders so far as one came make out that on the order dated 6th January, 2007 though there was no financial loss found to the State Government however, missing of C Form and H Form were proved and there were serious allegations of scratching and corrections of the accounts. At the same time, the penalty order dated 19th November 2007 may also be considered whereby also important document like RPO book bearing Sr. No. G 9121, G7000 were found to be missing and unofficial refund orders were issued which related into loss of an amount of Rs. 18,93,580/-. I therefore humbly say and submit that the impugned order dated 2nd June 2009 has been passed by the respondent herein after following due procedure of law as provided under the government resolution dated 12.1.1999 and in terms Rules was framed more particularly rule 10(4)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I humbly prayed to the Hon'ble Court that so far as the reliance place in case of Shri A.J. Shah, Assistant Commissioner is concerned, there also the petition is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court and no interim relief has been granted by the Hon'ble Court as present also the said Shri A.J. Shah is premature retire and he has not more in service, even otherwise each case has to be came on its own merits and I therefore humbly say and submit that when the petitioner herein is found to be negligent. 9. He has placed reliance on the following decisions:-- (1) 2011 (1) GLH 193 NP. Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2) 1970 (2) SCC 458 Union of India Vs. J.N. Sinha (3) 2010 (10) SCC 693 Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 9. He has placed reliance on the following decisions:-- (1) 2011 (1) GLH 193 NP. Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2) 1970 (2) SCC 458 Union of India Vs. J.N. Sinha (3) 2010 (10) SCC 693 Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (4) LPA No. 579 of 2000, dtd. 29/01/2010 Chandrakant Madhavji Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Anrs. 10. The report of the Screening Committee is as under:- Note on proceedings of the meeting convened on 30/03/2009 to decide whether to retire or to continue in service Government Officers of 50-55 years age. (Circular No. CRA-1098-CM.28-G2 dated 21/07/1989 issued by General Administration Department) Preliminary Information 1 Name of Division/Department Finance Division Commercial-Tex Department 2 (A) Name of Officer reviewed/designation Shri M.G. Prajapati Assistant Commissioner of Commercial-Tex, Class-I (B) Date of Birth When 50-55 yrs age is attained 01/06/1958 Completes 50 years on 31/05/2008 (C) Class of post Assistant Commissioner of Commercial-Tex, Class-I Pay-Scale 8000-275-13500 3 Upper limit for recruitment as per concerned recruitment rules 33 years 4 Committee meeting date 30-03-2009 5 Members present in the Review Committee 1. Shri M.M. Shrivastav Principal Secretary (Finance) Finance Department 2. Shri P.K. Pujari Commissioner of Commercial-Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad 3. Shri Tapan Ray Principal Secretary (Economic Affairs) Finance Department 4. Shri I.N. Solanki Deputy Secretary (K.G.) General Administration Department 6. Review Committee considered the following issues for review. (1) Year-wise details of Confidential Reports: Out of 10 confidential reports for the period from 1997-98 to 2007-08, there are no adverse remarks against Shri M.G. Prajapati for the period 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. During the confidential report period 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 (from 01/04/02 to 07/07/02), for the period for which he was (in chapter of lost R.P.O.) kept under suspension for the period from 10/05/2000 to 07/07/2000, the confidential reports have not been written for the said period. In his confidential report for the period from 01/11/1999 to 31/03/2000, regarding his honesty, it has been noted that he has been kept under suspension vide Finance Department order no. VVK/102000/KHA347(67) CH dated 10/05/2000 and at the end of the departmental inquiry in that chapter, Finance Department vide order dated 19/11/2007 decided to impose major punishment by lowering one stage from the basic pay received in the present pay scale for a period of 1 year with future effect. VVK/102000/KHA347(67) CH dated 10/05/2000 and at the end of the departmental inquiry in that chapter, Finance Department vide order dated 19/11/2007 decided to impose major punishment by lowering one stage from the basic pay received in the present pay scale for a period of 1 year with future effect. Hence he is proved to be a dishonest officer. In confidential report of 2002-03, for the period from 06/07/2002 to 28/02/2003, the reviewing officer in column 3 pertaining to honesty of the officer, has noted that police complaint has been filed against Shri Prajapati for deceiving by misusing R.P.O. book and police has framed charges. Hence no opinion can be given regarding integrity. In confidential report for the period from 01/04/2005 to 30/09/2005, the reporting officer in column 9 of Part-3 has given "JI, NAA" remarks. The reviewing officer has disagreed with the same and has noted that the charge sheet given to Shri Prajapati in case of M/s. Flow Control Industries vide order dated 13/04/2005 has not been mentioned. Charge of lack of integrity as shown in the said charge sheet is proved. Hence, in above three confidential reports, integrity of Shri Prajapati has been noted to be suspicious, which is proved at the end of departmental inquiry. (2) Opinion regarding physical and mental efficiency of an officer for performing duties assigned to him: Shri M.G. Prajapati Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Class-I is physically and mentally efficient to perform duties assigned to him. (3) Department inquiry/Disciplinary action/Information of Criminal case: There is no adverse note in the confidential reports of Shri Prajapati. But the committee has observed that, in past proceedings in departmental inquiries as per rules have been initiated in four chapters and out of these four chapters, in two chapters minor punishment of stopping increments have been imposed and in the remaining two chapters, major punishments of reduction in Basic Pay by lowering stage of pay-scale have been imposed. Regarding Seriousness of above charges: (1) When Shri Prajapati was working as Sales-Tax Officer, Class-I, Unit-3, Ahmedabad between 06/05/1990 to 20/03/1991, at the time of giving-taking of charge, had shown negligence towards his duty by not handing over the important documents of unused returned C forms which has resulted in mistake of losing C forms and for which departmental inquiry proceedings have been initiated against him by serving him charge sheet vide list no. VVK/KHA139/41/CHH dtd. 26/09/1997. VVK/KHA139/41/CHH dtd. 26/09/1997. At last, on charges being proved, vide order dated 23/08/2002, after obtaining consent from Gujarat Public Service Commission, major punishment of lowering of one stage of pay from basic pay for one year without future effect was imposed and during the implementation of punishment, no granting of increment was imposed on him. Hence, in this case, lack of integrity and gross negligence towards duty are proved. (2) In another chapter, Shri Prajapati had (1) by not properly verifying sufficient proof for giving registration number to M/s. Jignesh Enterprise/not taking care in asking for security, has shown negligence towards his duty. As a result of which, the dealer after obtaining bogus registration number, has restarted to tax-evasion by obtaining statutory forms through improper manner and (2) issued 4 books of Form 24(B) and 1 book of Form A by improper procedure to M/s. Gita Enterprise. For this, departmental inquiry as per rules was initiated against him after serving him charge sheet vide list no. VVK/2296/MANTRI-122/131/CHH dtd. 20/06/2001 and on charges being proved, minor punishment of stopping increment due on 01/08/2007 for 2 years without future effect was imposed on him vide order dtd. 28/12/2006. Hence, in this case, charges of lack of integrity and negligence towards duty were proved. (3) In third chapter, Shri Prajapati working as Sales-Tax Officer, Class-I, Unit-4, Ahmedabad, while assessing M/s. Flow Control Industries for the periods 1990-91 and 1994-95, had granted C forms and H forms though they bore correction marks and by doing so, he had shown negligence towards his duties. In this case, he was given charge sheet vide list no. VVK/2299/VO-1/116/CHH dtd. 13/04/2005 and at the end of proceedings, vide order dated 16/01/2007, he was punished with stoppage of one increment due for 1 year without future effect. Hence, in this case, charges of lack of integrity and lack of devotion towards duty were proved. (4) In fourth chapter, when Shri Prajapati was working as Sales-Tax Officer(1), Ahmedabad District, unit-4, Ahmedabad between 03/07/1996 to 30/04/1998 and as Sales-Tax Officer(1), City Unit-37, Ahmedabad between 01/05/1998 to 11/05/2000, for 5 charges different charges pertaining to loss of R.P.O. (Refund Payment Order) Book No. 6921 to 7000, (for not taking care of maintaining of Refund Book and making stop-payment) charge sheet was given vide list no. VVK-10200-KHA-347(67) CHH dated 30/07/2004. VVK-10200-KHA-347(67) CHH dated 30/07/2004. At the end of departmental inquiry proceedings as per rules was initiated against him, due to proving of 5 charges, after obtaining consent of Gujarat Public Service Commission, major punishment of lowering of one stage of pay from basic pay for 1 year with future effect was imposed vide order dtd. 19/11/2007, whose implementation is still continuing. In this case, as a responsible officer of the State Government, by not properly maintaining mainly the R.P.O. book in his custody, it has resulted in negligence towards duty. After the R.P.O. book was lost in July, 1997 and after seeking explanation of the Clerk for the same, police complaint was lodged on 13/02/2000, after a delay of two and half years. As a result, R.P.O. book has been misused. R.P.O. book which is used to make payment by the Govt., in this case also, lack of devotion towards his duty and showing lack of integrity were proved. Opinion of Committee at the end of Review: Out of Confidential reports of Shri Maganlal Ganeshbhai Prajapati for the last 10 years, confidential reports for 7 years are Good. Because of his suspension from service, confidential reports for 3 years have not been written and he is physically and mentally alright. But looking to the seriousness of charges proved in 2 chapters of the departmental inquiries initiated against him in past, major punishments have been imposed against him and minor punishments have been imposed against him in 2 chapters. Hence, while executing his duties as a responsible officer of the State Government, he has repeatedly shown gross negligence towards his duties and has been a officer with Habitual Offender resulting into loss of government revenue of tax income. Keeping in view the above facts, Review Committee, as per the provisions of Rule 10(4)(A) of Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, after 50 years of age, in the public interest recommends to pre-maturely retire from service Shri Maganlal Ganeshbhai Prajapati, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial-Tax, Class-I after attaining age of 50 years. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Government committed any error in passing the impugned order. 12. It appears that there were four inquiries against the petitioner. The details of those are as under:- (a) Inquiry related to C Form. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the Government committed any error in passing the impugned order. 12. It appears that there were four inquiries against the petitioner. The details of those are as under:- (a) Inquiry related to C Form. Vide inquiry report dated 05/09/1999 the inquiry officer held that charges against the petitioner were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the said report and after giving petitioner opportunity to defend himself imposed a penalty of downgrading his pay scale without future effect for one year and the petitioner shall not be entitle to increment during the period of punishment vide order dated 23/08/2002. (b) Jignesh Enterprise, Prantij. Vide charge sheet dated 20/06/2001 (At Annexure F Page-58), charges were framed against the petitioner wherein the charges were in respect of the petitioner's negligence in getting proper security while giving the certificate of registration and with regard to issuance of 4 books of form no. 24(b) and one book of F form. Vide inquiry report at (At Annexure-H Page-84 to 109). The inquiry officer held that both the charges were not proved. Though the inquiry report was submitted in 2002 (01/04/2002), the same was considered after 4 years in 2006 and the inquiry report (At Annexure-I page-110) was no accepted after four years vide order dated 04/04/2006. In respect of the aforesaid inquiry after hearing the petitioner a penalty of stoppage of 1 increment for 2 years without future effect was imposed. (c) Inquiry in respect of Missing RPO Book (Refund Postal Order Book) In this respect vide chargesheet dated 30/07/2004 (At Annexure-L Page-133) (At Annexure-I Page-110) the charges were framed against the petitioner in respect of missing RPO Book in following manner. (1) He lodged the complain after two and half years and thereby he is negligent. (Page-137). (2) He was negligent in informing the higher officers about missing RPO Book and it's stop payment. (3) He did not made entry in the register about missing RPO Book. (4) He should have kept the refund order in his custody but he did not which amounts, to negligence. (5) He is INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for financial loss. (Page-137). (2) He was negligent in informing the higher officers about missing RPO Book and it's stop payment. (3) He did not made entry in the register about missing RPO Book. (4) He should have kept the refund order in his custody but he did not which amounts, to negligence. (5) He is INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for financial loss. Inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer in respect of the aforesaid charges and the inquiry officer held that all the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Finding of inquiry officer is (page 166 AAA to 166 AAE) The disciplinary authority did not accept the said inquiry report vide order 14/09/2006 (Annexure-O Page-167) Vide order dated 17/11/2007 the petitioner was punished with a punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. As per the Hand Writing Report Expert (Annexure-Q Page-182) The hand writing expert submitted its report that the hand writing are not of the petitioner but are of one Ashish B. Patel alias Chaturbhai Keshavlal Prajapati. (d) Flow Control Here the petitioner was served with a charges sheet dated 13/04/2005 and allegations against the petitioner was that he access the Sales Tax at the rate of 4% with regard to one M/s. Flow Control Industries inspite of the fact that C form were no produced with it. Chargesheet is (Annexure-S Page-213). In respect of this inquiry officer submitted his report where in inquiry officer was of the view that only one charge sheet against the petitioner with regard to Form-H is proved but charge with regard to Form-C is not proved. Inquiry Report (Annexure-U Page-234 findings at Page 259) The said inquiry report was also not accepted and ultimately the petitioner was punished with a punishment of stoppage of one increment for two years without future effect vide undated order. 13. The principles on which a Government servant can be ordered to be compulsorily retired were authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 . In Paragraph 34, the principles have been summed up as follows:- "34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. In Paragraph 34, the principles have been summed up as follows:- "34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, moreso, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above. 14. The aforesaid principles have been re-examined and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma (2012 AIR SCW 1791). The principles have been restated as follows:- 34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. The principles have been restated as follows:- 34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACRs which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to formation Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. 36. The material on which the decision of the compulsory retirement was based, as extracted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, and material furnished by the appellant would reflect that totality of relevant materials were not considered or completely ignored by the High Court. This leads to only one conclusion that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was not based on the sufficient or relevant material. In this view of the matter, we cannot say that the service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory which would warrant premature retirement from service. Therefore, there was no justification to retire the appellant compulsorily from service. 15. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel ( AIR 2001 SC 1109 : 2001 AIR SCW 862) (supra), the same principles were reiterated in the following words:- "11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized 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. (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. (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." 16. In the case of Jugal Chandra Saikia ( AIR 2003 SC 1362 : 2003 AIR SCW 1787) (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the principles in the following words:- "6...It cannot be disputed that the passing of an order of compulsory retirement depends on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, of course on objective consideration. Unless it is shown that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily and without application of mind or that such formation of opinion to retire compulsorily was based on no evidence or that the order of compulsory retirement was totally perverse, the court cannot interfere." Examining the record of the appellant therein and the material that was placed before the Screening Committee, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that on an objective consideration of the material on the record it was not possible to accept the argument that the Screening Committee had acted only on the basis of the report of the Rao Committee. It was found that the recommendations of the Screening Committee were based on the relevant material. 17. The Supreme Court examined whether the order of compulsory retirement, passed in that case, cast a stigma on the appellant No. 2. The impugned order therein had recited that there was "want of application to the Banks work and lack of potential" and "he has also been found not dependable". 17. The Supreme Court examined whether the order of compulsory retirement, passed in that case, cast a stigma on the appellant No. 2. The impugned order therein had recited that there was "want of application to the Banks work and lack of potential" and "he has also been found not dependable". It was the case of the appellant No. 2 that the aforesaid expressions were stigmatic as they cast aspersions on his conduct, character and integrity. The High Court rejected the plea of the appellant No. 2 on the ground that the recitals do not cast any stigma but only assesses the work of appellant No. 2 for determining the issue of his compulsory retirement. In these circumstances, it was observed that the object of the compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful, so as to preserve purity in the administration. The order of compulsory retirement was distinguished from the order of dismissal and removal, as it does not inflict any punishment on the Government servant. It only deprives the Government servant of the opportunity to remain in service till the age of superannuation. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement differs from an order of dismissal or removal both in its nature and consequence. However, in case it is found that the order is stigmatic or punitive it would be treated as an order of punishment, which cannot be passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) and the rules of natural justice. Upon examination of a large body of case law, it was observed that the order of compulsory retirement does not cast a stigma on the Government servant. But if the order contains a statement casting aspersion on his conduct or character, then the Court will treat the order as an order of punishment, attracting the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the facts of that case, it was concluded that the two recitals contained in the order of premature retirement had been made in relation to the work of appellant No. 2 and not for any other purpose. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court. (In Officers Association Vs. Allahabad Bank, 1996 4 SCC 2004). 18. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court. (In Officers Association Vs. Allahabad Bank, 1996 4 SCC 2004). 18. Thus, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for the exercise of power of judicial review, by the courts in matters relating to the compulsory retirement. In each case of the compulsory retirement which is assailed before a Court of law, the Court is required to examine as to whether the power of compulsory retirement has been exercised by a competent authority and as to whether the competent authority has objectively considered the material placed before if for forming an opinion that the employee concerned has out-lived his utility or that his retention in public service is not justified. If the Court finds that the order has not been passed by a competent authority, there will be ample justification for interference with the order of retirement on the ground of lack of authority. Likewise, where the court finds that the power of compulsory retirement has been exercised without consideration of the relevant material or where it is found that the competent authority has relied on extraneous factors or has not applied its mind or has reached to a conclusion which no reasonable man would have arrived in similar circumstances, the Court will be justified in upsetting the order of premature retirement. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement for extraneous considerations or by ignoring relevant factors can appropriately be construed as exercise of power which suffers from malice in law inviting interference by the Court. The court will, no doubt not act as an appellate authority and will not re-evaluate the materials placed before the competent authority for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the employee should be kept in service or not but it will be the duty of the court to look into such record with a view to find out as to whether the competent authority has objectively applied its mind to the relevant considerations. 19. 19. The proposition, which emerge from the above analysis of the Rules, the instructions and the various judicial precedents referred to herein above, are:- (a) The employer is not required to comply with the principles of natural justice before an order of premature retirement of an employee is passed because such an order is not punitive and it does not cast any stigma on the employee. However, where the order of retirement is passed as a measure of punishment, the employee has to make an inquiry in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice. (b) The decision to retire an employee is to be taken by the government/appropriate authority on forming the opinion that it is in public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. (c) Though the satisfaction of the government about the utility and fitness of the employee to be retained in service is subjective, the same has to be formed on an objective consideration of the relevant factors. (d) The Government or the Committee, who is entrusted with the task of making an evaluation of the record of the employee, must consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter, but greater importance should be attached to the record of the employee and his performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would only include the entries in the confidential reports (bad as well as good) and the punishment, if any, imposed. (e) If the government servant is promoted to a higher post after consideration of the adverse reports, if any, then such reports will lose their sting. This principle will apply with greater rigour where promotion is based purely on merits. (f) Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. (g) Where the rule empowering the government/appropriate authority to prematurely retire a servant is silent, the government can issue administrative instructions laying down guidelines for the exercise of power of premature retirement. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well. (g) Where the rule empowering the government/appropriate authority to prematurely retire a servant is silent, the government can issue administrative instructions laying down guidelines for the exercise of power of premature retirement. Such guide-lines are to be kept in view while considering the case of the employee for premature retirement/compulsory retirement but they cannot be read as controlling the discretion of the government/appropriate authority. (h) If the record of the employee in relation to the earlier year contains average and not so good entries but in the later years his performance shows positive improvement, then there must exist some cogent reasons for exercise of the power of premature retirement. (i) The Court will ordinarily not interfere with the bona-fide exercise of power by making an evaluation of the service record of the employee as an appellate authority but where the exercise of power by the government or the appropriate authority is vitiated by violation of the statutory provisions governing the exercise of such power of where the appropriate authority fails to apply its mind to the record of the employee in the objective manner or where the appropriate authority forms opinion about the utility of the employee by relying on extraneous factors, then the Court not only has the power but duty to exercise the power of judicial review to invalidate the order of retirement. 20. If the case of the petitioner is examined in the light of the above discussion, there is little difficulty in holding that the recommendations made by the Screening Committee for the petitioner's retirement from service and the order passed by the State Government do not suffer from any illegal error warranting interference by the Court. It is not the case of no evidence or a case of non-application of mind or consideration of extraneous materials. No doubt, the Annual Confidential Reports did not contain many adverse entries and are found to be good, but the various acts of irregularities committed by the petitioner, for which he has been punished by the Competent Authority, have been rightly taken into consideration by the Screening Committee for forming an opinion that his further retention in service is not in public interest. The orders of punishment passed by the Competent Authority constituted adequate material on the basis of which any person of ordinary prudence can form a bonafide opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be continued in service. Therefore, I am unable to agree with Mr. Desai that the impugned order is arbitrary or it is vitiated due to non-application of mind. 21. In my opinion, the impugned order of the premature retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision. The same does not need to be a reasoned order stating reasons that why the concerned authority had been prematurely retired. 22. Since the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic the facet of the principle of natural justice cannot be imported. None of the decision relied upon by Mr. Desai are helpful to the petitioner in any manner. They are all distinguishable on the facts of the case. 23. I take notice of the fact that as on date there is a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in the form of the Criminal Case No. 197 of 2002 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 15. The prosecution is for the offence punishable under Sections-409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 24. In the light of the discussion, the writ-application fails and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.