JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has assailed the impugned order dated 05/06/2003 whereby he was compulsorily retired. 2. The brief facts culled out from the material available on record are that the petitioner joined service on 27/07/1972 as a Clerk and was promoted from time to time. He was compulsorily retired from the post of Assistant Treasurer in the officer cadre. The petitioner submits that he has been wrongfully compulsorily retired and there was no material available with the respondents on the basis of which he could have been compulsorily retired. It is submitted that ACRs of the petitioner reflected that his service record was above board and his performance level was upto the mark. However, the review committee which considered his case for compulsory retirement has wrongfully mentioned that his record is not satisfactory and level of performance is not upto the mark. It is submitted that the review committee has wrongfully coloured his record and merely because there was a CBI case registered against him regarding disproportionate assets, the petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired. 3. It is further submitted that the charges relating to the petitioner’s involvement in criminal cases was wholly wrongful. Ultimately, the petitioner has been acquitted form the criminal cases and the benefit ought to have been gone in his favour. It is stated that the stale facts were considered for compulsorily retiring him. 4. It is submitted that while compulsorily retiring him, it has been noted that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case of attempt to murder which was mischievously published in the newspapers and relying upon the petitioner’s involvement in the case relating to attempt to murder and also treating his integrity as doubtful on the ground of CBI case having been registered against him, the authorities have proceeded to retire him in public interest invoking third proviso to Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the various ACRs which he has obtained under Right to Information Act and has strenuously argued that service record of the petitioner was above board. He had been continuously given remarks of being a hardworking and efficient officer and extraneous considerations ought not to have been taken into consideration to compulsorily retiring him. He had been continuously given remarks of being a hardworking and efficient officer and extraneous considerations ought not to have been taken into consideration to compulsorily retiring him. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the law laid down in the case of Badrinath Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others: 2000(8) SCC 395 remote incidents and stale facts ought not to have been taken into consideration to retire him compulsorily. It is further submitted that in the CBI case, which was the basis for treating the petitioner’s integrity as doubtful, the petitioner has been ultimately acquitted by the competent court of CBI vide its judgment dt. 15/03/2017 and therefore, the petitioner could not have been compulsorily retired. 6. With regard to the charge of morale turpitude, it is submitted that that a rape charge was levelled against him by one lady Neha Sharma who ultimately withdrew her allegations and deposed in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate thaqt kit was in sheer anger that she had levelled the charge of rape against the petitioner and later on the petitioner was discharged of the offence as the police also did not find the charge to be proved. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner’s compulsory retirement order is vitiated and without application of mind. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner could have been only looked into at the age of 50 years or when he attained the age of 55 years as per the master circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India which specifically directs for reviewing for officers cases for such retirement at the age of 50 or at the age of 55 and thereafter each year. In the circumstances, there was no case for reviewing the petitioner’s case for compulsory retirement when he was only 53 years of age. 7. In the circumstances, there was no case for reviewing the petitioner’s case for compulsory retirement when he was only 53 years of age. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents has taken this Court to the statement named by learned counsel for the petitioner relating to involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case for attempt to murder for which explanation was called from the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has concealed these facts from the authorities that he had been involved in the case of attempt to murder alongwith two other persons in an FIR which was lodged by one Narendra Kumar Gupta at Police Station, Jhotwara on 26th August, 1981. It has been revealed that the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which had been rejected. The result of the said case was not conveyed to the authorities even after the explanation having been sought from the petitioner. That apart, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner was involved in a case of attempt to rape levelled by one person, who in circumstances not known, has withdrew her statement later on and on account of her nonavailability, on technical grounds, the petitioner was discharged and was released in terms of Sec. 169 Cr.P.C.. 8. Apart from the aforementioned criminal involvement of the petitioner, it has been also pointed out that in the ACRs, the petitioner has been found to have been of doubtful integrity, the remark has not been challenged by the petitioner either in the present writ petition or otherwise. It is submitted that a single adverse remark of doubtful integrity is sufficient for the purpose of compulsorily retiring an individual. Learned counsel also points out that the later ACRs show that the reviewing officer did not agree with the opinion of the reporting officer regarding the petitioner’s conduct and his working and it is seen that there has been a continuous gradual declining of his service record. Taking into consideration all the aspects, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. It is further pointed out that in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another: (1992)2 SCC 299 , the Apex Court has held that even un-communicated ACRs and un-communicated record can be looked into for the purpose of compulsorily retiring an individual. 9. It is further pointed out that in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another: (1992)2 SCC 299 , the Apex Court has held that even un-communicated ACRs and un-communicated record can be looked into for the purpose of compulsorily retiring an individual. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aspects, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the authority compulsorily retiring the petitioner. This Court also finds that the impugned order dt.05/06/2003 has been challenged belatedly after a period of almost six years and so far as the acquittal of the petitioner is concerned, it is found that the acquit6tal in the case relating to disproportionate assets goes to show that the petitioner has been given the benefit of doubt and it is not a clean acquittal in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Ved Kaur: 2017(5) Scale 502 wherein it has been held that the benefit of acquittal can only relate to a case where an individual has been honourably acquitted and not otherwise. Apart from the above, the service record of the petitioner does not repose confidence to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean record and he is an efficient officer. This Court finds that there is adverse remark of doubtful integrity which has not been challenged by the petitioner even while challenging the present compulsory retirement order. Even a solitary remark of doubtful integrity is sufficient to compulsorily retire an employee. The impugned order thus does not warrant interference. 10. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No costs.