JUDGMENT : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. The record which was considered by the Screening Committee which recommend respondent compulsory retirement has been produced and has been seen by us. 3. The record shows that the Screening Committee met on 15.10.2004. It considered names of 50 persons for being retained or compulsorily retired on rendering 25 years service. Concerning the respondent the record placed before the Committee was only the penalties levied upon the respondent. The ACRs or performance appraisals of the respondent during his 25 years service were not place before the Committee. The Committee considered that on 27.01.1987, 25.02.1999, 27.02.2002, 28.02.2002 and 30.04.2004 penalties were levied upon the respondent. The penalty levied in the year 1987 is withholding of one increment. The next three penalties are only warnings. Last is a fine in sum of Rs. 2000/-. 4. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is that the penalties of warning and fine by themselves would not justify a decision to compulsorily retire the respondent. What has pained us is that fact that the Screening Committee did not bother to apprise the service of the respondent in the context of either ACRs grading or general remarks each year pertaining to the service of the respondent i.e. whether he was found to be average, below average, good, very good or excellent work. 5. Under the circumstances we find no fault with the impugned decision dated 3.7.2007 which has directed the respondent to be reinstated in service. 6. The writ appeal is dismissed. Writ appeal dismissed.