Judgment Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State and its concerned functionaries against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition, SWP no.1383/2015. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government order no.858-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015, whereby the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from Government service, and directed the respondents to take the petitioner back into service and to grant him all consequential service benefits. 2. We heard Mr. Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. M. A. Baigh, learned AAG, and Mr. A. Haqani, learned counsel, for the respondent, writ petitioner. 3. At the outset, we deem it useful to mention that a Government servant, serving under the State of Jammu and Kashmir, holds his office at the pleasure of the Governor of the State as provided in Section 125 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir corresponding to Article 310 of the Constitution of India. However, this pleasure doctrine is subject to the law and / or the Rules that are or may be made under Sections 124 and 126 of the State Constitution and, of course, Section 5 thereof. One such set of Rules framed are the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (for short CSRs). Its provisions are referred to as Articles, and Article 226(2) thereof reads as under: “226(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Government may, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, require any Government Servant other than the one working on a post which is included in Schedule-II of these Rules, to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years / 44 completed six months periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age; provided that the appropriate authority shall give in this behalf a notice (in one of the forms prescribed in annexure A and B hereto, as the case may be), to the Government servant at least 3 months before the date on which he is required to retire or 3 months of pay and allowance in lieu of such notice. Such a Government servant shall be granted pensionary benefits admissible under these rules on the basis of qualifying service put in by him on the date of such retirement.” The exercise of power under the aforesaid provision of the CSRs is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure, but it is not subject to the observance of rules of natural justice. The provision also excludes the safeguards envisaged under Section 126 of the State Constitution corresponding to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, as the plain language used in the provision makes it axiomatic, the Government can compulsorily retire a Government servant, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. So, the sole ground on which a Government servant can be compulsorily retired is the opinion of the Government that it is in public interest to do so. 4. It may also be said here that efficiency and honesty are two very important facets of public services and, consequently, these are fundamental attributes of a public servant. Naturally, therefore, if a public servant is bereft of any of the above two attributes, his continuance in service would not be in public interest and such a public servant can, therefore, be compulsorily retired before attaining the prescribed age of superannuation. However, this provision also lays down the safeguards of the minimum service at which such retirement can be ordered and protection of service benefits earned by him etc. The question as to what should be the principles or standards to determine whether a public servant is or is not efficient or honest has come up before the Supreme Court since long, and over the years explicit guidelines have been laid down in numerous judgments in that connection. We would refer to the relevant guidelines later. At this stage, we deem it apt to say that if it is proven that a public servant is inefficient or corrupt, he can be dismissed from service on such a proven misconduct. However, it may not always be possible to establish or prove by positive evidence that a government servant is inefficient or that he is dishonest. In such situations, the power of compulsory retirement can be invoked subject to the opinion envisaged by Article 226(2) of the CSRs. However, it may not always be possible to establish or prove by positive evidence that a government servant is inefficient or that he is dishonest. In such situations, the power of compulsory retirement can be invoked subject to the opinion envisaged by Article 226(2) of the CSRs. At the same time, such opinion about a public servant cannot be reached at in abstract; there has to be some material which would lead the appropriate authority to such an opinion. What that material should be has also been the subject of determination in numerous cases before the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, and now the matter on specifics of the material has almost been conclusively settled. In fact, the State Government has issued guidelines in that behalf based on the judgments of the Supreme Court, envisaging the material that should be considered. The material includes the entire service record of the Government servant, including his ACRs / Character Roll etc., which would speak volumes about him. General reputation of a public servant is one such factor that can help the appropriate authority in framing such opinion. Similarly, inefficiency of a public servant can also be gathered from his service record. Let us now come to the order of compulsory retirement passed in the instant case. 5. The compulsory retirement order issued by the Government against the respondent reads as under: “Government of Jammu and Kashmir General Administration Department Civil Secretariat: Jammu/Srinagar Government Order No.858-GAD of 2015 Dated: 30.06.2016 Whereas the Government is of opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, the Government hereby gives notice to Dr. Riyaz Ahmad Dar, Medical Officer, Medical Supplies Corporation, J&K, that he having already attained 48 years of age, shall retire from service w.e.f. forenoon of 01/07/2015. He is allowed three months of pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Commissioner/Secretary to Government.” 6. The aforesaid order was based on the recommendations made by the Review Committee constituted by the Government under order no.17-GAD(Vig) of 2016 dated 20.05.2015 in terms of the relevant provision of the CSRs. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Commissioner/Secretary to Government.” 6. The aforesaid order was based on the recommendations made by the Review Committee constituted by the Government under order no.17-GAD(Vig) of 2016 dated 20.05.2015 in terms of the relevant provision of the CSRs. The learned Advocate General produced the record of the case for perusal of the Court maintained in file no.GAD(Vig)Misc/2017 of the General Administration Department, bearing the title “Personal file of Dr. Riyaz Ahmad Dar, the then Medical Officer, Medical Supplies Corporation, Jammu and Kashmir under 226(2)”. We would mention the contents of this record later. The recommendations of the Committee against the respondent are placed at pages 2 to 4 of Part “B” (CF side) of this file. These recommendations seem to have been made by the Committee vis-a-vis many government officials and, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, the same read as under: “Through his consistent conduct over a period of time, the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public; Dr. Riyaz Ahmad Dar claims to have done his Master Degree in Hospital Administration from Royal College of Physician and Surgeon, United States of America (USA), which, as per Medical Council of India clarification is not a Degree but Membership only. Dr. Riyaz was shifted from Super Speciality Hospital, Jammu and suspended / attached with IGGDC, Jammu for his alleged involvement in some financial as well as administrative irregularities. Dr. Riyaz is not having a valid Master Degree. Dr. Riyaz has signed a MoU with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (RCTC) on behalf of Government Medical College Jammu without any administrative approval from the competent authority. When MoU signed by Dr. Riyaz was compared with another MoU signed by PGI Chandigarh with IRCTC, irregularities were depicted, which resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Besides, a verification was also initiated by the Vigilance Organization into the allegations that Dr. Riyaz has procured 34 KG Dog Kill Powder without any supply order on exorbitant rates. The matter stands referred to Health Department for Regular Departmental Action. It was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officer are incomplete. The Committee took note of the fact that the accused has indulged in corrupt practices and involved in illegal acts during his service, thereby substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public. It was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officer are incomplete. The Committee took note of the fact that the accused has indulged in corrupt practices and involved in illegal acts during his service, thereby substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public. Since the officer is generally known to have bad reputation and indulged in corrupt practices while performing his legitimate duties, therefore, it is recommended that Dr. Riyaz Ahmad Dar be retired from the Government Service in the public interest under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs. It is further recommended that Dr. Riyaz Ahmad Dar be given three months of pay and allowances in advance, as admissible, in lieu of the notice.” 7. As seen from a plain reading of the aforesaid recommendations, the essence of the recommendation made by the Committee was that the officer was generally known to have bad reputation and that he had indulged in corrupt practices. As is self evident from a bare reading of the recommendations, the above opinion was founded not on any established charge in any departmental enquiry or proven guilt in any criminal proceeding against the respondent, but on the allegations enumerated in the recommendation in question. The learned Single, in its judgment, has analysed the aforesaid recommendation / report and segregated the statements / allegations made therein into 8 grounds as being the foundation for premature retirement of the respondent, and then dealt with them, one by one, on the basis of the material brought on record before it by the petitioner, to find out whether there was, in fact, any substance in the allegations or material supporting such grounds. The grounds so enumerated by the learned Single Judge in its judgment are reproduced below: “(1) Through his consistent conduct over a period of time, the petitioner does not enjoy a good reputation in the public; (2) Petitioner claims to have done his Master Degree in Hospital Administration from Royal College of Physician and Surgeon, United States of America (USA), which, as per Medical Council of India clarification, is not a degree but Membership only; (3) Petitioner was shifted from Super Speciality Hospital, Jammu and suspended / attached with IGGDC, Jammu for his alleged involvement in some financial as well as administrative irregularities; (4) Petitioner is not having a valid Master Degree. (5) (Petitioner) has signed a MoU with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) on behalf of Government Medical College, Jammu, without any administrative approval from the competent authority; (6) When MoU signed by the petitioner was compared with another MoU signed by PGI Chandigarh with IRCTC, irregularities were depicted, which resulted in loss to the State exchequer. (7) Petitioner has procured 34 KG Dog Kill Powder without any supply order on exorbitant rates. (8) The Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner were reported to be incomplete.” 8. Apart from the above eight grounds, the learned Single Judge in its judgment also noted the observations of the Committee in the following manner: “It is also recorded in the recommendation that the Committee took note of the fact that the accused (petitioner) has indulged in corrupt practices and was involved in illegal acts during his service thereby substantiating the fact that he has outlived his utility to the public. It has also been mentioned by the Committee that since the officer is generally known to have bad reputation and has indulged in corrupt practices while performing his legitimate duties. Finally, recommended the petitioner to be retired from Government service in the public interest under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs with a further recommendation that the petitioner be given three months of pay and allowances in advance as admissible in lieu of the notice.” 9. On perusal of the record and on consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge has recorded the following findings vis-a-vis the above grounds: Ground (1): “14. There is nothing on record which would suggest that the petitioner did not enjoy good reputation...” Grounds (2, 4): The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that he was admitted as member of Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons at USA with rights and honours to use the designation ‘Member of the Faculty of Hospital Management and Public Health Medicine (MFHM&PHM)’. According to him, the certificate was got verified by the then Minister for Medical Education and Youth Services and Sports from the said College vide mail dated 08.08.2012. The learned Single Judge found that the College authorities had been asked to inform whether the certificate was genuine or not? On the basis of the information received from the College, the learned Single Judge recorded its finding as under: “19. The learned Single Judge found that the College authorities had been asked to inform whether the certificate was genuine or not? On the basis of the information received from the College, the learned Single Judge recorded its finding as under: “19. ...There is no doubt about the certificate of the petitioner. That apart, whether petitioner has Master’s degree or not in Hospital Administration, loses significance because petitioner claims that on the basis of said certificate he has neither been appointed nor has derived any benefit, nor (he has been) given any advantageous position, nor he has utilized the said certificate. Therefore, how could such a position constitute one of the grounds for premature retirement? Said position projected by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents.” Ground (3, 5, 6): As regards the allegations in these grounds, the respondent’s case before the learned Single Judge was that the MoU was signed by him with IRCTC on the basis of decision taken in a meeting held on 16.11.2013 under the Chairmanship of Minister for Medical Education, Mr. Taj Mohi-ud-Din at SS Hospital, Jammu, alongwith senior most officers of the Department, including Principal, GMC, Jammu; HOD, Nephrology; Administrator, Associated Hospitals, Jammu; Personnel Officer, GMC, Jammu; and others. He, therefore, denied having been involved in any financial or administrative irregularities. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the record and on consideration of the matter recorded that “the ground that the petitioner had signed MoU without approval of the competent authority is negated by the aforesaid position.” The learned Single Judge in the judgment has further observed, “Apart from aforesaid position, petitioner has further qualified in categorical terms that consequent to the orders of Hon’ble Minister for Medical Education, he cancelled the said MoU and there was not even a single penny financial implication; therefore, the allegation of loss to the State exchequer is totally imaginary. This position too has not been controverted by the respondents.” Ground (7): As to the allegation that petitioner had procured 34 Kg Dog Kill Powder without any supply order on exorbitant rates, the learned Single Judge found and recorded the following finding: “...The Vigilance enquiry made into the said allegation against the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation and other officer was finally concluded as not proved and closed by the Vigilance Commissioner way back in the year 2009. In acceptance of the vigilance conclusion, no departmental enquiry was ever initiated against the petitioner.” 10. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that the allegation that his consistent conduct over a period of time does not enjoy good reputation in the public falls flat in the background of the facts stated in the judgment. The learned Single Judge has concluded the matter in the following terms: “35. In the stated facts, circumstances and law coupled with the norms, a fair exercise has not been undertaken, that too by a high level constituted committee. Act of the Committee should not have been hasty, as haste makes the waste. That I may say is quite apposite to be said vis-a-vis case of the petitioner. The grounds made base for premature retirement of the petitioner, as referred to above, are not supported by any material whereas the petitioner has in categorical terms made his position clear vis-a-vis all grounds which position has not been refuted nor any material to controvert the same has been placed on record. 36. The power vested with the authorities has to be exercised judiciously with great caution. Same must not suffer from any arbitrariness. In the contest of the present case, if the petitioner would have been a corrupt person, then at least some case would have been registered against him, some administrative action would have been taken against him coupled with the fact that he should not have been given important assignments. Therefore, no option but to conclude that the order of premature retirement bearing No.858-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 against the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination is sustainable.” 11. In this appeal, the learned Advocate General advanced his arguments before us more on academic lines than keeping them case specific in context of the findings returned by the learned Single Judge, and, in that enthusiasm, took the Court through numerous judgments of the Supreme Court. Before referring to such arguments, we may mention here that Part ‘A’ (NF side) of the aforesaid record file contains certified photocopy of an eleven-paged Note which contains the record of minutes of the meetings held by the Committee, maintained by the General Administration Department. This note is captioned “recommendations of the Committee constituted to consider the cases of Government servants for retirement under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs”. This note is captioned “recommendations of the Committee constituted to consider the cases of Government servants for retirement under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs”. At para 1, it refers to and reproduces the provision of Article 226(2) of CSRs. At para 2, the Note states the reasons provided in the CSRs on the basis of which such premature retirement of government servants has to be considered. In clause (2) of para 2 it states as under: “2. The Government employees whose integrity is doubtful should be retired. For the purpose of establishing that the integrity of the Government servant is doubtful the following information / records could be considered: Number and nature of complaints received, if any, against the Government servant pertaining to doubtful integrity or corruption; Number and nature of various audit paras pending, if any, against the Government servant in which concerned Government servant is found to be involved; Number and nature of vigilance cases pending inquiry, if any, against the Government servant; Adverse entries in the APRs concerning doubtful integrity, if any; Number and nature of departmental inquiries / preliminary inquiries, if any, which are going on against the concerned Government servant? Number and nature of administrative censures / warnings /punishments pertaining to corruption / doubtful integrity against the Government servant, if any; General reputation of the employees.” So, above are the factors on the basis of which it can be determined and established whether or not a government servant’s integrity is doubtful. It is to be borne in mind that these factors, obviously, would not apply in a case where the charge or guilt of a government servant of him being corrupt, on the basis of any legally prescribed grounds, is established in a regular departmental enquiry or in a criminal trial. 12. In the instant case, as seen above, the sum and substance of the report and recommendation made by the Committee is that the respondent had indulged in corrupt practices and was involved in illegal acts during his service and, thereby, had outlived his utility to the public. In other words, the allegation was that integrity of the respondent was doubtful and this, of course, is the stand taken before us by the learned Advocate General. In other words, the allegation was that integrity of the respondent was doubtful and this, of course, is the stand taken before us by the learned Advocate General. So, such view, opinion or conclusion could be reached at by the Committee on consideration of the materials enumerated under clause (2) of para 2 of the Note, as quoted above. 13. We may now mention the contents of the record file produced before us. It is in two parts. Part ‘A’ (NF side) and Part ‘B’ (CF side). As already mentioned, part ‘A’ (NF side) comprises of the 11-paged Note titled “recommendations of the Committee constituted to consider the cases of Government servants for retirement under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs. These are basically record of minutes. Part ‘B’ (CF side) contains the certified copies of the following documents: i) One page of Memorandum issued by the Commissioner / Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department bearing no. HUD/LSG/SMC/107/2015 dated 04.01.2015 in the name of the respondent proposing initiation of Departmental proceedings against him in terms of Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956; ii) Two pages of a document, titled ‘Draft Article of Charge’ shown addressed to the respondent, as annexure I to the aforesaid Memorandum; iii) Five pages of a document, titled ‘statement of imputations’, as annexure II to the aforesaid Memorandum; iv) A single page document, captioned ‘Gist of Evidence’ forming annexure III to the aforesaid Memorandum; v) Five pages of record note of meeting of the Committee held on 21.05.2015 with almost the same contents as are contained in the Note in the Part A of the file; vi) One page of record note of meeting of the Committee held on 25.05.2015; vii) One page of record note of meeting of the Committee held on 11.06.2015; viii) Two communications dated 10.06.2015 and 25.06.2015 informing about the scheduled date of meeting of the Review Committee; ix) A letter dated 27.08.2015 from Additional Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department informing the Commissioner / Secretary to Government, General Administration Department that the APRs of the respondent were not available as reported by the Director, Health Services; x) Three pages of recommendations made by the Committee in respect of one Dr. Manoj Bhagat and the respondent herein; and xi) Government order no.858-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 whereby the respondent was compulsorily retired. Above is the total material produced before this Court, which also appears to have been the material placed before the Committee. The memorandum dated 24.01.2015 seems not to have been actually issued to the respondent, despite the fact it bears the despatch no. and date. We have gone through the draft of the article of charge comprising two pages. It merely speaks of the respondent, in his capacity as the Health Officer, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, having purchased dog poison at exorbitant rates resulting in loss of Rs.7,23,088 to the Corporation. Obviously, this enquiry has not been commenced. This allegation was also mentioned in the recommendations made by the Committee and has been specifically dealt with by the learned Single Judge, as referred to above. 14. It may be mentioned here that the aforesaid Note forming Part ‘A’ (NF side) of the record, at para 3 mentions about OM no. GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Government in the General Administration Department. A photocopy of this OM has been produced before us by Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for the respondent. It also specifies the materials which are required to be screened while considering a government servant for premature retirement and making any recommendations for such purpose. Therefore, the contents of the OM are equally vital. The OM is extracted below: “Subject: Encouraging honest and weeding out of the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials from Government service. The undersigned is directed to invite attention of all Administrative Secretaries to Government order No.62-GASD(Vig) of 2010 dated 12.10.2010 under which a Committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary to make necessary recommendations with a view to encouraging honest and to weed out the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials. While making any recommendations for premature retirement, the entire service record of employees is required to be screened. While making any recommendations for premature retirement, the entire service record of employees is required to be screened. These would include the following documents: APR folder of the Government employee with particular reference to the entries in the APRs for the last five years; details about any promotions given in favour of the employee in the last three to five years; number and nature of complaints, if any, received by the parent Department / office of the employee or the State Vigilance Organization against the official; enquiries, if any, conducted by the State Vigilance Organization or by the Department concerned and the outcome thereof; cases, if any, registered / investigated by the State Vigilance Organization, nature of the allegation and the outcome of the investigation; adverse reports, if any, received by the CID about the reputation of the official and the gist of such reports supported by evidence; gist of irregularities committed by the employee, like in the matter of appointments, etc. supported by documents; brief mention about failure, if any, in achieving the targets set out for him by the Government / Department with supportive details; warning and censurers issued to the employees. All Administrative Secretaries are requested to kindly forward to the GAD, the names of officers / officials both who have outlived their utility in service by 15th November, 2010 for consideration by the Committee supported by such of the documents referred to above as are relevant in each case.” 15. The aforesaid OM has its genesis in the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, passed from time to time. In this connection, it would be apt to mention that one of us (Magrey, J.) has had the occasion to go through the original record of the General Administration Department to trace the backdrop of issue of aforesaid OM while dealing with a similar case in Khurshid Anwar Shah v State of J&K & ors. : SWP no.322/2012, decided on 28.09.2015. It would be advantageous to quote hereunder the relevant paragraphs of that judgment: “27. The consistent view of the Supreme Court, thus, as seen above, is that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. It would be advantageous to quote hereunder the relevant paragraphs of that judgment: “27. The consistent view of the Supreme Court, thus, as seen above, is that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. However, 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 incompetent. 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 may be such that his continuance in service would be a menace in public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record of character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the back drop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone, the government should form the opinion that the government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire service record, more particularly the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a government officer. When an officer reaches the age of compulsory retirement, as was pointed out by the Supreme Court, he could neither seek alternative appointment nor meet the family burdens with the pension or other benefits he gets and thereby he would be subjected to great hardship and family would be greatly affected. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. Therefore, before exercising the power, the competent appropriate authority must weigh pros and cons and balance the public interest as against the individual interest. On total evaluation of the entire record of service, if the Government or the governmental authority forms the opinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be retired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the exercise of such bona fide exercise of power but the court has power and duty to exercise the power of judicial review not as a court of appeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider whether the power has been properly exercised or is arbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by extraneous consideration or arbitrariness in retiring the government officer compulsorily from service.” 28. In regard to premature retirements ordered merely because of involvement of a government servant in criminal cases, it was held that the involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. He is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. It has been laid down, however, mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would dependent upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence alleged committed by the employee. There being no material before the Review Committee, inasmuch as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity cannot be said to have been doubted at any time. Where the character roll entries subsequent to the government servant’s promotion to the next higher post were not available, it could not be concluded that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could it be concluded that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was held to be punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. 29. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was held to be punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal rather than in public interest. 29. Where the allegations and inputs of the Additional DIG, CID, that the appellant had amassed properties disproportionate to his known sources of income were proved wrong, the Supreme Court held that the conclusion was inescapable that the order passed by the State Government suffered from vice of arbitrariness. 30. In the present case, perusal of the original records produced by the respondents reveals that with a view to encouraging honest and to weeding out the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials, the Government, vide its order no.62-GAD(Vig) of 2010 dated 12.10.2010, constituted a committee comprising the Chief Secretary, as its Chairman; the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, as Member; and Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, as its Member Secretary to make necessary recommendations in this regard. The order also provided that the Committee shall secure, whenever required, necessary inputs from Commissioner of Vigilance and Inspector General of Police (CID), who shall be associated with the Committee as Special Invitees and that the Committee shall make recommendations to the State Government within a period of one month. 31. From the record, it appears that earlier in 2003, the Government had constituted a similar Committee. The said Committee had taken note of the principles which, according to it, had crystallized through various judgments of Hon’ble Courts on the issue of compulsory retirements, which, according to them, included the following (para 6 of note at p. 5): Order of compulsory retirement was not regarded as a punishment under the Constitution of India or the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir; An employee who had outlived his utility could be compulsorily retired in public interest; If the general reputation of the official was not good, he could be compulsorily retired in public interest. Keeping the above broad principles in view, the aforesaid Committee constituted in 2003 had resolved that cases: where there is evidence that a Government employee was responsible for any defalcation of Government money; where prosecution had been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or the Crime Branch; or in which Government employee, in an investigation, is found to have committed moral turpitude; shall fall under the category (iii) of para 6 and liable for compulsory retirement. 32. The Committee constituted in 2010, however, in terms of the minutes of its meeting held on 20.10.2010, after considering the rule position and the observations and orders contained in various judgments of the Hon’ble Courts, held that the entire service record would be required to be screened while making recommendations for premature retirement of any Government employee and these would include the following documents:” The documents mentioned at pages 21, 20 of the original record, as quoted in the aforesaid judgment, are the same as were later mentioned in the aforesaid OM. 16. It, thus, transpires that the roots of the instructions contained in OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010, issued by the Government in the General Administration Department, lie in the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in numerous of its judgments from time to time, at least, till the issue of the said OM. So, there can be no dispute that strict observance of the OM is the mandate of the established law on the subject. 17. As against the above requirements reproduced under clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM dated 25.10.2010, it is seen that except the Memorandum dated 04.01.2015 and the draft articles of charge with its annexures enumerated above, nothing was placed before the Committee. The other documents contained in the file have come into existence during the proceedings of the Committee. Nonetheless, the recommendations made by the Committee contained certain allegations. The learned Single Judge has examined these allegations in context of the pleadings/rebuttals of the respondent and on the basis of the record brought on record before it, and has come to definite findings, quoted by us earlier in this judgment, holding such allegations as baseless. Consequently, the order of compulsory retirement has been quashed and respondents have been directed to take petitioner back in service and to grant him all consequential benefits. 18. In this appeal before us, the learned Advocate General argued that in terms of the provision of Article 226(2) CSRs, if the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, it has the power to require any Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 22 years / 44 completed six monthly periods of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age subject to the conditions mentioned therein. He submitted that once the Government forms such a bona fide opinion, its correctness is not open to challenge. He submitted that recourse to the said provision is permissible to chop off dead wood and that it is neither a punitive action nor entails any civil consequences or stigma. He also submitted that principals of natural justice or of Article 311(2) are not attracted in such a case. The learned Advocate General sought to buttress his submissions by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Col. J. N.Sinha : 1970(2) SCC 458 ; R. L. Butail v Union of India : 1970 (2) SCC 876 ; Union of India v M. E. Reddy : (1980) 2 SCC 15 ; 19. We have already mentioned the object of the relevant provision of the CSRs. We have also observed hereinabove that in the instant case the compulsory retirement of the respondent, writ-petitioner, has been ordered on the ground of doubtful integrity. This is not a case where the allegation is that he had turned in-efficient and was, therefore, deadwood. No exception can be taken to the principle that compulsory retirement neither carries a stigma nor is punitive in nature. 20. Nonetheless, having gone through the above judgments, it is noticed that the facts attendant to those cases and the questions of law involved therein have no application to the facts of the present case. For instance in the case of Col. J. N. Sinha’s (supra), the only point raised before the High Court was that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide and the petitioner therein had failed to establish that ground. However, the High Court held that in making the order of compulsory retirement, the Union of India had violated the principles of natural justice. Before the Supreme Court, the sole issue involved, as put by it in paragraph 2 of the judgment was: “Whether the High Court was right in holding that in making the impugned order the appellant had violated the principles of natural justice”. Therein the Supreme Court in clear words said that “no other contention was taken before us. Hence we shall address ourselves only to that question”. So, whatever the Supreme Court observed in that judgment was in context of the question of law raised before it, mentioned above. Such is not the issue involved in the instant case. 21. Therein the Supreme Court in clear words said that “no other contention was taken before us. Hence we shall address ourselves only to that question”. So, whatever the Supreme Court observed in that judgment was in context of the question of law raised before it, mentioned above. Such is not the issue involved in the instant case. 21. Notwithstanding the above, the judgment in its para 9, which has been specifically referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate General, says that “if that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before the Court”. The argument is that since in the instant case the High Level Committee constituted by the Government for the purpose, has bona fide formed the opinion whereupon the Government in the General Administration Department passed the order of compulsory retirement, its correctness could not be challenged. 22. It is seen that the expression used in the judgment is “if that authority bona fide forms that opinion”. So, the first and the foremost question that arises is as to who will determine whether that authority has bona fide formed that opinion? Obviously, it is the Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court does not say that writ against an order of compulsory retirement of a government servant would not lie. In fact, the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 cannot and is not ousted. It is natural that if the opinion to compulsorily retire a government servant is found to have been formed bona fide, that opinion cannot be challenged, but such a finding would need to be returned by an appropriate Court in an appropriate proceeding, unless the employee concerned accepts it; it would not come by way of a divine revelation. Then the question that would arise is what standards would be applied to judge whether the opinion formed is bona fide or not? 23. Bona fide, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, means ‘good faith’; ‘the standard of conduct expected of a reasonable person, especially in making contracts and similar actions, acting without fraudulent intent or malice”. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, (Indian Edition), bona fide as an adjective means ‘genuine, real’, and, as an adverb, means ‘without intention to deceive’. Here we are concerned with the expression: bona fide opinion, where bona fide is used as an adjective. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, (Indian Edition), bona fide as an adjective means ‘genuine, real’, and, as an adverb, means ‘without intention to deceive’. Here we are concerned with the expression: bona fide opinion, where bona fide is used as an adjective. Therefore, it would mean that the opinion has to be genuine and real. Furthermore, in our view, bona fide, in context of the requisite opinion to compulsorily retire a government servant from service must mean that the members of the Committee, in the discharge of the duty cast on them, have given their conscientious mind, comprehensively, to the materials mentioned in the aforesaid clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM dated 25.10.2010. 24. We know that the compulsory retirement order in the instant case is founded on the recommendations of the High Level Committee; so in that context, the bona fide nature of the recommendations and, consequently, that of the order in question, would be determinable from the standard of the conduct of the Committee in making the recommendations. That standard of conduct, in turn, would be ascertainable and discernable from the fact whether the Committee has truthfully abided by governmental directives / guidelines / instructions issued on the subject referred to hereinabove. It is not mere saying that the Government has formed bona fide opinion, the bona fide nature of the opinion or recommendations must flow from compliance with the terms of the clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM dated 25.10.2010. 25. In the instant case, as seen above, there was no material, at all, placed before the Committee except the draft article of charge containing the allegation that the respondent had purchased 34 Kgs. of Dog Kill Powder at exorbitant rates. The records show that by communication dated 27.08.2015 the Additional Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department had informed the Commissioner / Secretary to Government, General Administration Department in clear terms that the APRs in respect of the respondent were not available. Contrary to that, in the recommendations, the Committee has made a wrong statement that it was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports of the officer were incomplete. Why should the High Level Committee make such a wrong statement in the recommendations is beyond our comprehension. Contrary to that, in the recommendations, the Committee has made a wrong statement that it was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports of the officer were incomplete. Why should the High Level Committee make such a wrong statement in the recommendations is beyond our comprehension. Be that as it may, above being the factual scenario, neither did the material, as contained in the file conform to the requirements of clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM dated 25.10.2010, nor has the Committee apparently considered the relevant material to form the requisite opinion. Therefore, it is not only difficult, but also impossible to hold that the Committee had framed a bona fide opinion or that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was based on a bona fide opinion. 26. On the one hand, above is the factual scenario and there are clear and unambiguous findings recoded by the learned Single Judge, on the other hand, there is nothing brought on record before us to show that any materials, other than the one kept in the aforesaid record file, of the like stipulated in clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM dated 25.10.2010, had been placed before, or considered by, the Review Committee while framing the opinion, and that the conditions of the aforesaid clause (2) of para 2 of the Note and the OM were, in fact, complied with in their letter and spirit. The learned Single Judge has found from record that the allegations levelled in the recommendations against the respondent-writ petitioner are not substantiated and that there was no such material as would substantiate such allegations. Consequently, it cannot be said that the recommendations made by the Committee were supported by the material or that the opinion framed by the Government on such recommendations to compulsorily retire the respondent was real or genuine, i.e., bona fide. 27. Furthermore, it is nobody’s case that an order of compulsory retirement conforming to the essential principles laid down and enunciated by the Supreme Court, from time to time, and provided in the aforesaid OM is punitive in nature and/or entails civil consequences or a stigma. It is also nobody’s case that principles of natural justice or of Article 311(2) are attracted in such a case. At least, the learned Single Judge has not returned any such finding. 28. It is also nobody’s case that principles of natural justice or of Article 311(2) are attracted in such a case. At least, the learned Single Judge has not returned any such finding. 28. Inviting the attention of the Court to paras 16 and 17 of the judgment in M. E. Reddy’s case (supra), the learned AG submitted that it is settled that where an officer is of doubtful integrity, he can be compulsorily retired under the relevant rule and that it is always difficult to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest. He submitted that since the Committee had recorded in the recommendations that the respondent was an officer of doubtful integrity, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to hold against that opinion of the Committee. It is note worthy that the Supreme Court in the judgment has used the words ‘positive evidence’, but then it has in the same sentence elaborately expounded the process and manner in which such an allegation can be established. The sentence as a whole reads, “It will indeed be difficult if not impossible to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer is dishonest but those who have had the opportunity to know the nature and character not only of his performance but also of the reputation that he enjoys...”. This portion of the judgment refers to the ACRs and what is laid down is that instead of positive evidence, the ACRs of the officer, containing the remarks of the officers, who have had the occasion to closely watch the officer, would show what nature and character of reputation the officer had been enjoying from time to time. Unfortunately, in the instant cast, the Committee, in its recommendations, has said that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the officer were reported to be incomplete. Obviously, therefore, the Committee did not have any such material before it to know the nature and character of his performance and/or of his reputation that he enjoyed. In absence of such material, which generally is persistent, the Committee could not have been in a position to make such an assessment about the respondent. 29. It is also worthy of notice that it is not said by the Committee that the ACRs were not available; it is said that it was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were incomplete. 29. It is also worthy of notice that it is not said by the Committee that the ACRs were not available; it is said that it was reported that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were incomplete. As already mentioned above, this statement is wholly and blatantly contradicted by the material on record. Even then, if it be taken that the ACRs of the respondent were, in fact, incomplete, as mentioned by the Review Committee in its recommendations, the word incomplete has a different connotation than the same being not available. If the ACRs were incomplete, they would still contain the remarks of the initiating officers of the respective periods of time to whom reference is made by the Supreme Court in para 17 relied upon by the learned AG, as being the officers having the occasion to have closely watched the performance and reputation of the officer. It may be mentioned here that Government order no.1311-GAD of 2001 dated 09.11.2001, prescribes the procedure for writing up, custody and maintenance of the Annual Performance Reports of all Gazetted Officers. These APRs/ACRs are supposed to be written up by the authority mentioned as Initiating Officer, who will submit the same to the Reviewing Officer who, in turn, will submit the same to the Accepting Authority. The APRs/ACRs are then provided to be maintained by the Accepting Authority and where the Accepting Authority is the Minister, in that event the same are provided to be maintained by the concerned Administrative Department. It therefore cannot be comprehended as to why the Administrative Department has failed to place the same before the Committee and how could this responsibility be shifted to the Director, Health Services. Be that as it may, since the Committee has in categorical terms said that the ACRs of the officer were reported to be incomplete, it can safely be said that the Committee has not considered the relevant material for arriving at the requisite opinion. Be that as it may, since the Committee has in categorical terms said that the ACRs of the officer were reported to be incomplete, it can safely be said that the Committee has not considered the relevant material for arriving at the requisite opinion. Furthermore, since the same have been held back both from the learned Single Judge as well as this Court, there is a legal inference available that these incomplete ACRs did not contain any adverse remark from the immediate and initiating officers of the respondent, from time to time, at least, concerning his integrity; otherwise there is a duty cast on the concerned officers, including the appropriate Government to ensure that ACRs are regularly recorded and completed in all their requirements. At the same time, it may be observed that it is not the stand of the appellants that the opinion / recommendations of the Committee or the Government were based on any such remarks of the officers who had closely watched the respondent and recorded those remarks while initiating his ACRs, and/or that the learned Single Judge refused to take into account any such remarks and, instead, insisted on positive evidence. 30. The learned Advocate General next, referring to the legal principles evolved over a long period of time on the subject by the decisions of the Supreme Court as stated in para 34 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das v Chief District Medical Officer : (1992) 2 SCC 299 , submitted that Court’s interference in an order of compulsory retirement has been held to be permissible only if the Court is 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. He also referred to para 3 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board v C. S. N. Murthy : (1992) 2 SCC 317 , wherein the aforesaid principles have been quoted with approval. He also referred to para 3 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Posts and Telegraphs Board v C. S. N. Murthy : (1992) 2 SCC 317 , wherein the aforesaid principles have been quoted with approval. Further, referring to para 5 of the latter judgment, the learned Advocate General submitted that the nature of delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of an employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. So long as the present case is concerned, the learned Advocate General submitted that since the Government has formed an opinion about the delinquency of the respondent and its degree, it is final and not subject to any interference, at least, in review jurisdiction of the Court. 31. It is seen that in Baikuntha Nath Das’s case (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with, inter alia, the object and purpose for which the power under Fundamental Rule 56(j) or a rule corresponding to it is to be exercised. Having referred to a number of its earlier decisions, in para 34 the Supreme Court stated the principles which emerged from such decisions. Para 34 is quoted hereunder: “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 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, more so, 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 interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.” Admittedly, one of the grounds on which an order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with is that it is based on no evidence. This is what the learned Single Judge has clearly held in para 35 of the judgment that “the grounds made base for premature retirement of the petitioner, as referred to above, are not supported by any material...” which means that the learned Single Judge has returned a definite finding that the order is based on no evidence and we concur with such a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 32. So far as the argument put forth that it is for the Government to decide whether in a particular case the nature and degree of delinquency of a government servant is such as warrants compulsory retirement, again, the Supreme Court, in the same para, immediately after the aforesaid observation has been made therein, has said that “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”. We have already discussed in this judgment that the order of compulsory retirement has not been passed bona fide; having not been passed in conformity with the requirements of OM dated 25.10.2010. And as to the material, there is a definite finding of the learned Single Judge which is not rebutted by producing any germane material before this Court. We have already discussed in this judgment that the order of compulsory retirement has not been passed bona fide; having not been passed in conformity with the requirements of OM dated 25.10.2010. And as to the material, there is a definite finding of the learned Single Judge which is not rebutted by producing any germane material before this Court. The judgments relied upon by the learned AG, therefore, do not come to his aid. 33. It was next argued that in an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of an officer built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of public service and would breed indiscipline amongst other public servants. Reference in this connection was made to para 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of UP v Bihari Lal : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 593. The fact that in the very 3rd para of that judgment the Supreme Court has said that “he was compulsorily retired from service on the ground that inspite of awarding adverse remarks for several years, the respondent had not improved and that, therefore, he was found to be an officer of bad category”, makes the decision wholly distinguishable on facts. Such is not the case here, and, in fact, no ACR has either been placed before the Committee or this Court. It is also not the case of the appellants that the respondent did not improve himself. In fact, this is not a case where the respondent has been compulsorily retired on account of he having been inefficient; the sum and substance of the allegations contained in the recommendations of the Committee are that he has doubtful integrity. It is reiterated that no material, nothing worth the name, except the recommendations of the Committee, has been brought on record to establish that the recommendation made by the Committee or the opinion formed was based on material that the reputation of the respondent was such as warranted his compulsory retirement. It is reiterated here that it is obligatory on the part of the appellants to show to the Court that while framing its recommendation the Committee had considered the materials as enumerated in para 2(2) of the Note and OM dated 25.10.2010, quoted above, and it could have been shown to the Court only by producing such record before it. 34. 34. Again, in para 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Das : (1996) 5 SCC 331 , referred to and relied upon by the learned AG, it has been said that the material question is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? If the ACRs are not before the Committee, it cannot be said that entire record of service was considered by the Committee. This judgment, as such, goes against the appellants. 35. The learned Advocate General also sought to draw a distinction between the facts present in the Supreme Court judgment in State of Gujrat v Suryakant Chunilal Shah : (1999) 1 SCC 529 , relied upon by the learned Single Judge in his judgment on the ground that in that case an FIR was registered; whereas no FIR was registered in the present case. There, in para 27 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty; he is still to be tried in a court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. But before that stage is reached, it would be highly improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. We fail to understand how this judgment is going to help the learned Advocate General. Here the scenario is even worse, insofar as the learned Single Judge has found that the grounds enumerated in the recommendations of the High Level Committee are not made out on the basis of the record produced before it. 36. It was next argued that one event and enquiry doubting integrity of an employee is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement against him. Reference in this connection was made to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kapoor Chand v State of J&K : 2013 (II) SLJ 516. In that case the appellant before the Division Bench and another employee had been found guilty of the charges of embezzlement of public funds to the tune of Rs.6,30,848.51 and Rs.3,28,980.75 in a regular enquiry and the amount was recovered from them by adjustment of arrears of salary due for the suspension period which was treated on duty. In that case the appellant before the Division Bench and another employee had been found guilty of the charges of embezzlement of public funds to the tune of Rs.6,30,848.51 and Rs.3,28,980.75 in a regular enquiry and the amount was recovered from them by adjustment of arrears of salary due for the suspension period which was treated on duty. Subsequently, on account of the proved charges of embezzlement and misappropriation, the appellant was prematurely retired. It was in that context that in para 12 of the judgment, the Division Bench observed that “we further find that it is well settled proposition of law that one event and enquiry doubting integrity of an employee is sufficient to pass an order of compulsory retirement”. Such is not the case here. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry or verification initiated by the Vigilance Organization into the allegations that the respondent had procured 34 KG Dog Kill Powder without any supply order on exorbitant rates was finally concluded as not proved and closed by the Vigilance Commissioner way back in the year 2009. This incident cannot constitute an event or enquiry doubting integrity of the respondent; this, instead, is an event where his integrity has been established and vouchsafed. 37. The learned Advocate General next cited and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakti Kumar Gupta v State of J&K : AIR 2016 SC 832 , with particular reference to paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 14 thereof, and submitted that if the competent authority arrives at a justifiable conclusion, on the basis of the record available in connection therewith, that itself would be sufficient to order the premature retirement of the concerned individual. 38. Before referring to what has actually been observed and laid down in the said paragraphs of the judgment, it would be appropriate to briefly mention the facts of that case. The petitioner before the Supreme Court was a Judicial Officer in the J&K State Judiciary in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge, having been placed in the selection grade on 15.06.2011. The petitioner before the Supreme Court was a Judicial Officer in the J&K State Judiciary in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge, having been placed in the selection grade on 15.06.2011. In terms of Rule 24 of the J&K Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009, the High Court is to evaluate the record of a judicial officer before he attains the ages of 50, 55 and 58 years and, in the event a Judicial Officer is found unfit to continue in service, it is open to the High Court to prematurely retire him on attaining the ages of either 50, 55 or 58 years. For purposes of considering the cases of Judicial Officers for their continued utility in service at 50, 55 or 58 years of age in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493 : (2011) 10 SCC 1 , the Full Court of the High Court adopted a resolution on 03.06.2013 laying down the criteria / norms to be taken into account by it in its administrative capacity. In the resolution, emphasis was placed on the immediately preceding five years’ record to assess the potentiality and utility of the Judicial Officer under consideration. In addition to the consideration of quality of judgments, the criteria postulated consideration of his institutional integrity in larger public interest, judicial conduct, administrative capacity, rate of disposal of cases, character of the officer, complaints, enquiries and vigilance reports lodged against him and his dealing with financial matters. 39. The issue of premature retirement of the petitioner in that case came up for consideration in the year 2013. Obviously, the annual confidential reports for the years 2008 to 2012 were to be taken into consideration. For the period 02.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 he had been assessed ‘average’. No ACRs of the officer had been recorded after the year 2009. The assessment made for the year 2009 was taken into consideration as the assessment for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and the High Court came to the conclusion that the work and conduct of the petitioner was merely ‘average’. The ACR for the year 2009, in turn, had not been recorded on any real assessment, but because he had failed to provide his self-assessment form. 40. The ACR for the year 2009, in turn, had not been recorded on any real assessment, but because he had failed to provide his self-assessment form. 40. Though the Supreme Court in para 8 recorded its satisfaction that no assessment, whatsoever, was made at the hands of the Administrative Judge, insofar as the ACR for the year 2009 was concerned, and that it was not possible to accept the determination of the High Court to treat the said ACR as an assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner, yet, at the same time, the Supreme Court observed that on the basis of the record accessible and available to the High Court, it was not at all difficult to evaluate the petitioner or, for that matter, any judicial officer in respect of various elements and attributes of his functioning mentioned therein. It was found that the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 21/29.05.2013 had examined the past record, annual confidential reports, work done statements, and other relevant record/material pertaining to the petitioner and had opined that he had lost his utility and had become “deadwood”. The Administrative Committee, accordingly, recommended to the Full Court, that the petitioner was not fit to continue as a District and Sessions Judge after the age of 55 years. The Full Court in its meeting dated 03.06.2013 had also recorded the feeling that the officer was incorrigible. 41. In para 14 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as under: “14. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the consideration of the Full Court, in respect of material other than the annual confidential report for the year 2009 and of the years 2010 to 2012, we are of the view, that there was sufficient material justifying the premature retirement of the petitioner in terms of Rule 24, extracted hereinabove, especially when the same is read in conjunction with the Full Court resolution dated 3.6.2013. It may be noted that there cannot be concrete evidence in respect of allegations pertaining to integrity. It may be noted that there cannot be concrete evidence in respect of allegations pertaining to integrity. If the competent authority arrives at a justifiable conclusion, on the basis of the record available in connection therewith, that itself would be sufficient to order the premature retirement of the concerned individual.” It be seen that in the above quoted passage of the judgment, the emphasis is laid on the observation that “if the competent authority arrives at a justifiable conclusion on the basis of the record available in connection therewith, that itself would be sufficient to order the premature retirement of the concerned individual”. The unfortunate part of the story here is that no record and no material is named or shown here. It may also be observed here that in para 10 of the above judgment the Supreme Court observed that, insofar as the issue of premature retirement of the petitioner was concerned, it was essential to notice that the same was considered in the background of complaints made against him by number of quarters mentioned therein and then in para 15 it is mentioned that based on the complaints received against the petitioner, the Chief Justice of the High Court afforded him an audience on 11.09.2012 and counselled him with reference to the complaints received against him. In the instant case, neither there is any complaint nor is it alleged that any counselling was made to the respondent and that even then it was found that he was incorrigible. The judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 42. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find that the learned Single Judge has elaborately examined the recommendations made by the Committee and every allegation contained therein in the context of the record produced before it and has come to definite findings already quoted above in this judgment. This is a case where the allegations forming the sheet-anchor of the order of compulsory retirement have been found to be not only controverted but proven false. Apart from that, no ACRs had been placed before the Committee and no such material was produced either before the learned Single Judge or this Court. The file produced before this Court, as referred to hereinabove, is bereft of any such record. Apart from that, no ACRs had been placed before the Committee and no such material was produced either before the learned Single Judge or this Court. The file produced before this Court, as referred to hereinabove, is bereft of any such record. As such, this Court can, at best, say that there has been no material placed before the Committee to enable it to back the recommendations as are actually contained in the report/recommendation produced before the Court. In that view, the very premise and foundation of the recommendations, that the respondent’s integrity was doubtful, does not with stand the scrutiny of law. Consequently, the recommendation would not stand and, resultantly, the action taken thereon would equally be rendered baseless and unfounded. 43. We may again refer to the record of minutes maintained by the General Administration Department in the shape of the Note, mentioned earlier, in connection with the meetings held by the Committee. There is nothing coming forth from the record of such minutes even to suggest that, in fact, there was any material or record placed before the Committee concerning the petitioner that would show that he had, in fact, doubtful integrity. It would profitable to refer to the relevant paras of the Note, viz. paras 6 to 11, hereinbelow. The same read as under: “6. The records regarding involvement of Government employees in the corrupt practices was placed before the Committee. The cases of trap, where employees were found demanding and accepting the bribe, and the cases relating to disproportionate assets vis-a-vis the known sources of income were also placed before the Committee. In addition, the cases, in which FIRs have been registered and the investigation is either underway or has been completed, were also placed before the Committee. 7. Consequent to extensive discussions in respect of each case, it was observed that, for arriving at an informed decision, the cases require further deliberation and, accordingly, it was decided to call the concerned administrative secretaries in the next meeting to be held on 25.05.2015. 8. The Committee met as per schedule on 25.05.2015 and discussed the cases of each department separately. Certain inputs with regard to the service particulars were obtained from the administrative departments. The Committee observed that the details in some cases are incomplete. Further, it was observed that the Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials are also required to be examined. 8. The Committee met as per schedule on 25.05.2015 and discussed the cases of each department separately. Certain inputs with regard to the service particulars were obtained from the administrative departments. The Committee observed that the details in some cases are incomplete. Further, it was observed that the Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials are also required to be examined. It was, accordingly, decided that the administrative secretaries shall provide the awaited details at the earliest and the matter would be further discussed in the next meeting to be held on 11.06.2015. 9. The Committee held another meeting on 11.06.2015 and deliberated upon the charges against each employee. The Committee also examined the available APRs of the officials/officers. It observed that the APRs are either not available or are incomplete. The Committee further observed that, while assessing the performance, the concerned authorities have not taken cognizance of the registration of FIRs or conduct of investigation. 10. As stated hereinabove, the Committee advised the concerned administrative Secretaries present in the meeting to furnish the remaining information/inputs about the concerned employees and decided that the same would be placed before the Committee in its next meeting. 11. The Committee finally met on 26.06.2015 and made its recommendations. The record notes of the meetings of the Committee and its recommendations are placed on C.F. (Flagged A, B & C). Based on the detailed deliberations held in the aforementioned meetings, the names of the following Government servants, who were involved in trap cases, i.e., demanding and accepting bribes and were caught red handed and those against whom the investigating agencies have registered cases relating to corruption and the possession of disproportionate assets were also considered because of the fact that they are involved in serious corrupt practices leading to accumulation of wealth beyond their known source of income. In addition, the cases, in which more than two FIRs / verifications / Joint Surprise Check / enquiries / complaints were registered/pending and the investigation is either underway or has been completed came under consideration of the Committee. The Committee, after threadbare discussions held in its series of meetings after going through the relevant service records, available Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials, finally recommended following employees for retirement under Article 226(2).” In all, names of 55 such employees are mentioned in the aforesaid Note wherein the name of the respondent herein figures at serial no.3. The Committee, after threadbare discussions held in its series of meetings after going through the relevant service records, available Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials, finally recommended following employees for retirement under Article 226(2).” In all, names of 55 such employees are mentioned in the aforesaid Note wherein the name of the respondent herein figures at serial no.3. 44. From a perusal of the above Note, it clearly transpires that it speaks of record of cases of trap cases, where employees had been found demanding and accepting bribe, and the cases relating to disproportionate assets vis-a-vis the known sources of income were placed before the Committee. In addition, the cases, in which more than two FIRs / verifications / Joint Surprise Checks / enquiries / complaints were registered and were pending and the investigation was either underway or had been completed were placed before the Committee. In para 8, the Note clearly mentions that on 25.05.2015 the Committee observed that the details in some cases were incomplete and that the Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials were also required to be examined. It was, accordingly, decided that the administrative secretaries shall provide the awaited details at the earliest and the matter would be further discussed. Then on 11.06.2015 it again noticed that the APRs were either not available or incomplete and the concerned Administrative Secretaries were advised to provide the necessary information and inputs on the next date. Then on 26.06.2015, suddenly the recommendations are made. In the minutes of that day, it is nowhere mentioned that the awaited information was furnished to the Committee. What is more astounding is that the recommendations on that day are, admittedly, stated to have been made in respect of the Government servants, who were involved in trap cases, i.e., demanding and accepting bribes and were caught red handed and those against whom the investigating agencies had registered cases relating to corruption and those who possessed disproportionate assets because of the fact that they are involved in serious corrupt practices leading to accumulation of wealth beyond their known sources of income. In addition, the cases, in which more than two FIRs / verifications / Joint Surprise Check / enquiries / complaints were registered or were pending and the investigation is either underway or had been completed are stated to have also come under consideration of the Committee. In addition, the cases, in which more than two FIRs / verifications / Joint Surprise Check / enquiries / complaints were registered or were pending and the investigation is either underway or had been completed are stated to have also come under consideration of the Committee. It is further stated therein that the Committee, after threadbare discussions held in its series of meetings and going through the relevant service records, available Annual Performance Reports of the officers/officials, finally recommended the employees named therein for retirement under Article 226(2). It is nobody’s case that the respondent herein falls in any of the aforesaid categories. 45. In light of the above, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakti Kumar Gupt’s case (supra) is not even remotely attracted to the facts of the present case, as there has been no germane material in existence. 46. Now, coming to the arguments put forth by Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for the respondent, he submitted that the primary ingredient required for ordering somebody’s ouster from public service is the credible evidence favouring such decision. In the present case there is no evidence at all, not to speak of credible evidence. He further submitted that the contention of pendency of a departmental enquiry against the respondent is a blatant lie as no departmental proceeding was pending against him. Mr. Haqani, further submitted that respondent did not obtain any benefit from the so-called Master’s Degree and that, in fact, he never claimed it to be a Post-graduate Degree, therefore, there is no fraud committed by the respondent nor has he caused any loss to the State exchequer. He further submitted that it was unnecessary to go into the question whether the document in question was a Master’s Degree or a Membership Certificate only as it had no bearing on the determination of the matter. 47. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of placing a supply order of Dog Kill Powder was also baseless as the supply order was issued by the Purchase & Procurement Officer, SMC and not by the respondent. 49. The learned counsel during the course of his arguments cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 48. Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Committee, while considering the case of the petitioner, did not abide by the criteria governing the subject. 49. The learned counsel during the course of his arguments cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: 48. Mr. Haqani, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Committee, while considering the case of the petitioner, did not abide by the criteria governing the subject. He submitted that there was no service record of the petitioner, his ACRs or any material placed before the Committee to enable it to take a decision. He submitted that the it was obligatory on the part of the Committee to have considered the ACRs of the petitioner, at least, pertaining to the last five years, but admitted that was not done. He submitted that in absence of the relevant material, the Committee was not justified in reaching to the conclusion that the respondent did not enjoy a good reputation. The learned counsel submitted that there are set principles which are required to be followed to conclude that a particular officer / official has a doubtful integrity or that he has outlived his utility for public, and that those principles have been thrown to winds in the instant case. 49. The learned counsel during the course of his arguments cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: i) Shyamlal v State of UP : AIR 1954 SC 369 ; ii) Baldev Raj Chadha v Union of India : (1980) 4 SCC 321 ; iii) State of Gujarat v Suryakant Chunilal Shah : (1999) 1 SCC 529 ; iv) State of Gujarat v Umedbhai M. Patel : (2001) 3 SCC 314 ; v) M. P. State Coop. Dairy Federation Ltd. v Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar : (2009) 15 SCC 221 . However, since we have already come to a definite conclusion while discussing the arguments put forth by the learned Advocate General, we deem it unnecessary to mention in detail the facts of the above cases and the principal of law or ratio laid down therein. 50. For all what has been discussed above, we are convinced that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, under challenge in this appeal, does not warrant any interference. It is, therefore, upheld. 51. This LPA is, accordingly, dismissed. 52. No order as to costs. 53. The records produced by the learned Advocate General are returned to him in the open Court.