ORDER 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 22.2.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 9.5.06 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Tonk, retiring him from service compulsorily in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 53 (1) of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, stands dismissed. 2. The learned Single Judge has found that the order retiring the appellant compulsorily has been passed after scanning the entire service record at two levels by Screening Committee and Review Committee in bona fide manner and looking to the nature of the allegations against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings wherein the punishment was imposed upon him, the decision taken by the respondents in passing the order of compulsory retirement, in no manner can be termed arbitrary or suffering from any illegality. Regarding the contention of the appellant that while passing the order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service, the respondents have adopted policy of pick and choose inasmuch as, the employees having worst service record were retained in service, the learned Single Judge opined that the plea of discrimination cannot be made applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement and each case is required to be considered by authority in discreet manner by considering the service record of such person. The learned Single Judge observed that the order of compulsory retirement passed is neither punitive nor stigmatic and theory of quantum of punishment cannot apply to the matters of compulsory retirement. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the matter in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Except three minor incidents in which the appellant was found guilty by the Department and was punished, there was no adverse service record, which could have been made basis for compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. There was no major charge of corruption or embezzlement against the appellant either. The learned Singe Judge has seriously erred in ignoring the fact that some other employees of the Department against whom serious charges were levelled, have been retained in service whereas, the appellant has been picked up for a different treatment being given. There was no major charge of corruption or embezzlement against the appellant either. The learned Singe Judge has seriously erred in ignoring the fact that some other employees of the Department against whom serious charges were levelled, have been retained in service whereas, the appellant has been picked up for a different treatment being given. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents apparently suffers from non application of mind and thus, was liable to be set aside only on this count. Learned counsel further submitted that after the punishments being inflicted upon the appellant as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was granted second selection grade vide order dated 22.12.04 and thus, in absence of any adverse remark or penalty subsequent to the grant of selection grade, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Raj Pal Singh & Anr.: (2001) 10 SCC 530 , Pawan Kumar Agarwala vs. General Manager-II and appointing authority, State Bank of India & Ors.\ (2015) 15 SCC 184 and the decision of this Court in Devi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC, 679. Learned counsel submitted that before passing the order of compulsory retirement, the appellant was not extended an opportunity of hearing and thus, the principle of natural justice stands violated. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken before the learned Single Judge submitted that the orders of punishment passed against the appellant had attained finality and thus, the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that the same were not open to be taken into consideration while examining his case for compulsory retirement. Learned counsel submitted that the opinion for compulsory retirement of an employee in the public interest is formed on the basis of consideration of the entire service record and merely because, subsequent to the imposition of the punishment, the appellant was extended benefit of second selection grade, the adverse service record prior to the grant of selection grade shall not stand washed off. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant in the writ petition has contended that two employees namely, Kalulal, UDC against whom as many as four orders of punishment were there during his service career and one Shri Hanuman Singh against whom inquiry is pending before the ACD, have been retained in service and thus, the order passed is discriminatory. Drawing the attention of the Court to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel submitted that there was no employee named Kalulal, whose case was considered for compulsory retirement rather, the case of one Shri Kanhalal, UDC was considered, however, he was not retired compulsorily inasmuch as, the allegations against him were not of serious nature. Learned counsel submitted that the name of Hanuman Singh, UDC was not recommended by the Screening Committee for compulsory retirement inasmuch as, there was no punishment whatsoever imposed against him. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, for the purpose of compulsory retirement, entire service record of an individual employee is considered and there is no scope of comparative assessment and thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the plea of discrimination cannot be made applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. It is settled law that the order of compulsory retirement in public interest or for efficiency of service is passed, on the completion of requisite number of service or attaining the age specified based on subjective satisfaction of the employer, after due consideration of the service record of an employee in entirety. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the competent authority on the ground of public interest does not entail any penal consequences inasmuch as, it does not deprive an employee any of his earned benefits and therefore, such order passed on the subjective satisfaction by the employer generally, cannot be interfered with by the Court unless, the same is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and based on no evidence. But, if the order is found to be stigmatic founded on misconduct and appears to have been passed so as to circumvent the procedure of disciplinary proceedings, the same cannot be sustained. The principle of natural justice has no application in the matters in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. 7. But, if the order is found to be stigmatic founded on misconduct and appears to have been passed so as to circumvent the procedure of disciplinary proceedings, the same cannot be sustained. The principle of natural justice has no application in the matters in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. 7. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the entire service record of the appellant was scanned at two levels; by the Screening Committee and the Review Committee. Admittedly, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the punishment was imposed upon the appellant thrice. In one of the disciplinary proceedings, the allegation was that the appellant while posted as Line Cashier made entries in the Cash Book different than the actual entries and committed irregularity in withdrawing payment more than once. Other charges of misconduct found proved in the disciplinary proceedings also related to the financial irregularities. There is nothing on record suggesting that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant is actuated by malice or the same is passed in perfunctory manner without due examination of his entire service record. 8. The contention sought to be raised by the appellant that after imposition of the punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was extended benefit of second selection grade in the year 2004 and thus, the adverse service record of the years preceding to the date of grant of selection grade could not have been taken into consideration, is absolutely devoid of any merit. The object behind the compulsory retirement is to dispense with the services of an employee who has outlived his utility and for the said purpose, it is always open for the employer to examine the entire service record. The extension of the benefit of promotion or the grant of selection grade may be considered to be a fact in favour of the employee but then, on account of grant of promotion or selection grade, the adverse service record prior to it does not stand washed off. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Screening Committee and Review Committee in recommending the appellant's case for compulsory retirement on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at after due consideration of the service record, cannot be faulted with. 9. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Screening Committee and Review Committee in recommending the appellant's case for compulsory retirement on the basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at after due consideration of the service record, cannot be faulted with. 9. Coming to the contention of the appellant alleging discrimination on the ground that some employees having more adverse record than the appellant have been retained in service while the appellant has been picked up for a different treatment being given, suffice it to say that in the matter of compulsory retirement in public interest or for efficiency of service, the competent authority is not expected to make comparative assessment of the record of the employees. Moreover, in the instant case, regarding two employees named by the appellant who have been retained in service despite adverse service record, the respondents have clarified the position regarding two employees named by the appellant in terms that employee Hanuman Singh, UDC, was not recommended for compulsory retirement inasmuch as, there was no punishment whatsoever imposed upon him and the employee Kanha Lai, UDC, was not recommended for compulsory retirement inasmuch as, the allegations against him in the disciplinary proceedings concluded were not of serious nature. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the plea of discrimination cannot be made applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement. 10. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajpal Singh and Pawan Kumar Agarwala related to the disciplinary proceedings where different punishments were imposed upon the employees found guilty of similar charges, wherein the Apex Court held that there cannot be discrimination in respect of imposition of punishment on the employees for the identical nature of the charges found proved. Thus, the said decisions relied upon by the appellant does not help him in any manner whatsoever. 11. Coming to the violation of principles of natural justice, suffice it to say that the order of compulsory retirement passed so as to chop off the deadwood in public interest is not required to be preceded by opportunity of hearing and thus, the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in full agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 13. No case for interference by us in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 14. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in full agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 13. No case for interference by us in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 14. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.