JUDGMENT : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. This Letters Patent Appeal by the State of J&K (Now Union Territory) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the respondent’s writ petition, SWP no.1453/2015, challenging his compulsory retirement order from Government service, issued by the appellants, has been allowed quashing the order impugned therein with direction to the appellants to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner and grant him all consequential benefits within the period specified therein. 2. We heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 3. The respondent (writ petitioner) was initially appointed as Range Officer Grade-I on ad hoc basis vide Government order no.303-FST of 1995 dated 12.10.1995. Later, he was substantively appointed on the post vide Government order no.227-FST dated 24.05.2004 and was continued at North Jehlum Range, Baramulla. Thereafter, vide Forest Order no.236 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004, he was transferred and posted at Forest Range, Rajwar, Handwara. From there he was transferred and posted at Rafiabad Range, Watergam of Langate Forest Division. While being posted there, he was deputed for undergoing training at State Forest Service College, Bunihat, Assam. After return from the training course, he was posted at Magam Range, Forest Division, Langate. Thereafter, he was transferred and placed at the disposal of Managing Director, J&K State Forest Corporation for his posting against the post of Divisional Manager/equivalent. 4. It appears that, meanwhile, on 17.07.2007, an FIR, bearing no.42 of 2007 under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Sections 467, 471 and 120(B) RPC was registered at Police Station Vigilance Organization, Kashmir (VOK). A questionnaire was served on the respondent, stating that during the investigation of the said case certain allegations mentioned therein had been prima facie established against him. It was, inter alia, alleged that while the respondent was posted as Range Officer, Forest Range Rajwar, Handwara, from 08/2004 to 12/2004, he had hatched a criminal conspiracy with one Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi, attorney holder of a private timber sale depot / joinery mill, namely, M/s 03-Star Enterprises, situated at Kachwari, Handwara; its Manager, Ghulam Hassan Bhat; Gh. It was, inter alia, alleged that while the respondent was posted as Range Officer, Forest Range Rajwar, Handwara, from 08/2004 to 12/2004, he had hatched a criminal conspiracy with one Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi, attorney holder of a private timber sale depot / joinery mill, namely, M/s 03-Star Enterprises, situated at Kachwari, Handwara; its Manager, Ghulam Hassan Bhat; Gh. Mohi-ud-Din Bhat, (Forester), the then B.O., Town Handwara, and others, as a result of which the respondent in connivance with others had manipulated the stock registers (Form 12 Register and Form 18-19 Register) pertaining to the stocks of M/s 03-Star Enterprises by way of changing the actual stock registers, being maintained at the said joinery mill / timber sale depot. The respondent was alleged to have thereby accommodated the detailed illicit timber in the records of the joinery mill / depot by inflating stock entries. The respondent was informed that by adopting corrupt practices he as a public servant had abused his official position in order to confer illegal advantage / benefit on the proprietor / attorney holder of the mill depot and others. The respondent was asked to submit his explanation in respect of the allegations mentioned in the said questionnaire. He is stated to have replied the questionnaire. 5. Thereafter, the Government issued order no.22-GAD(Vig) of 2014 dated 08.08.2014 according sanction to the prosecution of the petitioner and another person, viz the then B.O. of Town Handwara for commission of the offences under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K PC Act read with Sections 467, 471, 201, 120 B RPC and Section 6(e) of J&K Forest Act, 1987 in case FIR No.42/2007 of P/S VOK. The respondent challenged the aforesaid sanction order dated 08.08.2014 through OWP no.1403/2014 and the Court by order dated 01.09.2014 ordered that if challan with respect to the said FIR was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction, the proceedings shall remain under eclipse till next date. The interim direction was, thereafter, extended from time to time. That petition is stated to be pending till date before the Court. 6. One more FIR, bearing No.23/2011, is stated to have been registered against 46 forest officers/officials on the allegation of execution of works of 81 farm ponds through fictitious muster rolls, in which the respondent is one of the accused. That petition is stated to be pending till date before the Court. 6. One more FIR, bearing No.23/2011, is stated to have been registered against 46 forest officers/officials on the allegation of execution of works of 81 farm ponds through fictitious muster rolls, in which the respondent is one of the accused. The said FIR is stated to be still under investigation and no headway has been made therein till date. 7. While the respondent was working as Incharge Divisional Manager, State Forest Corporation (SFC) Division, Zangli, Kashmir, the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (CSRs), gave him notice vide Order no.857-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 to the effect that he, having already attained 48 years of age, shall retire from service w.e.f. forenoon of 01.07.2015. He was allowed three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of three months’ notice. 8. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2015 by writ petition, SWP no.1453/2015, on the grounds taken therein. The respondents in the writ petition in their reply stated that the Committee constituted vide Government order no.17-GAD(Vig) 2015 dated 20.05.2015 for considering the cases of officers/officials for premature retirement in terms of Article 226(2) and 226(3) of the CSRs, on consideration of the records regarding involvement of Government employees in corrupt practices etc., came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was generally known to have bad reputation and for fudging with the official record with criminal intent for his pecuniary benefits, and, therefore, recommended to retire him under Article 226(2) of the CSRs. The recommendation so made by the Committee was accepted by the competent authority which culminated into issuance of the impugned order. 9. The learned Single Judge, on noting the respective pleadings of the parties and arguments advanced before the Court by the learned counsel for the parties, has observed that taking an overall view of the matter, the bottom-line of the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent herein has been his conduct and registration of FIR no.42/2007 and FIR no.23/2011, Police Station VOK, against him, in which, it was stated before that Court, the investigation was in progress, but no charge-sheet had been laid before the court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, referring to, and quoting, the instructions issued by the Government vide SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999 read with the addendum thereto, issued by General Administration Department vide Office Memo OM No. GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010, observed that these instructions/guidelines are meant to be followed by the Screening Committee both in vigour and rigor while evaluating the cases of the officers forwarded to them for taking a decision with regard to their compulsory retirement, and that the decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant has to be, as a matter of necessity, based on the analogy of the said guidelines and the principles of law evolved from time to time in a catena of judicial pronouncements. Further, referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh Chand v Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 13 SCC 758 ; Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd v Rajnesh Kumar Jamidar, (2009) 15 SCC; State of Gujarat v Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314; and State of Gujarat v Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 ; and M. S. Bindra v UOI, (1998) 7 SCC 310 , and applying the law and the principles expounded therein, the learned Single Judge has found that the whole exercise has been conducted on the basis of the involvement of the respondent in FIR Nos. 42/2007 and 23/2011 registered at Police Station VOK which are pending investigation, and that the State has applied in the reverse the axiom of law that a person accused of an offence is presumed to be innocent, unless and until his guilt has been proved. The learned Single Judge has further recorded that the Committee constituted by the Government vide Order No.17-GAD(Vig) 2015 dated 20.05.2015 to consider the cases of officers/officials for premature retirement, has given a complete goby to the provision of Article 226(2) of the CSRs read with the instructions/guidelines issued by the Government in that behalf, while considering the petitioner’s case for compulsory retirement. 10. We are of the opinion that it would be advantageous to quote the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard in paras 16 to 20 of the judgment, which read as under:- “16. 10. We are of the opinion that it would be advantageous to quote the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard in paras 16 to 20 of the judgment, which read as under:- “16. Looking at the instant case from the above perspective, an important fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the Committee has given a complete goby to the Regulation 226(2) of the CSR read with the instructions (provided hereinbefore) in considering his compulsory retirement. These lay great emphasis and spell out the need and demand to consider the entire service record of the public servant available in the shape of APRs, service book, personal file giving the details of the complaints received against him from time to time and so on and so forth. While considering the desirability of the retention or otherwise of a public servant, whose conduct has come under a cloud, the criminal case(s) registered against him can be considered on the parapet and the bulwark of the chain of the documents/service particulars, as stated hereinbefore. But to say that the FIR(s) can form the sole basis to retire a public servant compulsorily is neither in tune nor in line with the scheme and mandate of Article 226(2) of the CSR read with the guidelines supra and the judicial pronouncements holding the ground. Taking such a view that FIR(s) only will form the basic structure of an order of compulsory retirement of a public servant will be repugnant and averse to the very concept and object of compulsory retirement. In order to attach a semblance of fairness to such an order, the entire service record of a public servant, more significantly the service record of the previous years preceding the decision, has to be assessed and evaluated. These cannot be skipped and shelved in formulating such an opinion by taking umbrage under the plea that the same were not available, as stated here in this case. These cannot be skipped and shelved in formulating such an opinion by taking umbrage under the plea that the same were not available, as stated here in this case. If these are disregarded and omitted in the matter of the accord of consideration to the case of the compulsory retirement of a public servant, the whole exercise will get vitiated under the colour of non-application of mind and the decision having been taken not on just grounds, but for a collateral purpose, and, to cap it all, how can the conduct of a public servant be put through the wringer, when there is no definite material available to substantiate so. The reputation of a public servant cannot be termed as doubtful and his conduct cannot be determined only on spoken words in the absence of any material on record. This is a fundamental flaw in the order issued against the petitioner, whereby he has been shown the door. 17. The contention of the respondents in this petition is that there was no material in the shape of ‘Character Roll Entries’ available before them and, if these were not available, the State could not have concluded that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a public servant, or that he was a man of doubtful integrity, or that he was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, in these circumstances, is punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal than in public interest. However, the petitioner has knocked the bottom out of this contention of the respondent-State that the ‘Character Roll Entries’ were not available at the time when consideration was accorded to the case of his compulsory retirement. This strengthens the view that the order has been passed for a collateral purpose of his immediate removal. 18. The facts are eloquent. In the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, he has placed on record the details of his ‘Annual Performance Reports’ wherein and whereunder his achievements, from time to time, have been judged/evaluated by his superiors and he has been rated as under:- ‘1. For the year/period ending 2009-10, the petitioner has been rated as excellent, well versed with administrative skill and well protective officer. 2. For the year/period ending 2009-10, the petitioner has been rated as excellent, well versed with administrative skill and well protective officer. 2. In the APR for the year/period ending 2011-2012, the petitioner has been rated as well versed with administrative skills, having good knowledge of forestry operations and excellent quality of man management. 3. For the year/period ending 2012-2013, the petitioner has been rated as excellent, having well organized working and well versed with administrative skills. 4. For the year/period ending 2013-2014, the petitioner has been rated as excellent, having well organized working and well versed with administrative skills. 5. For the year/period ending 2014-15, the petitioner has been rated as well versed with extraction job.’ 19. The aforementioned ‘Annual Performance Reports’ have been shelved. These have escaped the scrutiny of the Committee. It appears to have been done with the ultimate aim of shown the petitioner the exit and, had these ‘Annual Performance Reports’ been considered, the result would have been otherwise. 20. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a public servant in the aid of assailing an order of compulsory retirement and that such an order does not amount to a punishment, is based on the sound principles and cannons of law, but, to say that such an order can be passed by shunning the material on the basis of which such an order can be passed in terms of the rules, regulations and the law governing the subject, is a spurious and a contrived argument. Such an argument is devoid of merit and does not have the legs to stand upon.” The learned Single Judge, recording as quoted above, has held that the Government order No.857-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06205 cannot stand the test of law and reason and, accordingly, quashed the same. 11. Such an argument is devoid of merit and does not have the legs to stand upon.” The learned Single Judge, recording as quoted above, has held that the Government order No.857-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06205 cannot stand the test of law and reason and, accordingly, quashed the same. 11. From the above quoted paras of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the learned Single Judge has observed that Article 226(2) of the CSRs read with the instructions/guidelines issued by the Government lay great emphasis and spell out the need and demand to consider the entire service record of the public servant available in the shape of APRs, service book, personal file giving the details of the complaints received against him from time to time; that while considering the desirability of the retention or otherwise of a public servant, whose conduct has come under a cloud, the criminal case(s) registered against him can be considered on the parapet and the bulwark of the chain of the documents/service particulars and that FIR(s) cannot form the sole basis to retire a public servant compulsorily as the same is not in line with the scheme and mandate of Article 226(2) of the CSR read with the guidelines issued by the Government and the judicial pronouncements holding the ground. The learned Single Judge has further held that the order has been passed for a collateral purpose of the petitioner’s immediate removal. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner’s APRs for the years 2009-2010, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-1015 have escaped the scrutiny of the Screening Committee which appears to have been done only with the ultimate aim of showing the petitioner the exit, and that had these ‘Annual Performance Reports’ been considered, the result would have been otherwise. The learned Single Judge has further held that to say that an order of compulsory retirement can be passed by shunning the material on the basis of which such an order can be passed in terms of the rules, regulations and the law governing the subject, is a spurious and a contrived argument. 12. Before us, the learned AAG argued that the compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature and that learned Single Judge erred in holding that FIRs registered against the respondent could not solely form the basis for compulsorily retiring him. 12. Before us, the learned AAG argued that the compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature and that learned Single Judge erred in holding that FIRs registered against the respondent could not solely form the basis for compulsorily retiring him. The learned AAG contended that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the facts of the case in their right perspective; therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. To buttress his arguments, the learned AAG cited and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak, (2019) 7 SCC 278 ; State of U. P. v Bihari Lal, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 593 (p 4); State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331 ; Balkuntha Nath Das v Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 ; M. L. Binjolkar v State of M. P., (2005) 6 SCC 224 (p.5); and State of Gujarat v Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 . 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it has been long before laid down that before taking a decision whether or not a Government employee should be compulsorily retired, the Government or the Reviewing Committee, as the case may be, has to consider the entire service record of the employee, attaching more importance to the record and performance during the later years. He submitted that it has been specifically laid down that the record to be considered would include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls. The learned counsel, referring to the instructions issued by the Government to regulate the exercise of power under Article 226(2), which, inter alia, state that the Screening Committee should consider the entire service record, including all material and relevant information available on record about the employees before coming to any conclusion, submitted that these instructions are binding on the Screening Committee, and that any decision taken in derogation thereof would suffer from vice of arbitrariness. He submitted that the Screening Committee did not consider any such material, muchless the APRs of the petitioner, especially, of the later period of his service. On that ground, the learned counsel submitted that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent, being bad in law, was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the Screening Committee did not consider any such material, muchless the APRs of the petitioner, especially, of the later period of his service. On that ground, the learned counsel submitted that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent, being bad in law, was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel further argued that merely because a person is shown to have been involved in a criminal case would not per se mean that he was guilty of having committed that offence. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel cited and relied upon two Supreme Court judgments in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak, (2019) 7 SCC 278 ; High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 5 SCC 138 : AIR 2017 SC 548 ; and three Division Bench judgments of this Court in State of J&K v Shamim Ahmad Laharwal, 2017 (II) SLJ 597; State of J&K v Abdul Majid Wani, 2017 (II) SLJ 706; and State of J&K v Kamal Mahendru, 2018 (2) JKLT 211. 14. We may at the very outset observe here that the respondent was appointed as Range Officer Grade-I which, as per the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970, is a Gazetted post. The instructions issued by the Government under SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Governor by proviso to Section 124 of the erstwhile Constitution of the State of J&K, quoted by the learned Single Judge in para 08 of the judgment, do not apply to the Gazetted posts. The said Government instructions bear a caption to the effect: “Levels at which screening should be conducted for Non-Gazetted employees”. Obviously, thus, the instructions are required to be observed while dealing with the cases of Non-Gazetted employees of the Government. The premise of the impugned judgment is, therefore, incorrect. The learned Single Judge has further, in para 09 of the judgment, said that by an addendum to the above instructions, the Government in the General Administration Department issued an Office Memo bearing OM No. GAD(Vig)19-Admn/2010 dated 25.10.2010. It is a fact that the aforesaid OM was issued by the General Administration Department, but its contents do not bear even an inkling to suggest that it had been issued as an addendum to the instructions issued vide SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999. It is a fact that the aforesaid OM was issued by the General Administration Department, but its contents do not bear even an inkling to suggest that it had been issued as an addendum to the instructions issued vide SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999. The OM has its independent existence, having been separately issued in furtherance of Government order no.62-GAD(Vig) of 2010 dated 12.10.2010 for encouraging honest and weeding out of the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials from Government service, and its language and contents suggest that, unlike the instructions issued vide SRO 246, the same are not restricted either to the Non-Gazetted or the Gazetted officers/officials of the Government. As mentioned hereinabove, the instructions issued vide SRO 246 dated 30.06.1999, given the caption they bear, relate to Non-Gazetted employees only, and, if the aforesaid OM is treated as addendum thereto, its contents would be subservient and relatable to that caption only. So, we think that the learned Single Judge has wrongly treated the OM as addendum to the 1999 instructions. 15. However, the above facts, ipso facto, may not be sufficient to alter the ultimate decision arrived at and recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, for the aforesaid OM also enjoins upon the Government to screen the entire service record specified therein of the employees while making any recommendations for premature retirement. That is beside the fact that there are Supreme Court judgments laying down similar principles of law on the subject. 16. It would be appropriate to quote hereunder the aforesaid OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Special Secretary to Government, General Administration Department to all the Administrative Secretaries to Government. It reads thus:- “Government of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administration Department. 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 Govt. Order No. 62-GAD(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 retirements, the entire service record of employees is required to be screened. Order No. 62-GAD(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 retirements, the entire service record of employees is required to be screened. These would include the following documents:- (a) APR folder of the Government employee with particular reference to the entries in the APRs for the last five years; (b) details about any promotions given in favour of the employee in the last three to five years; (c) number and nature of complaints, if any, received by the parent Department/office of the employee or the State Vigilance Organization against the official; (d) enquiries if any conducted by the State Vigilance Organization or by the Department concerned and the outcome thereof; (e) cases if any registered/investigated by the State Vigilance Organization, nature of the allegation and the outcome of the investigation; (f) adverse reports, if any, received by the CID about the reputation of the official and the gist of such reports supported by evidence; (g) (missing) (h) gist of irregularities committed by the employee, like in the matter of appointments, etc. supported by documents; (i) brief mention about failure, if any, in achieving the targets set out for him by the Government/Department with supportive details; and (j) warning and censures issued to the employee. 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.” It may be mentioned here that by the Govt. Order No. 62-GAD(Vig) of 2010 dated 12.10.2010, reference to which is made in the very first para of the aforesaid OM, sanction was accorded to the constitution of a committee comprising the Chief Secretary as its Chairman; Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal as Member; and Secretary to Government, GAD, as its Member Secretary. Order No. 62-GAD(Vig) of 2010 dated 12.10.2010, reference to which is made in the very first para of the aforesaid OM, sanction was accorded to the constitution of a committee comprising the Chief Secretary as its Chairman; Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal as Member; and Secretary to Government, GAD, as its Member Secretary. Para 2 of the order also said 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 Members mentioned therein, to make necessary recommendations with a view to encouraging honest and to weed out the corrupt, non-performing and inefficient officers/officials. In 2015, the Government in the General Administration Department, in supersession of all previous orders on the subject, issued Government order no.17-GAD(Vig)2015 dated 20.05.2015 according sanction to the constitution of a Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary, as Chairman; (ii) Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, as Member; (iii) Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, as Member; (iv) Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, GAD, as Member Secretary; Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, as Member, to consider the cases of officers/officials for premature retirement in terms of Articles 226(2) and 226(3) of the CSRs. The Chairman was also given the discretion to co-opt a Member for assisting the committee in any particular meeting. 17. It may also be relevant to mention here that Article 226(2) of the CSRs authorises the Government to retire a Government employee, if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, at any time after he has completed 22 years/44 completed six monthly periods of qualifying service or 48 years of age, in the manner prescribed therein. The opinion of the Government has to be driven by nothing other than public interest. 18. As is seen from a perusal of OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 read with the Government order No.17-GAD(Vig)2015 dated 20.05.2015, an onerous duty has been cast on the Committee to screen the entire service record of the concerned Government employee with a view to forming an opinion whether or not it would be in public interest to require him/her to retire after he/she has completed the requisite number of years of qualifying service or on attaining 48 years of age. The service record to be screened has been duly specified and spelled out inclusively in the OM. The first and the foremost is the APR folder of the Government employee with particular reference to the entries in the APRs for the last five years. 19. In the instant case, the report made by the Committee states that “the ACRs of the officer are not available except for the year 2013-2014, which is incomplete”. The respondent, on his part, to show that his conduct and performance has remained overboard, has appended with his writ petition as annexure P3 photocopies of Annual Performance Reports, for the years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The appellants in their reply affidavit to the writ petition before the learned Writ Court have stated that ‘the details of APRs placed on record by the petitioner are not complete as per mandate of Government Order No.1311-GAD of 2001 dated 09.11.2001 in terms whereof a procedure for writing up, custody and maintenance of Annual Performance Report has been notified’. It is thus seen that the stand taken by the appellants in their reply is that the aforesaid APRs mentioned by the respondent are not complete as per mandate of the Government order dated 09.11.2001; it is not their stand that the said APRs are not available. As per the reply affidavit, the appellants have pointed out the deficiencies in the APRs in the document appended as Annexure R2 with the reply affidavit. The said Annexure R2 is a tabulated format bearing the caption “APR’s Grading of Mr. Reyaz Anwar Masoodi” having seven columns with headings as 1/S. No., 2/Year of reference, 3/whether initiated, 4/whether reviewed, 5/whether accepted, 6/grading and 7/remarks. Curiously, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th columns of this document, R2, for the years 2002-03 to 2010-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 (i.e. for 11 years) have been left blank, and in the 7th column, i.e., the ‘remarks’ column against all these years “Not available” is written. As against the year 2011-12, again, the 3rd, 4th and 5th columns are blank, and in the 6th and 7th column “submitted to then Commr./Secy for accepting” is recorded. For the year 2013-14, all the columns are duly filled in and in the grading column ‘very good’ is written and in the remarks column the APR is recorded to be ‘complete’. For the year 2013-14, all the columns are duly filled in and in the grading column ‘very good’ is written and in the remarks column the APR is recorded to be ‘complete’. As mentioned above, the Screening Committee in its report has recorded that the ACRs of the officer are not available except for the year 2013-2014, which is “incomplete”. Obviously, this statement, inter alia, saying that the ACR for the year 2013-14, made in the report prepared by none other than the Screening Committee comprising the six highest officers of the State namely, the Chief Secretary; the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister; Principal Secretary, Forest; Principal Secretary, Home; Commissioner/Secretary, GAD; and the Secretary, Law Department, is belied by the affidavit signed and filed by the Under Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, on behalf of all the respondents in the writ petition read with Annexure R2 appended thereto, which, among other things, substantiates that the said ACR was complete. Furthermore, in the said annexure R2 it is disclosed that the ACR of the respondent for the year 2011-12 had been submitted to the then Commr./Secy for acceptance. So, that means that ACR was also available with the Committee or could have been called for by it. The above two facts admitted by the appellants in their reply affidavit demonstrate that the statement made in the report of the Screening Committee about APRs of the respondent is wholly untruthful. In the circumstances, it is established that the two APRs of the respondents, which, at least, were available, have not been actually perused and gone through by the Committee. It is reiterated that ACR/APR for the year 2013-14 is admitted to be complete and graded as ‘very good’. The photocopy of the APR of the respondents for the 2011-12 placed on record, the original of which is stated by the appellants in their reply affidavit to have been sent to the Commissioner/Secretary, Forests, for acceptance, also depicts the grading of the respondent as ‘very good’. Further, it is curious to note that the APR for the year 2011-12 describes his relation with public as ‘very good’, accessibility as ‘very good’, responsiveness as ‘very good’, integrity as ‘very good’ and general assessment as ‘outstanding’. Similarly the APR for the year 2013-14 describes his relation with public, accessibility and responsiveness as ‘outstanding’, integrity as ‘Excellent’ and general assessment as ‘outstanding’. Similarly the APR for the year 2013-14 describes his relation with public, accessibility and responsiveness as ‘outstanding’, integrity as ‘Excellent’ and general assessment as ‘outstanding’. This is borne out by the two APRs which, according to the appellants were available with them, but have not been perused and considered to form the requisite opinion. This is sufficient to infer that the report of the Committee suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant material and, therefore, is rendered arbitrary. 20. As mentioned above, the respondent has with his writ petition also appended his APRs for the years 2009-2010, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015. Though these APRs, obviously, are incomplete, inasmuch as they do not contain the remarks of the reviewing or the accepting authorities, but the initiating officers in the APR for the year 2009-10 has graded him as ‘outstanding’; for the year 2012-13 as ‘very good’; for the year 2014-15 as ‘very good’. His relation with public, integrity and general assessment for these years viz 2009-2010, 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 are reported to be ‘outstanding’, ‘Excellent’, ‘Excellent’; ‘very good/outstanding’, ‘outstanding’, Excellent’; and ‘outstanding’, ‘Excellent’ and ‘outstanding’, respectively. In the reply affidavit to the writ petition, the appellants have stated that these APRs placed on record by the respondent are not complete as per mandate of the Government order dated 09.11.2001, and that APRs for several years are not available as shown in annexure R2. This stand taken by the appellants in their reply affidavit is wholly unreasonable and antithetic to the Government order dated 09.11.2001. It is seen that by virtue of the said order, the Government ordered that the procedure for writing up, custody and maintenance of the Annual Performance Reports for all Gazetted Officers shall be as per annexures I-IV to the said order. The first instruction under the heading “Maintenance and Custody of Annual Performance Reports” in Annexure-I to the aforesaid Government order, provided as under:- “I. Maintenance and Custody of Annual Performance Reports:- 1. An Annual Performance Report (APR) of the work and conduct of every officer of the State Government shall be maintained as under. 2. The APR shall in each case be maintained by the Accepting Authority. Where Accepting Authority is the Minister, it shall be maintained by the concerned Adm. Department. 3. An Annual Performance Report (APR) of the work and conduct of every officer of the State Government shall be maintained as under. 2. The APR shall in each case be maintained by the Accepting Authority. Where Accepting Authority is the Minister, it shall be maintained by the concerned Adm. Department. 3. Secretaries to Government shall obtain statements from the Heads of the Department on the proforma (Annexure III) showing names of officers in respect of whom the Reports have been initiated, reviewed/accepted and this should be monitored from time to time so as to ensure that the APRs in respect of all officers of a Department are written, reviewed and accepted.” It is thus seen that it is wholly the responsibility of the Secretaries to Government to ensure that the APRs of the officers are initiated, reviewed and accepted and to monitor it from time to time. The responsibility of custody and maintenance thereof lies with the Accepting Authorities. It sounds somewhat strange that the respondents in their reply have stated that the APRs of the respondents for almost throughout his service career are not available and then the liability therefor is laid on the respondent. Be that as it may, even if the ACRs for the other years placed by the respondent on record of the writ petition are ignored, the Committee was obliged to take note of the contents of the APRs of the respondents for the years 2011-12 and 2013-14 which were certainly available. Failure on the part of the Screening Committee to take note of these APRs renders the opinion framed by them in the report as unfair and wholly unreasonable and, therefore, arbitrary on that ground. 21. Coming back to OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010, the second type of service record specified therein and relevant herein is the number and nature of complaints, if any, received by the parent Department/office of the employee or the State Vigilance Organization against the official. The report of the Screening Committee is silent about it and inference is that there was no such complaint received. The third is about the inquiries conducted by the Department or the State Vigilance Organization. Again, there is no mention about any such enquiry having been made either by the Department or by the State Vigilance Organization in any complaint against the respondent. The third is about the inquiries conducted by the Department or the State Vigilance Organization. Again, there is no mention about any such enquiry having been made either by the Department or by the State Vigilance Organization in any complaint against the respondent. There is also no mention of any adverse reports having been received by or from the CID about the reputation of the respondent, nor is there any evidence to that effect mentioned in the Committee’s report. There is also no irregularity like in the matter of appointments attributed to the respondent in the Committee’s report, muchless supported by any documents, and there is also no failure in achieving any target set out for the respondent by the Government/Department attributed in the Committee’s report. Yet, despite all these facts, the Committee in its report has recorded that the respondent through his consistent conduct over a period of time does not enjoy a good reputation in the public. Obviously, this statement made in the report is not supported by any fact or material; it is rather just a wild imagination. 22. Of course, in the report of the Committee there is a mention of the two FIRs, being FIR No.42/2007 and FIR No.23/2011 of P/S VOK, wherein the respondent is one of the accused. In fact, the report makes a mention that the Committee took note of the allegations made in these two FIRs and came to the conclusion that the respondent has outlived his utility to the public, and made its recommendation accordingly. So the question raised and involved is whether the respondent could be prematurely retired solely by reason of the fact of registration of the two FIRs in which he is one of the accused? It is reiterated here that whereas there is a stay operating in respect of FIR No.42/2007, FIR No.23/2011 is stated to be still under investigation. In short, challan has not yet been produced before the court of competent jurisdiction in any of the two FIRs. The appellants have also not shown to the Court that they have made any diligent effort to get the stay vacated vis-à-vis FIR No.42/2007 and they seem to be content with the situation, inasmuch FIR No.23/201 also continues to be under investigation. Seemingly, it is a Damocles sword kept hanging over the head of the respondent. 23. The appellants have also not shown to the Court that they have made any diligent effort to get the stay vacated vis-à-vis FIR No.42/2007 and they seem to be content with the situation, inasmuch FIR No.23/201 also continues to be under investigation. Seemingly, it is a Damocles sword kept hanging over the head of the respondent. 23. In any case, to find an answer to the above question, one would not have to delve too deep into the matter, for the OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 issued by the Government itself provides that while making any recommendations for premature retirements, the entire service record of an employee, specified inclusively therein, is required to be screened. It hardly needs to be said that entire means entire, without leaving out any element or portion thereof. It has already been mentioned hereinabove that the Committee has not screened the APRs of the respondent, which constitute the most important and substantial record of service of a Government employee. The Committee has also not taken into account the fact that there was no such material as specified in the OM which could adversely reflect upon the reputation in public of the respondent and on the basis of which the Committee could have opined that he did not enjoy a good reputation in public. Mr. M. A. Chasoo, learned AAG, vehemently argued that in view of the fact that the respondent was accused of preparing fake stock registers and managing fictitious muster rolls, the subjective opinion formed by the Screening Committee on the basis of the two FIRs that the respondent did not enjoy a good reputation in the public and thereby he had outlived his utility to public cannot be questioned or gone into by the Court. In any case, he submitted that there is no bar for the Committee to form the requisite opinion solely on the two FIRs. Mr. Chashoo, learned AAG, sought to buttress his argument by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak (supra) and other judgments mentioned hereinabove. Let the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments cited at the Bar and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties be examined. 24. Mr. Chashoo, learned AAG, sought to buttress his argument by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak (supra) and other judgments mentioned hereinabove. Let the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments cited at the Bar and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties be examined. 24. The judgment in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak (supra) has been rendered by the Supreme Court in context of the peculiar features attendant to that case which become apparent from paras 16 and 17 of the judgment. Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment are quoted hereunder:- “16. We, however, need not go into the matter as some striking features which emerge from three matters are as under:- (a) In all these three cases the respondent official concerned was never caught red-handed while accepting bribe. However, observations which are identical in all three matters indicate that the Division Bench considered the matters from that premise. The basic foundation was thus incorrect. (b) The matter from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Regulation 226(2) of the Regulations was also not considered. The orders of sanction in all these three matters highlight the acts of commission and omission on part of the respondents concerned as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised. 17. The aforesaid two features are common in all these three matters. The basic premise, as indicated hereinabove, on the basis of which the matter was considered by the Division Bench was incorrect and secondly, the matter was also not considered from the perspective of Clause (iv) of Regulation 226(2) as stated above. We, therefore, set aside the judgments and orders under appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in State of J&K v Farid Ahmed Tak, State of J&K v. Mumtaz Hussain Bhat and State of J&K v Girdhari Lal. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench for fresh consideration. These letters patent appeals stand restored to the file of the High Court which may now be dealt with afresh.” 25. Perusal of the above two paras of the judgment reveals that the Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded on an incorrect premise specified in sub-para (a) of para 16. These letters patent appeals stand restored to the file of the High Court which may now be dealt with afresh.” 25. Perusal of the above two paras of the judgment reveals that the Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of this Court had proceeded on an incorrect premise specified in sub-para (a) of para 16. Further, it may be mentioned here that Clause (iv) of the instructions under Article 226(2) of the J&K CSRs, referred to in the aforesaid judgment by the Supreme Court, is not applicable in the present case, as already discussed hereinabove. Those instructions are relatable to non-gazetted employees only. The two cases are, therefore, wholly distinguishable on facts. That apart, the said judgment does not expressly or impliedly say that premature retirement can be ordered solely on the basis of FIR(s). Fact is that in para 10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has quoted para 27 of its earlier judgment in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 , wherein it has been laid down that involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty, and that whether mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee. The said judgment would be referred to later in this judgment. It is thus clear that the judgment in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak (supra), heavily relied upon by the learned AAG, does not support his argument. 26. The next case relied upon by the learned AAG in support of his arguments is State of U.P. v Bihari Lal, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 593, especially para 4 thereof. It is laid down therein as under:- “...It is now settled law that the entire service record should be considered before taking a decision to compulsorily retire a government servant exercising the power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. It is not necessary that adverse remarks should be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorised as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the government servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. It is not necessary that adverse remarks should be communicated or every remark, which may sometimes be categorised as adverse, be communicated. It is on an overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the government servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of officer built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants. Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a government servant. The court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks...” (Underlining & Emphasis supplied) 27. As already mentioned above, the fact is that the Committee has not taken the overall service record, especially the APRs of the respondents into consideration. In fact, it has falsely been said that the APRs are not available when the respondent has placed on record photocopies of several APRs mentioned hereinabove. 28. In State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 SCC 331 , the question related to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code which provided for power of the Government to compulsorily retire a government servant. Therein the respondent before the Supreme Court, who had been working as Assistant Conservator of Forests, was compulsorily retired from service. He challenged the order before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the grounds, including that the entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, therefore, the exercise of power of compulsory retirement under Rule 71(a) was not valid in law. The case of the respondent therein was that neither the entire record of service was placed before the Review Committee, nor the Committee had gone into, nor had the advantage of it, and that it considered only the adverse remarks for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. In short, it was contended for the respondent that adverse entries for two years and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant on the premise that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed. In short, it was contended for the respondent that adverse entries for two years and pending departmental proceedings would not be sufficient to compulsorily retire the government servant on the premise that after promotion they would become irrelevant and minor penalty was imposed. On behalf of the appellants, it was stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed before Supreme Court that the entire record of service from 1964-65 to 1981-82 and also the pending proceedings in the departmental enquiry against the respondent were placed before the Review Committee and the same were duly considered by it. The Supreme Court found that the adverse remarks had been made after promotion and held as under:- “7. .....The material question is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government to compulsorily retire the government servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any, But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension.....”. (Underlining supplied) The aforesaid judgment is again for the proposition that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. This Court has recorded a finding in that regard hereinabove that the Screening Committee did not consider the entire record of service of the respondent, especially the available APRs. 29. (Underlining supplied) The aforesaid judgment is again for the proposition that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. This Court has recorded a finding in that regard hereinabove that the Screening Committee did not consider the entire record of service of the respondent, especially the available APRs. 29. It may also be relevant to mention here that the instructions issued by the Government of Orrisa on premature retirement pursuant to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code vide No. 30495-2R/1/39/87-GA dated 24.11.1987 under which the respondent in State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Das (supra) was compulsorily retired, in clause 8 thereof stated that the object of the review was to weed out persons of ‘doubtful integrity’ or patent inefficiency from public service. Meaning thereby that a government employee could be prematurely retired merely on the basis of a doubt about his integrity, yet the Supreme Court in the judgment held that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. As against the above, in OM dated 25.10.2010, holding the field in the instant case, the words used are ‘with a view to encouraging honest and to weed out the corrupt…officers/officials’. The word ‘corrupt’ used herein as adjective implies that the guilt must have been proven – not necessarily in a criminal trial; it could be in a departmental enquiry – which, admittedly is not the case. 30. In Balkuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 , the Supreme Court spelled out the principles emerging from various of its decisions discussed therein in para 34 sub-paras (i) to (v) of the judgment and concluded the paragraph by saying that interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii). In sub-para (iii) it is laid down that while the High Court or ‘this Court’, i.e., the Supreme Court, would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) bona fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary. This Court has already come to the conclusion that the opinion and/or the report made by the Screening Committee were arbitrary having been arrived at without considering the APRs of the respondent and other relevant factors. 31. This Court has already come to the conclusion that the opinion and/or the report made by the Screening Committee were arbitrary having been arrived at without considering the APRs of the respondent and other relevant factors. 31. The next case cited at Bar by the learned AAG is the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L. Binjolkar v. State of M. P., (2005) 6 SCC 224 , especially para 5 thereof. Therein the Supreme Court has held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and that the employer takes into account various factors emanating from the employee’s past records and takes a view whether it would be in the interest of the employer to continue services of the employee concerned. It can certainly pass an order of compulsory retirement when the employee is considered to be a dead wood. The judgment is distinguishable on facts; therefore, of no help to the appellants. 32. In State of Gujarat v Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 , relied upon by the learned AAG, the respondent before the Supreme Court was appointed as a Clerk in the office of the Food Controller, Ahmedabad. After 24 years of service he was promoted as an Assistant Food Controller (Class II) in the office of the Food Controller, Ahmedabad. In 1983, certain complaints were received against the respondent regarding permits for cement having been issued illegally by him and, therefore, he was placed under suspension and an enquiry by the State CID (Crime and Railway) was ordered into the matter of issuance of bogus cement permits. On receipt of the CID enquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of issuing cement permits to bogus institutions which were not in existence in Ahmedabad, a first information report under various sections of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was filed against the respondent. Another FIR was lodged against him on the same day in respect of offences committed by him by fabricating the rubber stamp of the Government and fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties. By order dated 21.07.1988, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, he was compulsorily retired from service in public interest. Another FIR was lodged against him on the same day in respect of offences committed by him by fabricating the rubber stamp of the Government and fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties. By order dated 21.07.1988, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, he was compulsorily retired from service in public interest. The order was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge. However, on appeal, the Division Bench allowed his writ petition. The State of Gujarat approached the Supreme Court in SLP against the aforesaid Division Bench judgement dated 11.02.1998. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal so filed by the State. Paras 24 to 28 of judgment are of utmost relevance for the purpose of this appeal and are extracted hereunder:- “24. The performance of a government servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty of integrity of a government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse entries or the overall categorization of the employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of ‘Integrity’. If this is missing, the whole bundle would disperse. A government servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. 25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the government servant, to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance. 26. 26. .....In fact, there was hardly any material on the basis of which a bona fide opinion could have been formed that it would be in public interest to retire the respondent from service compulsorily. The material which was placed before the Review Committee has already been mentioned above. To repeat, respondent was promoted in 1981; the character roll entries for the next two years were not available or record; there were no adverse entries in the respondent’s character roll about his integrity; he was involved in two criminal cases, in one of which a final report was submitted while in the other a charge sheet was filed. Although there was no entry in his character roll that the respondent’s integrity was doubtful, the Review Committee, on its own, probably on the basis of the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity. The review Committee was constituted to assess the merits of the respondent on the basis of the character roll entries and other relevant material and to recommend whether it would be in public interest to compulsorily retire him from service or not. The Review Committee, after taking into consideration the character roll entries and noticing that there were no adverse entries and his integrity was, at no stage, doubted, proceeded, in excess of its jurisdiction, to form its own opinion with regard to respondent’s integrity merely on the basis of the FIRs lodged against him. Whether the integrity of an employee is doubtful or not, whether he is efficient and honest, is the function of the Appointing Authority or the immediate superior of that employee to consider and assess. It is not the function of the Review Committee to brand, and that too, off hand, an employee as a person of doubtful integrity..... 27. The whole exercise described above would, therefore, indicate that although there was no material on the basis of which a reasonable opinion could be formed that the respondent had outlived his utility as a Govt. Servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal case pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of take and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. Servant or that he had lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood, he was compulsorily retired merely because of his involvement in two criminal case pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of take and bogus institutions. 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 may, however, hasten to add that mere involvement in a criminal case would constitute relevant material for compulsory retirement or not would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the nature of offence allegedly committed by the employee. 28. There being no material before the Review Committee, in as much as there were no adverse remarks in the character roll entries, the integrity was not doubted at any time, the character roll entries subsequent to the respondent’s promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller (Class II) were not available, it could not come to the conclusion that the respondent was a man of doubtful integrity nor could have anyone else come to the conclusion that the respondent was a fit person to be retired compulsorily from service. The order, in the circumstances of the case, was punitive having been passed for the collateral purpose of his immediate removal, rather than in public interest. The Division Bench, in our opinion, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Single Judge and directing reinstatement of the respondent.” The aforesaid judgment clearly lays down that efficiency and honesty are to be assessed on the basis of material on record of which confidential reports are an important input, and that 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 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. In view of the facts narrated hereinabove, the above judgment squarely covers and governs the instant case. Herein, the APRs of the respondent, which throughout described him as an honest and efficient officer, have not been considered and taken into consideration. Therefore, the judgment, relied upon by the learned AAG, in fact, removes the earth underneath his stand; it rather advances the case of the respondent. 33. Now, coming to the judgments cited and relied upon by Mr. M. A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the respondent, we have already noted and discussed the Supreme Court judgment in State of J&K v Farid Ahmad Tak (supra). Next, in High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava (supra), the respondent therein, a member of higher judicial service, had been compulsorily retired on allegations of misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the officer who is to be retired on grounds of misconduct is entitled to claim that due process of law be followed. The judgment, obviously, is not relevant in face of the facts of the present case. The next judgment cited is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of J&K v Shamim Ahmad Laharwal, 2017 (II) SLJ 597, wherein it has been held that the Committee of officers should not have ignored the entire service record of the petitioner, more particularly APRs. In State of J&K v Abdul Majid Wani, 2017 (II) SLJ 706, the Division Bench of this Court has held that any decision taken in derogation of Article 226(2) of the CSR would be vitiated on account of non-application of mind and that mere registration of FIR is not a proof of guilt which can only be established in a full-fledged trial to be held in a criminal court. In another Division Bench decision of this Court cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent viz. State of J&K v Kamal Mahendru, 2018 (2) JKLT 211, it has been held that merely because a person is shown to have been involved in a criminal case would not per se mean that he was guilty of having committed that offence. Guilt would necessarily have to be established in trial, and before that stage is reached, it was held improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. Guilt would necessarily have to be established in trial, and before that stage is reached, it was held improper to deprive a person of his livelihood merely on the basis of his involvement. Hearsay reputation or casual statements questioning integrity of a person ought not to be considered, for the same may be baseless or attributed for mala fide purposes. 34. It is seen that the crux of the decisions has been culled out by the Supreme Court in its decision in Balkuntha Nath Das v Chief District Medical Officer (supra) in the following manner:- “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.” Two of the aforesaid fundamental principles are that the order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government and that the government shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter. It hardly needs to be stated that subjective satisfaction is not to be arrived on the basis of imagination, but should be reached at on the basis of material which satisfies a rational mind. The material, as mentioned in the OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Admn/2010 dated 25.10.2010, has to be the entire service record, especially the APRs. The OM also enjoins to take into account other factors mentioned therein like details of any promotions given in favour of the employee in the last three to five years; the number and nature of complaints, if any, received; 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; brief mention about failure, if any, in achieving the targets set out for him by the Government/Department with supportive details; warning and censures issued to the employee. If there are no complaints received, no enquiries conducted, no adverse reports received from the CID about the reputation of the official, no irregularities committed by the employee in the matter of appointments, no failures reported in achieving fixed targets, no warnings and censures earned, then these would constitute factors relevant to be taken into account alongwith the APRs of the employee while forming the opinion in terms of Article 226(2) of the CSRs. It is to be borne in mind that OM No.GAD(Vig)19-Adm/2010 dated 25.10.2010 was not only meant to screen the undesirable employees, but its express object was also to encourage the honest employees; meaning thereby that the above factors would and could be used positively or negatively in favour or against an employee. In that sense, these factors in favour of the respondent had to be taken into account by the Screening Committee, but that has not been. This Court has already recorded a finding that the Screening Committee has not taken into account the APRs of the respondents. It is not only the finding of the Court, but is admitted by the appellants without mincing any words. This Court has already recorded a finding that the Screening Committee has not taken into account the APRs of the respondents. It is not only the finding of the Court, but is admitted by the appellants without mincing any words. Once the Screening Committee has omitted to take into account the tangible evidence in the shape of APRs, it cannot be expected of them to have taken into account the aforesaid intangible but crucial factors. The Court has no option, therefore, available to it but to come to the conclusion that the report/opinion of the Screening Committee suffers from vice of non-application of mind and is, accordingly, rendered unreasonable and arbitrary. Consequentially, the Government order No.857-GAD of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 is equally rendered arbitrary. 35. For all that has been narrated and discussed above, we hold that respondent could not be prematurely retired solely by reason of the fact of registration of the two FIRs in which he is one of the accused. Resultantly, we do not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present LPA. It, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 36. This LPA is, accordingly, dismissed and the judgment impugned is upheld, of course, for the additional reasons discussed by us in this judgment. 37. No order as to costs.