JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2018 delivered by the learned Single Bench in SWP No.2666/2016 titled ‘Chamel Singh v. State of J&K and others’, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, bearing No.1269-GAD of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service in public interest with effect from 21.11.2016 in exercise of powers under Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, and perused the appeal file. 3. The term or phrase “compulsory retirement” in service law has been generally used in relation to cases where an employee has been directed that his services are no longer required before he reaches the normal age of retirement prescribed by the rules. In other words, in substance, there is a premature end of the relationship of master and servant before the servant reaches the prescribed age of retirement or superannuation. Premature retirement is, therefore, a more apt expression to convey the concept with which the petitioner has been subjected. The purpose and object of premature retirement of a Government employee is to weed out the inefficient, the corrupt, the dishonest or the dead-wood from Government service. In Tara Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1975) 4 SCC 86 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court summed up the concept of premature retirement in following words : “26. The right to be in public employment is a right to hold it according to rules. The right to hold is defeasible according to rules. The rules speak of compulsory retirement. There is guidance in the rules as to when such compulsory retirement is made. When persons complete 25 years of service and the efficiency of such persons is impaired and yet it is desirable not to bring any charge of inefficiency or incompetency, the Government passes orders of such compulsory retirement. The government servant in such a case does not lose the benefits which a government servant has already earned. These orders of compulsory retirement are made in public interest. This is the safety valve of making such orders so that no arbitrariness or bad faith creeps in.” 4. The government servant in such a case does not lose the benefits which a government servant has already earned. These orders of compulsory retirement are made in public interest. This is the safety valve of making such orders so that no arbitrariness or bad faith creeps in.” 4. It is well settled that when an order is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the government to provide documents for inspection of court. In the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others, AIR 1977 SC 2411 , the Supreme Court has ruled out in paragraph 36 as under : “36. … when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged as arbitrary or mala fide by making clear and specific allegations, it will then be certainly necessary for the Government to produce all the necessary materials to rebut such pleas to satisfy the court by voluntarily producing such documents as will be a complete answer to the plea. It will be for the Government also to decide whether at that stage privilege should be claimed with regard to any particular document. Ordinarily, the service record of a Government servant in a proceeding of this nature cannot be said to be privileged document which should be shut out from inspection.” 5. Not only the employer is obliged to produce the materials, but the onus of establishing that the order was made in public interest is also on the employer. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 SCC 321 , the Supreme Court has clearly held that “it is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, nor a matter where the victim must make out the contrary”. 6. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 SCC 321 , the Supreme Court has clearly held that “it is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, nor a matter where the victim must make out the contrary”. 6. Admittedly, a perusal of the file clearly reveals that the State Government has run roughshod over the writ petitioner by compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service as the decision seems to be based on no material, in as much as the relevant material including the APRs and other service record which was required to be considered by the Committee for considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement has either not been placed before the Committee or has not been considered which coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is generally known to have bad reputation and his continuance may not be in the larger interest of the public. It is pertinent to mention here that the important aspect of considering the APRs has been given a complete goby by the Committee while considering the writ petitioner’s compulsory retirement. The Committee, in general, ought to have considered 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 retiring the public servant compulsory, his case has to be considered on the basis of documents/ service particulars, as stated above. It is conspicuous by its absence in the present 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 decision having been taken not on just grounds. It appears the APRs of writ petitioner, have not been taken into account by the respondents. This itself speaks about the non application of mind by the Establishment committee which apparently arrived at the conclusion without looking into the relevant record. It appears the APRs of writ petitioner, have not been taken into account by the respondents. This itself speaks about the non application of mind by the Establishment committee which apparently arrived at the conclusion without looking into the relevant record. It is specially observed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment that the writ respondent had not denied the APRs of the petitioner which were annexed with the writ petition by way of filing any reply affidavit, however, the writ respondents have emphasized on the statement in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee that ‘due to his persistent misconduct, the employee does not enjoy a good reputation in the public and the overall perception of the general public is that he is a corrupt and delinquent official. We are of the view that in absence of any adverse entry in the APRs of the writ petitioner, the reputation of writ petitioner cannot be termed as doubtful, as projected, nor could his conduct be determined only on spoken words in the absence of any material on record, which was the fundamental flaw in the order issued against the petitioner compulsory retiring him from service. It is abundantly clear that the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken only in view of the registration of FIR No. 75/1999 by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu and FIR No. 22/2009 registered at Crime Branch, Jammu and apart from the aforesaid two FIRs no other record was either placed before the Committee or the Competent Authority. FIR No.75/1999, as stated above, has ended in acquittal of the petitioner and other is pending trial. The mere lodging of FIRs cannot be the made the basis for compulsory retiring the writ petitioner from service, as such it can be said to be a case of no material or no evidence and the same can certainly be held to be arbitrary or without application of mind. 7. The power to retire compulsory a government servant in terms of service rules is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. Although the scope of judicial review is limited, it has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that when an order of premature retirement is challenged, the authorities concerned must disclose the materials on the basis of which the order was made. Although the scope of judicial review is limited, it has repeatedly been held by the Apex Court that when an order of premature retirement is challenged, the authorities concerned must disclose the materials on the basis of which the order was made. Further, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be based on the sole basis of recommendations of the committee which has to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Merely because the committee has made recommendations for retirement of writ petitioner, he cannot be compulsorily retired unless the competent authority comes to a conclusion after forming a bona fide opinion of its own that the writ petitioner can be subjected to compulsory retirement in the interest of the institution. 8. As regards the allegation that the writ petitioner is responsible for embezzlement and shortages while being posted in the Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department is concerned, FIR No.75/1999 u/s 5/2 PC Act r/w 409 RPC and FIR No.22/2009 were registered. As regards FIR No.75/1999, after full-fledged trial of the case, the trial court has acquitted the petitioner and whereas in the case based on FIR No.22/2009, the proceedings are allegedly stated to be still pending. Therefore, the in the above conspectus of matter, in our view compulsory retirement cannot be sustained merely on allegations and on the asking of the cross section of the people. The practice followed by the State in directing compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner was completely unwarranted because that would violate the basic maxim of ‘innocent until proved guilty’. Thus, via the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the State has applied this principle in the reverse. 9. In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under : “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 government 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 cases pertaining to the grant of permits in favour of fake and bogus institutions. The involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty. 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.” 10. In the said case it was also opined by the Supreme Court that the annual character roll of the Government Servant would give an appropriately objective assessment of his integrity and job performance since adverse remarks on such rolls would be warning signs of the absence of such a person’s job integrity. The Supreme Court further held that merely being involved in a criminal case wouldn’t per se establish the person’s guilt and hence, a compulsory retirement based on such a factor wouldn’t stand. 11. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 , has held that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is to be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material and it is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. It has been observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 34 and 36 of the report as under:- “34. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. It is also well settled that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on a valid material. It is permissible for the courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. In the present matter, what we see is that the High Court, while holding that the track record and service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory, has selectively taken into consideration the service record for certain years only while making extracts of those contents of the ACRs. There appears to be some discrepancy. We say so for the reason that the appellant has produced the copies of the ACRs which were obtained by him from the High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a comparison of these two would positively indicate that the High Court has not faithfully extracted the contents of the ACRs. 36. The material on which the decision of the compulsory retirement was based, as extracted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, and material furnished by the appellant would reflect that totality of relevant materials were not considered or completely ignored by the High Court. This leads to only one conclusion that the subjective satisfaction of the High Court was not based on the sufficient or relevant material. In this view of the matter, we cannot say that the service record of the appellant was unsatisfactory which would warrant premature retirement from service. Therefore, there was no justification to retire the appellant compulsorily from service.” 12. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with connected CM, if any, upholding the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 13. However, as regards the allegations leveled by the writ respondent against the writ petitioner, the State and its officers at the helm of affairs if are fair enough and have a will, and do not intend to provide a safe passage to writ petitioner, are free to go ahead with inquiry, if they deem fit, and complete the same in a time bound manner without any excuse on the part of officers holding such inquiry. 14. With the above, the appeal is dismissed.