Judgment : Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to forthwith pay the petitioner all arrears of salaries and allowances, to which he would have been entitled to, if not prematurely retired. 2. The petitioner was employed in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter called the CISF) and at the relevant point of time he was posted at CISF Unit, Eastern Coal Field Limited, Seetalpur, District- Burdwan, performing his duties dedicatedly and devotedly, maintaining his dignity, being physically sound and mentally alert. 3. By Order dated 14th June, 2016 the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, North Eastern Zone prematurely retired the petitioner from services. The petitioner further stated claimed absence of provision of appeal against the said order of premature retirement, compelled him to submit a representation dated 28 th June 2016 before the Director General on the grounds as raised therein. 4. By order dated 10th October 2016 it was communicated the representation submitted by the petitioner had been rejected, stating the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, NEZ, Headquarters., Kolkata was of the opinion it was in the public interest and in exercise of power conferred by Fundamental Rules and Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972, the petitioner was retired from service, since he had already completed 50 years of service. 5. The petitioner further stated as per the rule the matter of premature retirement should be decided by a Board presided over by the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department was the Director General, and the Deputy Inspector General was much inferior in rank than the Director General. Therefore the impugned order of premature retirement had been passed by an authority devoid of jurisdiction. The respondents had passed the order of premature retirement due to extraneous reason considering the petitioner to have become a dead wood in absence of plausibility. His past 5 years of grading in the ACR was either very good or outstanding and therefore the order of premature retirement had passed arbitrarily without application of mind. Apart from the ACR for the past five years, his ACR grading from the year 2006 to 2015 was either very good or outstanding. His past 5 years of grading in the ACR was either very good or outstanding and therefore the order of premature retirement had passed arbitrarily without application of mind. Apart from the ACR for the past five years, his ACR grading from the year 2006 to 2015 was either very good or outstanding. In the Rule there was direction only to consider the ACR and not the past penalties, whereas in the instant case the respondents had also considered the past penalties inflicted before and after promotion. The concerned respondents failed to appreciate in its proper perspective that the petitioner had been rewarded in cash for twenty three times. 6. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted the order of premature retirement to have been issued mechanically contrary to the mandate of law considering the petitioner to have been a “dead wood” devoid of constructive contribution to his service warranting compulsory retirement in contravention with the provisions under Clause 1(b) of Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The order of compulsory/premature retirement was issued by a Review Board which lacked jurisdiction as the same was not presided over by the Head of the Department being a statutory requirement. 7. The petitioner had been granted 23 instances of cash rewards for commendable and gradings of “very good/outstanding” from the year 2006 to 2015 which demonstrated his active participation, adeptness, skill, vigour in discharging his duties and such an nomenclature of being “dead wood” had been biased, arbitrary and irrational. 8. Moreover, the competent authority did not lodge doubtful integrity tainted by extraneous circumstances. The petitioner accordingly should not have been compulsorily retired. The petitioner’s prayer in the writ petition should, therefore, be allowed. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent-authorities submitted in compliance with FR-56(j) and Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the entire service record of the petitioner was taken into consideration prior to the conclusive determination of affording compulsory retirement in his favour which had not been a punitive action to his detriment obliterating arbitrariness, mala fide intention and biasedness on the part of the respondent-authority. 23 instances of cash rewards, ACR gradings of “very good/outstanding” from the year 2006 to 2015, grant of MACP benefit could not prevail over and undermine his grave misconducts, dereliction of duties, highhandedness and adverse entries in his service records imposing two major and five minor punishments for serious misconduct namely theft of plant property while on duty, misconduct and indiscipline during parliamentary elections – 2014, absence from duty, quarreling and creating public disorder, unauthorized use of unit vehicle leading to fatal accident of CISF Personnel, negligence in handling duty of injured constable, continuous failure to sign suspension register. 10. The statement of superannuation review under FR-56(j)/Rule-48 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of Group “B” Non-Gazetted Officers, dated 17.05.2016, inter alia stated as follows:- MAJOR-2 i. Reduction of pay by two stages from Rs.1600/- to Rs.1520/- vide KSTPP Korba FO dated 04.07.92 for his involvement in theft of plant property while on duty. ii. Reduction of pay from Rs.20930/- + G.P. Rs.4800/- to Rs.19450/- + G.P. Rs.4800/- for 02 years with cumulative effect vide NZ-2 Allahabad FO dated 28.10.14 for following charges:- a) While on election duty in GPE-2014 at Meerut prevented Const. Nagarjun, FGUTPP Unchahar for using bathroom and used derogatory languages. He also thrashed and used abusive languages to SI/Exe D.K. Pathak on the issue of sharing bathroom of election duty personnel. b) While on election duty in GPE-2014 at Meerut incited and led the personnel of Coy. No.153 to assault const. Gurvinder Singh and Const. Roshan Lal of Coy. 152 in presence of Insp/Exe. R. R. Meena. c) While functioning as Coy. Commander of Coy. No.153 and camping at Chaudhary Prem Singh Inter College, Machhara, Meerut in connection with GPE-2014, locked the inter-connecting door/gate with wrongful intention to prevent the personnel of Coy. No.152 from sharing bathroom and thereby created a sense of distrust amongst the personnel which led for creation of ugly situation on 20.04.14. MINOR-2 i. Censure vide BSP Bhilai FO dated 20.02.89 for absent on “B” shift duty on 15.12.88. ii. Censure vide BSP Bhilai FO dated 28.02.91 for not signing properly in the suspension register. iii. Withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide VSSC Thumba FO dated 09.08.2002 for quarrel with Insp/Exe Naresh Kumar and created ugly scene in front of the residents of VSSC Thumba housing colony. iv. ii. Censure vide BSP Bhilai FO dated 28.02.91 for not signing properly in the suspension register. iii. Withholding of one increment for one year without cumulative effect vide VSSC Thumba FO dated 09.08.2002 for quarrel with Insp/Exe Naresh Kumar and created ugly scene in front of the residents of VSSC Thumba housing colony. iv. Reduction of pay by one stage for 01 year without cumulative effect vide order dated 31/5-0/6/06 for taken the unit jeep to Bairely without permission of competent authority while posted at IFCO Aonla (now deinducted).” v. Censure vide OTHPP Obra appellate order dated 03.12.14 for not taking prompt action on seriously injured late Const. Bhagirath Yadav while performing RI duties at OTHPP Obra.” 11. The relevant fundamental rules issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment A-IV Desk, Government of India in Office Memorandum No.25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV dated 28 th of August, 2020 replicated as follows:- “No.25013/03/2019-Estt.A-IV Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Establishment A-IV Desk ***** North Block, New Delhi-I Dated : 28th August, 2020 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: - Periodic Review of Central Government Employees for strengthening of administration under Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(j)/(l) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ‘3...... 3.2. FR 56(j):- The Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice:- (i) If he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B' service or post in a substantive, quasi-permanent or temporary capacity and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years, after he has attained the age of 50 years; (ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years. 3.3. 3.3. FR 56(l):- Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (j), the Appropriate Authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire a Government servant in Group C service or post who is not governed by any pension rules, after he has completed thirty years' service by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. 3.4. Rule 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972:- At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty (30) years' qualifying service, he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest and in the case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension, provided that the Appointing Authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. ........ 8.1...... (iii) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees:- (a) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However, in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head. (b) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee. Chief Vigilance Officer, in case of Gazetted officers, or his representative in case of non-Gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee. 9. Constitution of Internal Committee:- In addition to the above, Secretary of the CCA is also empowered to constitute an Internal Committee comprising of such officer(s) as deemed fit to assist the Review Committee. These Committees will ensure that the service record of the Government servants being reviewed, along with a summary, bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at least three months prior to the due date of review. 10. Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee:- The broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making the recommendations are as follows:- (i) Government servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired. 10. Broad Criteria to be followed by the Review Committee:- The broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee while making the recommendations are as follows:- (i) Government servants whose integrity is doubtful, shall be retired. (ii) Government servants found to be ineffective shall also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such Government servants should be their fitness/competence to continue in the post held. (iii) No Government servant should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, in any event, he would be retiring on superannuation within a period of one year from the date of consideration of his case. However, in a case where there is a sudden and steep fall in the competence, efficiency or effectiveness of a Government servant, it would be open to review such a case also for premature retirement The said instruction of not retiring the Government servant within one year on the ground of ineffictiveness except in case of sudden and steep fall in his performance is relevant only when he is proposed to be retired on the ground of ineffectiveness, but not on the ground of doubtful integrity. (iv) No Government servant should ordinarily be retired on ground of ineffectiveness, if, his service during the preceding 5 years or where he has been promoted to a higher post during that 5 year period, his service in the highest post, has been found satisfactory. There is no such stipulation, however, where the Government servant is to be retired on grounds of doubtful integrity. In case of those Government servants who have been promoted during the last 5 years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken into account if he was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit. (v) The entire service record of a Government servant should be considered at the time of review. The expression 'service record' refers to all relevant records and therefore, the review should not be confined to the consideration of the ACR/APAR dossier. The personal file of the Government servant may contain valuable material. Similarly, his work and performance could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. The personal file of the Government servant may contain valuable material. Similarly, his work and performance could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the Ministry I Department/Cadre puts together all the data available about the Government servant and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs may be taken into consideration.” 11. Important judgements of Supreme Court:- 11.1. In the judgement in the case of UOI & Col. J.N.Sinha [1571 SCR (1) 791], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not only upheld the validity of FR 56(j), but also held that no show- cause notice needs to be issued to any Government servant before a notice of retirement is issued to him under the aforesaid provisions. The Apex Court held that — "Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 56(j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it/s in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the rule.' one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before courts. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision." 11.2. In the case of State of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Pate!, 2001 (3) SCC 314 , Hon'ble Court held that — "The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystalized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 12. The observations of the Supreme Court with regard to Integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant 12.1. As far as integrity is concerned, the following, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S Ramchandra Raju vs State of Orissa {(1994) 3 SCC 424}, while upholding compulsory retirement in the case, may be kept in view: “The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and injurious to public interest. The entire service record or character rolls or confidential reports maintained would furnish the backdrop material for consideration by the Government or the Review Committee or the appropriate authority. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances alone; the Government should form the opinion that the Government officer needs to be compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer.” 12.2. Therefore, the entire record more particularly, the latest, would form the foundation for the opinion and furnish the base to exercise the power under the relevant rule to compulsorily retire a Government officer.” 12.2. While considering the aspect of integrity of an employee, all material on record, including the actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may also be taken into account. The judgement of the Apex Court in the case of K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India & Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6 ) 162 is relevant here. In this case, the apex court upheld the decision of the Government and held that:- "The rights - constitutional or statutory - carry with them corollary duty to maintain efficiency, integrity and dedication to public service. Unfortunately, the latter is being overlooked and neglected and the former unduly gets emphasised. The appropriate Government or the authority would, therefore, need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form the opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material on record; otherwise it would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.” 12.3. Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP. and Others vs Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002:- "If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest.” 12. In Supdt. of Post of Offices v. Izhar Hussain (2008) 17 SCC 365 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “2. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid proviso confers an unbridled power on the employer to require an employee to retire on his attaining the age of 55 years and conferment of such unbridled power is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid proviso confers an unbridled power on the employer to require an employee to retire on his attaining the age of 55 years and conferment of such unbridled power is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is no doubt true that the order of compulsory retirement is not penal in nature, and every employer has a right to require the employee to compulsorily retire in accordance with the relevant service regulation, provided the non-continuance of service of the employee is held to be in public interest. The impugned regulation, however, does not indicate that the power under the second proviso could be exercised in public interest. To our query as to whether the employer has issued any guidelines for the exercise of power under the second proviso, and has indicated that such power could be exercised only in public interest, the answer was in the negative. In the absence of any such guidelines, and in the absence of such provision in the proviso itself, the conclusion of the High Court that it confers an unbridled power and is violative of Article 14 is unassailable. In fact, a decision of this Court on somewhat similar provisions in Senior Supdt.of Post Offices v. Izhar Hussain [ (1989) 4 SCC 318 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 648 : (1989) 11 ATC 852] fully supports the conclusion of the High Court. We, therefore, do not find any merits in this appeal requiring our interference. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.” 13. In Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Diary Federation Limited and Anr. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “35. The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no longer res integra. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subject to judicial review inter alia: (i) when it is based on no material; (ii) when it is arbitrary; (iii) when it is without application of mind; and (iv) when there is no evidence in support of the case. 36. In BaikunthaNath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer [ (1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] this Court held: (SCC pp. 315-16, para 34) “34. 36. In BaikunthaNath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer [ (1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] this Court held: (SCC pp. 315-16, para 34) “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 a perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter—of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 37. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [ (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576] this Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 11) “11. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.” 37. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [ (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576] this Court held: (SCC p. 320, para 11) “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 38. In Pritam Singh v. Union of India [ (2005) 9 SCC 748 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 728] this Court held: (SCC p. 753, paras 13 & 16) “13. In our opinion, the High Court has committed an error in not interfering with the punishment of compulsory retirement even though the appellant submitted that the misconduct alleged against him was not at all an offence or even a serious mistake. The act of misconduct alleged against him was that he supplied a list of absentee details to one of the employees, who was fighting a case before the Tribunal against the Railways. This list contained the ticket numbers of the workers of a shop, who were absent on that date. This was neither a confidential document nor a privileged document. It contained details to which the employee concerned had a right of information. This list contained the ticket numbers of the workers of a shop, who were absent on that date. This was neither a confidential document nor a privileged document. It contained details to which the employee concerned had a right of information. The appellant being a Superintendent Grade II and in charge of the information acted bona fide in good faith while supplying the information. In our opinion, this kind of an act was neither a misconduct nor a serious mistake. When the charges were found proved against the appellant, the appellant admitted that he had supplied the absentee details. *** 16. This Court in Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [ (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] while examining the scope of judicial review held that ‘reasonableness’, ‘rationality’ and ‘proportionality’ are the grounds on the basis of which judicial review of the administrative order can be undertaken. Considering the facts extracted hereinbefore, we find that the exercise of power by the respondent falls in the category of arbitrary exercise of power.” … 47. The question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel [ (2001) 3 SCC 314 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 576] wherein Balakrishnan, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, summarised the law thus: (SCC p. 320, para 11) “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 14. The petitioner did not reform himself after imposition of one major and three minor punishments after being promoted to Inspector (Exe.) in the year 2001. The petitioner’s ACR ratings included average gradings on two occasions and below average rating on one occasion which cumulatively reflected lack of discipline and unsuitability for retention in service. 15. The respondent-committee, therefore, concluded the petitioner failed to be amenable to the high standards of discipline expected from an official of the armed forces and his retention was, therefore, prejudicial to public interest. 16. The petitioner claimed to have served at the CISF Unit Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Seetalpur, District-Burdwan dedicatedly, devotedly exuding unimpeachable integrity, sound physical and mental fitness. He had been prematurely retired through an order issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF NEZ Kolkata in public interest under the fundamental Rules and CSS (Pension) Rules, 1972 having achieved the age of 50 years. 17. The petitioner preferred a representation against the aforesaid order which was rejected on 10th of October, 2016 which propelled the petitioner to file the instant writ petition claiming the consideration of the Review Board presided over by the Deputy Inspector General being an inferior authority lacking jurisdiction instead of the same to have been presided over by the Head of the Department, i.e., Director General. 18. Contrary to the proposition of the petitioner, the respondent-authority submitted “……In exercise of such power the Inspector General/Head Quarters, Central Industrial Security Force under Ministry of Home Affairs, vide its Office Memorandum No.28011/01/2006/1/30 dated 7th September, 2015 issued an order in pursuance Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India instructions, the Internal Screening Committee, superannuation Review Committee and Representation Committee vide CISF CIRCULAR NO.16/2015, Re-constructed the committee, for Re- constitution of Internal Screening Committee, Superannuation Review Committee for disposal of cases under FR-56 (J) and Rule-48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ (Non-Gazetted) personnel in CISF; Regulation. The Board Proceeding/Statements of Superannuation review under FR- 56 (J) / Rule 48 CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972 in respect of Group – ‘B’ Non-Gazetted Officers dated 17th May, 2016.” 19. It was further submitted “….. as per the Appendix 5 of Rule 56 J 7 (C ) (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provide that in the case of the Non-Gazetted employees in other than centralized cadres, Head of Department / Head of Organization shall decide the composition of the Review Committee.” 20. The fundamental Rule FR 56(j) and Rule 48 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as stated above categorically mentioned the Government servants whose integrity had been doubtful should be retired, the once found to be ineffective should also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such Government servants should be their fitness/competence to continue in the post held. The ACR gradings of the present petitioner since the year 2011 marked as Annexures from Page-15 till Page-49 had reflected his performance to be very good, reasonable, prompt, punctual, efficient, hardworking, devoided, reliable, physical in good measure, industrious, laborious, maintained an excellent rapo with the management possessing good knowledge relating to OM and other administrative duties, sincere, good liaison with management and other agencies, ability to motivate his subordinate and teams, state of health Shape-I, integrity beyond doubt, etc. The ACR gradings had been endorsed by the superior authority prior to the Reporting Officer. 21. The recommendation of the Internal Scrutiny Committee declared the petitioner fit for retention. The integrity of the petitioner was certified through scrutiny of the representative of Chief Vigilance Officer. Adverse findings with regard to integrity, health condition, effectivity, fitness and competency had been indisputable. 22. The Review Committee did not determine sudden and steep fall in the competency, efficiency or effectiveness of the petitioner to compel him to retire otherwise being malefic to public interest. Broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee as aforesaid categorically stipulated that a Government servant should not be originally retired on the ground of ineffectiveness if his service during the preceding five years or where he had been promoted to a higher post during that 5 years, his service in the highest post had been found satisfactory. 23. Broad criteria to be followed by the Review Committee as aforesaid categorically stipulated that a Government servant should not be originally retired on the ground of ineffectiveness if his service during the preceding five years or where he had been promoted to a higher post during that 5 years, his service in the highest post had been found satisfactory. 23. The petitioner as per the service records concerning the ACR grading, the cash rewards credited to him the benefit of MACP conferred on him did not constitute ineffectiveness, dishonesty, incompetence, lack of fitness or agility to perform his duty. The major and minor penalties as cited to be the reason for compulsory retirement thrust upon the petitioner had been unconscionable in the disguise of the same being against public interest since the authority concerned to whom the petitioner reported and the superior authority had commendably embellished his performance exemplarily. The respondent-authority did not institute any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and cannot compulsorily or prematurely retired him from the service in the grab of being a “dead wood” granting promotion to the petitioner disregarding the punishments imposed on him in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as cited above acted in his favour. 24. The petitioner could have contributed his services to the respondent-authorities if not compulsively ordered to retire prematurely to weed him out possibly. 25. In view of the intent and purport of the Rules as stated above, the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the order dated 14.06.2016 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired is quashed. 26. This Court dealt with the grounds based on which the Review Committee prematurely retired the petitioner without assessing the constituents of the same. The case of the petitioner should be considered by the appropriate Review Committee constituted for assessment in case of Non- Gazatted Officers as per Rule FR 56(j) and Rule 48 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 27. The petitioner is to be reinstated with back wages if he is yet to attain the age of superannuation. If the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the arrears of salaries and allowances to which the petitioner is entitled to be disbursed in his favour along with retirement benefits at an interest of 6% per annum. 28. The writ petition being WPA 30572 of 2016 is disposed of for further consideration by the review committee, appointing authority. If the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the arrears of salaries and allowances to which the petitioner is entitled to be disbursed in his favour along with retirement benefits at an interest of 6% per annum. 28. The writ petition being WPA 30572 of 2016 is disposed of for further consideration by the review committee, appointing authority. 29. There is no order as to costs. 30. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.