Rajes Kumar, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 57241 of 2013 filed by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a Class-III employee of the Ghazipur Judgeship. It appears that a committee has been constituted to identify the persons, who have attained the age of 50 years and has completed 20 years of service. Although the Screening Committee has not recommended the name of the appellant for compulsory retirement, however, having regard to the material on record, the District Judge, Ghazipur, vide order dated 17.8.2013, has passed an order compulsorily retiring the appellant. The District Judge, while retiring the appellant compulsorily, has taken a note that several punishments were awarded to the appellant and on consideration of materials on record, it was found that it would not be appropriate to keep him in service. The District Judge has recorded the following findings:

LANGUAGE

2. Against the order of learned District Judge, the appellant filed a writ petition. Before the writ Court, it was contended that the punishment order dated 2.2.2008, by which, he has been reverted to the lowest pay scale, has been set aside by the Administrative Judge in appeal.

3. The learned Single Judge found that the material referred in the order of the District Judge was sufficient to arrive to the conclusion that his utility was not required in service. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the various decisions of the Apex Court and has observed that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It is prerogative of the Government/competent authority to retire a person compulsorily on the basis of the material available on the satisfaction being arrived that the said Government servant should not be allowed to continue in public interest. The said order is being challenged in the present appeal.

5. Heard Shri Shakti Dhar Dube, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manish Goyal appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the other reasons referred in the order, have also been referred in the order dated 2.2.2008, whereby the appellant has been awarded punishment of reversal to the lowest pay scale and once the order dated 2.2.2008, is set aside and all the charges which is referred in the order dated 2.2.2008 stood set aside, the order of the learned Single Judge is not justified. It is further submitted that some of the entries have not been communicated to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not get the opportunity to represent. Therefore, such entries cannot be made basis for the compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that Screening Committee has not expressed its opinion to retire the appellant compulsorily, as against the 47 employees, the appellant has only been singled out and has been compulsorily retired.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary, without any valid ground and reasons and is liable to be set aside. The reliance has been placed in the various decisions, namely, Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, AIR 2010 SC 151 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2010) 124 FLR 1101 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 8 JT 385 : (2009) 7 SCALE 622 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 13 SCC 758 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 297 : (2009) 8 SCR 1084 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 8 SLR 488 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] , M.P. State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, (2009) 121 FLR 917 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 6 JT 263 : (2009) 6 SCALE 17 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 15 SCC 221 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 512 : (2009) 6 SCR 182 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 5 UJ 2161 , [LQ/SC/2009/830] Pritam Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2004) 4 CTC 789 [LQ/SC/2004/1079] : (2004) 7 JT 576 : (2005) 1 LLJ 6 [LQ/SC/2004/1079] : (2004) 8 SCALE 116 [LQ/SC/2004/1079] : (2005) 9 SCC 748 [LQ/SC/2004/1079] : (2005) SCC(L&S) 728 : (2005) 1 SLJ 390 , [LQ/SC/2004/1079] State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 89 FLR 173 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 3 JT 223 : (2001) 2 LLJ 1140 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 2 SCALE 261 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 3 SCC 314 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) SCC(L&S) 576 : (2001) 2 SCR 170 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 1 UJ 664 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) AIRSCW 862 : (2001) 2 Supreme 193 . It is submitted that the entries awarded whether the adverse entries, if not communicated, can be treated adverse or not, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2013) 4 ABR 1138 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2014) 1 AD 227 : AIR 2013 SC 2741 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 137 FLR 907 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 8 JT 270 : (2013) LabIC 2925 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 2 LLN 578 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 171 PLR 823 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 6 SCALE 490 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) 9 SCC 566 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 279 : (2013) 4 SCT 129 [LQ/SC/2013/468] : (2013) AIRSCW 3801 .

8. It is further submitted that compulsory retirement is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged conduct and liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in the case of Collector Singh Vs. L.M.L. Ltd., (2015) 1 ESC 83 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] : (2015) 144 FLR 447 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] : (2015) LabIC 707 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] : (2015) 1 LLN 306 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] : (2014) 10 SCJ 168 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] : (2015) 1 SLJ 76 [LQ/SC/2014/1185] and State of M.P. and Others Vs. Hazarilal, AIR 2008 SC 1300 [LQ/SC/2008/310] : (2008) 1 CLT 589 : (2008) 2 JT 390 : (2008) 2 LLJ 715 [LQ/SC/2008/310] : (2008) 2 SCALE 361 [LQ/SC/2008/310] : (2008) 3 SCC 273 [LQ/SC/2008/310] : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 611 : (2008) 1 UJ 315 [LQ/SC/2008/310] : (2008) AIRSCW 1354 : (2008) 2 Supreme 51 .

9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. The compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It is pre-mature retirement after assessing performance of a Government servant and forming an opinion that the employee has rendered to be deadwood and has lost his utility. The Apex Court has held that an order of punishment under F.R. 56(i) authorises the Government to review the working of its employees at the end of their services referred to therein and to require the Government servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Judicial scrutiny of any order imposing compulsory retirement is permissible, if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence.

11. It would be useful to refer certain principles in respect of compulsory retirement, culled out by the Honble Apex Court.

12. In Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1029 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 73 CLT 665 : (1992) 2 JT 1 : (1992) 1 LLJ 784 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SCALE 428 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 2 SCC 299 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SCR 836 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SLJ 177 , [LQ/SC/1992/182] the Apex Court has categorically held that the judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide. The principle of natural justice has no place in the context of compulsory retirement. The Apex Court further held that any adverse entries in the confidential record shall be taken note and shall be given weight in passing such order even uncommunicated entries can also be taken into consideration.

13. In Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India (UOI), AIR 1954 SC 369 [LQ/SC/1954/55] : (1954) 2 LLJ 139 [LQ/SC/1954/55] : (1955) 1 SCR 26 [LQ/SC/1954/55] , it was held that an officer who has compulsory retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned and is entitled for pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with Rules. There is no deprivation of the accrued benefits. Though from the point of view of the officer/employee concerned, he may think to have been punished for not being allowed to serve till he attains the age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules, but there is distinction between the loss of benefits already earned and loss of prospects to earn something more. It was held that since compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(c) is not a punishment when resorted to in public interest, Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application.

14. In Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 JT 357 : (1992) LabIC 1410 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1993) 2 LLJ 866 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 1 SCALE 727 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 SCC 317 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 SCR 338 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 3 SLJ 16 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 1 UJ 549 , [LQ/SC/1992/273] the Honble Apex Court considered the scope of judicial review as under:

"An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. F.R. 56(j) authorizes the Government to review the working of its employee at the end of the point of their service referred to therein and to require the servant to retire from service, if in its opinion, public interest calls for such an order. Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The Courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record." (para 5)

(emphasis added)

15. In S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 [LQ/SC/1994/790] : (1994) 78 CLT 917 : (1994) 5 JT 459 : (1995) 1 LLJ 1083 : (1994) 3 SCALE 907 [LQ/SC/1994/790] : (1994) 3 SCC 424 Supp : (1994) 2 SCR 828 Supp , the Apex Court held as under:

"It is thus settled law that though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the Government employee is entitled to draw all retiral benefits including pension, the Government must exercise its power only in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of the service. The dead wood need to be removed to augment efficiency. Integrity in public service need to be maintained. The exercise of power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public servant but must act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure efficiency of service and free from corruption and incompetence. 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 in public service and injurious to public interest."

16. In Allahabad Bank Officers Association and another v. Allahabad Bank and others, (1964) 4 SCC 504, the Apex Court observed as under:

"The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration." (para-5)

17. In State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, (1996) 5 AD 195 : AIR 1996 SC 2436 [LQ/SC/1996/967] : (1996) LabIC 2062 [LQ/SC/1996/967] : (1997) 1 LLJ 238 : (1996) 5 SCALE 14 [LQ/SC/1996/967] : (1996) 5 SCC 331 [LQ/SC/1996/967] : (1996) 2 SCR 559 Supp : (1996) 3 SLJ 65 , [LQ/SC/1996/967] the Apex Court held:

"...............It is needless to reiterate that the settled position is that the Government is empowered and would be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or are corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service." (para 3)

18. In M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, (1998) 6 AD 496 : AIR 1998 SC 3058 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1998) ECR 502 : (1998) 6 JT 34 : (1998) LabIC 3491 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1999) 1 LLJ 923 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1998) 5 SCALE 45 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1998) 7 SCC 310 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1998) SCC(L&S) 1812 : (1998) 1 SCR 232 Supp : (1999) 2 SLJ 96 [LQ/SC/1998/872] : (1998) AIRSCW 2918 : (1998) 7 Supreme 90 , the Honble Apex Court held as under:

"judicial scrutiny of any order imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or mala fide or if it is based on no evidence. The observation that principles of natural justice have no place in the context of compulsory retirement does not mean that if the version of the delinquent officer is necessary to reach the correct conclusion, the same can be obviated on the assumption that other materials alone need be looked into." (para 11)

19. In State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 89 FLR 173 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 3 JT 223 : (2001) 2 LLJ 1140 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 2 SCALE 261 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 3 SCC 314 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) SCC(L&S) 576 : (2001) 2 SCR 170 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) 1 UJ 664 [LQ/SC/2001/586 ;] : (2001) AIRSCW 862 : (2001) 2 Supreme 193 , the Apex Court held:

"(i) When 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 is 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."

20. The above guidelines have been referred with affirmance recently in M.P. State Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, (2009) 121 FLR 917 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 6 JT 263 : (2009) 6 SCALE 17 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 15 SCC 221 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 512 : (2009) 6 SCR 182 [LQ/SC/2009/830] : (2009) 5 UJ 2161 [LQ/SC/2009/830] .

21. In Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, AIR 2010 SC 151 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2010) 124 FLR 1101 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 8 JT 385 : (2009) 7 SCALE 622 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 13 SCC 758 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2010) 1 SCC(L&S) 297 : (2009) 8 SCR 1084 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] : (2009) 8 SLR 488 [LQ/SC/2009/1153] , following Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar (supra) the Court further held that:

"Principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with and even adverse entries made in the confidential record including uncommunicated entries may be taken into consideration but the same should not be passed in place of or in lieu of a disciplinary proceedings. If an order of compulsory retirement is stigmatic in nature, the same would be bad in law."

22. In the recent decision in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir, the Apex Court held as follows:

"Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the Government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.

It hardly needs to be emphasized that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non application of mind, mala fide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is noncompliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily, the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.(See Posts and Telegraphs Board and others Vs. C.S.N. Murthy, AIR 1992 SC 1368 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 JT 357 : (1992) LabIC 1410 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1993) 2 LLJ 866 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 1 SCALE 727 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 SCC 317 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 2 SCR 338 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 3 SLJ 16 [LQ/SC/1992/273] : (1992) 1 UJ 549 [LQ/SC/1992/273] )".

23. From the perusal of the order of the learned District Judge, we find that the learned District Judge in its order has referred 08 adverse materials against the appellant to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has lost his utility in the service. Out of the 08 adverse materials, one is the order dated 2.2.2008, by which, the appellant has been reverted to the minimum pay scale, which has been set aside in appeal but rest of the adverse materials still survive and the appellant is not able to demonstrate that any of the adverse order referred in the order, except the one referred herein above have been set aside in appeal. In the writ petition, only in paragraph No. 8, it is stated that adverse entries dated 30.5.2012 and 3.1.2013 have not been communicated to the appellant hence the appellant could not make representation. Apart from the aforesaid two entries, it is not the case of the appellant that the other entries have not been communicated. The Apex Court, in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another, AIR 1992 SC 1029 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 73 CLT 665 : (1992) 2 JT 1 : (1992) 1 LLJ 784 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SCALE 428 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 2 SCC 299 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SCR 836 [LQ/SC/1992/182] : (1992) 1 SLJ 177 [LQ/SC/1992/182] and in the case of State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) and Swaran Singh Chand v. Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) has held that even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. The Apex Court, in the case of Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir (supra) has held that compulsory retirement should be based on appraisal of overall performance during whole tenure of service having regard to the entire service record of employee and upon taking an holistic view. Old adverse entries do not loose significance or get washed off for the purpose of considering compulsory retirement even after grant of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar and hence should be taken into consideration alongwith recent entries.

24. In view of the above, we find that the order of the District Judge was neither arbitrary nor mala fide nor based on no evidence material. On the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.