Judgment

PATHAK. J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upholding an order compulsorily retiring the appellant from the post of District and Sessions Judge.

2. The appellant, a member of the judicial service of Madhya Pradesh, was promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge in April, 1969. On 6th October, 1977 an order was made appointing him to a Selection Grade post. He was thereafter appointed temporarily as Presiding Judge, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. On 28th September, 1979 the State Government made an order under Fundamental Rule 56 (3) of the M. P. Shashkiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikya Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1976 purporting to retire the appellant in the public interest.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the retirement order, but the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 12th October, 1979. Before the High Court the appellant did not dispute that there was power to compulsorily retire him under Fundamental Rule 56 (3) but he contended that there was no material before the High Court to lead to the conclusion that his retirement would be in the public interest and he described the order as mala fide and arbitrary. The High Court noted that the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years and held that his retirement was in accordance with the terms and conditions of service and in consonance with Fundamental Rule 56, and rejected the contention that the impugned order was mala fide or arbitrary.

4. The appellant contends that the High Court was not justified in relying on adverse confidential reports which had not been communicated to him and respecting which, therefore, he had had no opportunity to make his representation. Now the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court shows that at the time of deciding whether the appellant should be compulsorily retired the High Court took into account the confidential reports of the petitioner from the year he entered service. It appears further from the counter-affidavit that some only of the confidential reports were communicated to the appellant, the last being for the period ending 31st March. 1966. It does not appear that subsequent confidential reports containing adverse entries were communicated to the appellant.

5. The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is a power which may be exercised in various contingencies. Considering a comparable provision, Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCR 791 this Court observed :

"Various considerations may weigh with the appropriate authority while exercising the power conferred under the rule. In some cases, the government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding it. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. It may further be that in certain key posts public interest may require that a person of undoubted ability and integrity should be there. There is no denying the fact that in all organisations and more so in government organisations, there is good deal of dead wood. It is in public interest to chop off the same, Fundamental Rule 56 (j) holds the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interests of the public. While a minimum service is guaranteed to the government servant, the government is given power to energise its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest." In State of U. P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1978) 1 SCR 521 the Court said :

"Compulsory retirement under Rule 16 (3) is a salutary safeguard in the armoury of the Government for maintenance of the services in trim and fitness. Rule 16 (3) is a constant