JUDGMENT

SINGH, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated December 21, 1987 dismissing the appellants suit challenging his premature retirement from service under the State Government order dated November 11, 1983.

3. The appellant joined service under the Orissa State Government as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in 1955. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) in 1963. In 1978 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) on merit and selection. While he was working as Superintending Engineer (Electrical) he completed 50 years of age. A Review Committee constituted by the State Government scrutinised the appellants case for considering his retention in service beyond the age of 50 years as contemplated by the first proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. The Review Committee considered the appellants service record on October 11, 1983 and made recommendation to the government that his retention in service was not in public interest. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Review Committee the State Government issued orders on November 10, 1983 prematurely retiring the appellant from service. He challenged the validity of the order by means of a civil suit before the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, but the suit was later on transferred to the Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Tribunal dismissed the suit and upheld the validity of the order of premature retirement. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Review Committee made recommendation for the appellants premature retirement on the basis of adverse remarks awarded to him for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 although representations against those remarks made by the appellant had not been considered and disposed of by the State Government. This plea was canvassed before the Tribunal also. We find merit in this submission. The Review Committee on the basis of adverse remarks awarded to the appellant for the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 formed its opinion that the appellants retention in service was not in public interest as there was marked deterioration in his performance for the three consecutive years. Before the Tribunal the appellant assailed the validity of the Review Committees recommendation placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab {(1987) 2 SCC 188. The Tribunal held that adverse remarks for the year 1980-81 could not be taken into consideration by the Review Committee as representation against those adverse entries was pending with the State Government. But, as regards the adverse entries for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 are concerned the Tribunal held that though period for making representation against those entries had not expired and the appellant was entitled to make representation within six months from the date of communication of the entries, the Review Committee was not expected to defer the consideration of appellants case on the possibility of appellant making representation which eventually may or may not materialise. Proceeding further the Tribunal held that the entries for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were not liable to be ignored and on the basis of those entries the order of premature retirement was sustainable in law as there has been deterioration in the appellants performance during the aforesaid years.

5. In our opinion the Tribunal committed serious error. Admittedly the adverse entries for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were communicated to the appellant on July 29, 1983 and under the relevant rules the appellant was entitled to make representation against those entries within six months from the date of communication. The Review Committee met on October 11, 1983 and by that time six months period had not expired and before that date the appellant had no