JUDGMENT

SINGH, J. :— Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated 21-12-1987 dismissing the appellants suit challenging his premature retirement from service.

3. The appellant, a qualified Electrical Engineer with training in West Germany, joined service of Orissa Government as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in 1955. In 1961 he was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer (Electrical) and deputed to the Orissa State Electricity Board. In March, 1976 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) on the basis of merit. In 1979 while working on the post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1-1-1979. He also officiated on the post of Chief Engineer (Electrical) in Orissa State Electricity Board. Since he had completed 50 years of age a Review Committee constituted by the Government of Orissa considered his service record in October, 1983 for determining his suitability for retention in service in accordance with the first proviso to R. 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. On the recommendation of the Review Committee the State Government by its order dated 10-11-1983 prematurely retired the appellant from service. He filed a civil suit before the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar challenging the validity of his premature retirement on a number of grounds. On the Constitution of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal the suit was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, under S. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-12-1987 dismissed the suit and upheld the validity of appellants premature retirement. Hence this appeal.

4. The Tribunal held that the Review Committee on an assessment of the overall performance of the appellants conduct had bona fide made recommendations to the State Government that the appellants retention in service was not in public interest, and in pursuance thereof the State Government retired the appellant prematurely. The Tribunal further held that the order of premature retirement does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal committed serious error in upholding the order of premature retirement as the recommendation of the Review Committee was vitiated as it was founded on irrelevant and inadmissible material. In this connection, he urged that the Review Committee had considered a number of adverse remarks contained in the appellants service record for the remote past years which had no relevance and it had further considered adverse entries relating to the recent years although those adverse entries had not become final as the representations against those adverse entries had not been considered by the State Government. He urged that while considering overall performance of the appellant the Review Committee was influenced by the entries of remote past, which had lost their significance as in spite of those entries the appellant had been promoted to higher post on merit and he had also been permitted to cross Efficiency Bar. Before we consider these submissions it would be pertinent to refer of the recommendations of the Review Committee which are as under:

"From the year 1969-70 to 1982-83, Shri Baidyanath Mohapatra has got adverse remarks for the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Although he was an intelligent officer, he did not apply his mind and did not bestow adequate zeal in his work. He did neither assume responsibility nor did he work hard for which the Chief Engineer had to deal with his Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers directly. He was found to be too cursory in dealing with the problems and adept in putting the responsibilities for deficiencies on others. His performance during most of the years was found to be of average standard. The Committee, considering his overall performance, was of th