JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Leave granted.

2. The appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer on September 29, 1965 in a private college which was taken over by the Government with effect from March 9, 1971. He was transferred from that college in 1978 to Bhawanipatna College. For the year 1987-88, the Principal one Mr. U.C. Mohapatra made adverse comments for the period 1-4-1987 to 29-2-1988. Thereon the appellant had submitted his representation alleging that the remarks were made due to mala fides and personal vendetta by the Principal. In the meanwhile on March 20, 1991 the appellant was promoted as a Reader in the pay-scale of Rs. 3,700 to 5,700. By the proceeding dated May 28, 1991 he was compulsorily retired from service. His representation was rejected on December 5, 1991. When he challenged the order, the Administrative Tribunal by order dated January 25, 1993 dismissed the petition. Thus this appeal.

3. It was contended and stated in the grounds of appeal that despite his request, the tribunal did not call for his service record nor considered the totality of his service. It relied upon the only report of the Review Committee which in turn was founded upon the adverse remarks based on the report of the Principal. We directed the State to produce the entire record of the appellant and his confidential reports in his service record of his character roll. Accordingly they have been placed before us. We have perused the entire record. The record disclosed that from the year 1973-74 onwards, the year in which the College was taken over, his work was commended as good, sincere and satisfactory. He is a sincere teacher, helpful in maintaining discipline, a strong-minded person and willing worker. For the year 1980, the Government communicated that his work was unsatisfactory for the years 1976-77, while the Principal recorded for the same year that his integrity was good, his zeal was fair, his work was fair but relations with the students was average. Same was the report for the year 1979-80. For the year 1980-81, the Principal also reported that his integrity was good. He was a good teacher, his conduct was good and work was satisfactory. Same was the report for the year 1981-82. The government communicated to the appellant that he had not conducted any research work. The report for the year 1982-83 equally was satisfactory and he was advised to publish papers. For the year 1983-84, the report was that his conduct was good, his integrity was good, he is a good teacher, his work was fair and his relation with the students was good. The government reiterated that he did not conduct any research work. For the year 1984-85 his knowledge on the subject was good, his work as a teacher was very good. He takes pains in imparting lectures. He is a sincere worker, his zeal is good, integrity is good official conduct is good, work as a proctor is good, his relationship with the students is good. For the year 1985-86, the remarks of the Principal was that his work as a teacher and Knowledge on the subject is satisfactory, his work as a proctor is satisfactory, his integrity is up to the mark, his relationship with the students is satisfactory. We do not have the report for the year 1986-87. For the year 1987-88 the report of the Principal is that his knowledge on the subject is average, work as a teacher is below average. He is inclined to drop classes when not watched. His relationship with the students, average, work as a proctor average, official conduct average, zeal below average, integrity below average, in general remarks, it was stated that he is a disintegrated officer, constantly grumbling over his last opportunity and neglect his duties, he prefers to stay away from the college as long as possible. It was communicated by the Govt. on December 5, 1988, the record also shows that his representation was considered to expunge the remarks for 1987-88 and was rejected. For the year 1988-89 another Principal in his report dated