( 1 ) THE State of U. P. is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the division Bench of the High Court. The order of compulsory retirement of the respondent who was Executive Engineer, in exercise of powers under Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, having been set aside by the High court, the present appeal has been preferred. The High Court came to the conclusion that after expunction of the adverse entry dated 15-11-1991 in writ Petition No. 24712 of 1992, three warnings and one censure against the respondent could not have formed the basis of the satisfaction of the appropriate authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement and as such the Court quashed the same. From the proceedings of the Review Committee report, which examined the cases of several engineers including the case of the respondent to decide the question as to whether it would be in the public interest to compulsorily retire the employee concerned, it appears apart from the warnings and censure referred to earlier, there were some adverse entries also for the year 1995-96. That apart, the High Court committed a mistake by coming to the conclusion that an uncommunicated entry could not have be