SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR, J.

1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.2449 of 2010, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 8.3.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the impugned order dated 22.12.2009, for compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner, has been upheld.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellant was appointed as a Constable on 24.12.80, in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, for short). He was promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 27.1.84, to the post of Sub-Inspector on 15.7.85, and finally as Inspector on 26.2.2000. He was visited with the order dt. 30.4.2009, of compulsory retirement in terms of rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the previous writ petition bearing CWJC no. 14004 of 2009, which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioners representation in accordance with law and observations made in the order. The appellants representation has since been considered by the competent authority leading to the impugned order dated 22.12.2009, whereby the representation has been rejected and the order for compulsory retirement has been passed with reasons recorded therein. The appellant challenged the same by preferring the present CWJC No.2449 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence this appeal.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order and that of the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is in violation of the spirit of rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules read with the Office Memorandum dated 5.1.1978, which has provided the guidelines to the authorities for exercise of the power under rule 56(j). He next submits that the authorities are entitled to consider the past records of five years immediately preceding the order of compulsory retirement. However, in his submission, the authorities in the present case have considered the entire record and have taken into account stale orders of punishment which were inflicted on the appellant from January 1986 to 1999, and the two advisory memos of 2002 and 2007. He next submits that rule 56(j) provides that notice for a minimum period of three months as per the aforesaid office memorandum has to be served on the employee before the order of compulsory retirement will take effect, which has not been followed in the present case. He submits that the bright aspects of the appellants career have been completely overlooked by the authorities. He submits that orders of promotion wiped off the stigma of punishments inflicted on him. He lastly submits that the impugned order amounts to double jeopardy. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.D.Shrivastava V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1984 SC 630).

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action.

5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We reproduce hereinbelow rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules:

"56(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing of three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. (i) If he is in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years.

(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of fifty-five years. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a