AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard M/s. P.K. Suresh Kumar and M.R. Sreelatha for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The appellant, aggrieved against the judgment in O.P. No. 7958 of 1998 dated 28th April, 1998, preferred the above appeal. The appellant was a member of the Kerala Judicial Service and was working as a Subordinate Judge at Kattappana, A committee constituted and headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, on the basis of records of service and performance during the last five years, assessed and evaluated the potential for the continued utility of the service of the appellant and, on such evaluation, the Committee came to the opinion that the appellant does not have the potential for continued useful service. The opinion of the Committee of the Hon'ble Judges was considered by the High Court and the High Court also was not satisfied about the continued utility of (he service of the appellant. Accordingly, the High Court decided to compulsorily retire the appellant on the afternoon of 30.4.1998, as the appellant was found not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext. PI proceedings dated 15.4.1998. The Original Petition was filed against Ext. PI order. J.B. Koshy, J., by judgment dated 28th April, 1998, dismissed the Original Petition holding that Ext.P1 was issued in accordance with R.13A of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules read with R.60 (aa) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules. Since the order was passed in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the rules, the learned judge was of the view that there was no defect in the order passed by the High Court. This appeal is against the said judgment of the learned single judge.

. The appellant joined the service as a Judicial Magistrate of the II Class on 30.11.1974. He was promoted as Judicial Magistrate of the I Class on 10.4.1980 and after the integration of Civil and Criminal Wings of the Judicial Service, the appellant was given promotion as Subordinate Judge with effect from 7.3.1994. The appellant's date of birth is 20.4.1940 and, in the normal course, he could have continued in service upto 30.4.2000. But on 21.4.1998 the appellant was served with Ext. PI order referred to above, compulsorily retiring him from service on 30.4.1998.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenge Ext. PI order on the following grounds:

(A) Ext. PI order, which cast stigma on the appellant, is punitive in nature and, therefore, unsustainable.

(B) Ext. PI order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court of India, the appellant submitted that the scope and ambit of exercise of the power to compulsorily retire an officer is always subject to constitutional limitations and that the rules do not confer any unfettered power to order compulsory retirement even without complying with the principles of natural justice. This aspect was not considered by the learned single Judge. Therefore, Ext. PI order passed without any notice to the appellant, it is contended, is bad and unconstitutional.

(C) No Court has held that in the matter of compulsory retirement, principles of natural justice need not be complied with. In the process of assessment of the performance of the officer, which preceded the order of compulsory retirement, the officer is bound to be heard when there are materials adverse to him. Unless there are materials adverse to him, no authority can come to the conclusion that an officer is unfit to continue in service. Therefore, the officer is entitled to be heard prior to the formation of an opinion based on materials adverse to him.

(D) The impugned order does not reveal as to what are the materials upon which the order of compulsory retirement is made. The materials that were prejudicial to the appellant ought to have been disclosed to him and the appellant should have been given