1. - The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 18.5.2000 whereby the petitioner a Forest Guard was retired compulsorily under Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 read with Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

2. In the return to the writ petition, the respondents have made attempt to justify the impugned order of retirement by giving details of punishment awarded to the petitioner thus:

(i) The D.F.O., Kota stopped two annual grade increments by cumulative effect vide order dated 15.5.1986;

(ii) The D.F.O., Bundi stopped one annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 30.3.1999;

(iii) The D.F.O., Kota had imposed the penalty of censure vide order dated 15.10.1987;

(iv) The D.F.O., Bundi' stopped two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18.8.1990;

(v) The details of remarks made in annual confidential Reports of the petitioner are as under:

3. The petitioner has established by placing the order dated 4.7.1998 (Annex.1) that after completion of satisfactory service of 18 years, he was granted selection scale.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after the petitioner was granted selection scale all the adverse entries stood washed off and they could not have been considered.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner lost his efficiency and had become a dead-wood and he was a fit person to be retired compulsorily.

6. I have pondered over the rival submissions.

7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1959) 1 SCC 529 , while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement indicated that public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while services of dishonest or corrupt or those who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with. In order to find out whether any Government servant has outlived his utility and is to be compulsorily retired in public interest for maintaining an efficient administration, an objective view of overall performance of that Government servant has to be taken. Performance of a Government is reflected in annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning efficiency, honesty or integrity of a Government servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. If character roll is studded with adverse entries or overall categorisation of employee is poor and there is a material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such Government servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of 'integrity. If this is missing, whole bundle would disperse.

8. In M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 310 , their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated requirements to sustain inferences of the doubtful integrity. It was observed that the Government officer enjoying high reputation throughout his career, suddenly branded as person of unreliable integrity and unfit to be entrusted with any position of responsibility in Government service should be adjudged from the available material. Doubtful integrity should not be entertained merely on surmises. It should be based on preponderance of probability as judged from the standard of a reasonable man. The maxim of 'Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus' (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was propounded that the maxim is not unexceptional but it is salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of administrative la