Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2005 whereby the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., has compulsorily retired him, in public interest, from the post of Trade Tax Officer. The order is based upon recommendation of a review committee constituted as per Government order to assess the service record of all other similarly placed officials who had completed 50 years of age. The review committee found following adverse material against the petitioner :

(i) Adverse entry for the year 1995-1996.

(ii) Adverse entry for the year 2000-2001

(iii) Adverse entry for the year 2001-2002.

(iv) Withholding of integrity of the petitioner together with adverse entry for the year 2002-2003.

(v) Awarding of censure entry vide order dated 1.5.2001 and withholding of two increments without cumulative effect.

(iv) Order dated 16.3.2004 awarding censure entry and withholding two increments without cumulative effect.

2. Petitioner claims that the material relied upon against him, in the meeting of the screening committee, is no longer a valid material, in view of the subsequent orders passed by the authority/Courts, and as such, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained.

3. The instant writ petition was entertained and reply was called from the respondents. On 9.4.2007, the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on a request made by the counsel for the petitioner. Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 9.4.2007 contending that the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition on account of an order of respondent dated 9.3.2007, according to which the petitioner’s representation for review, though found to have substance, could not be considered on account of pendency of writ petition and, therefore, the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition. However, after withdrawl of the writ petition, the order dated 15.6.2009 has been passed holding the representation of the petitioner against the order impugned to be not maintainable. The recall application was contested by the State and ultimately by an order dated 6.2.2014, the order dated 9.4.2007 has been recalled and the writ petition has been restored to its original number. The writ petition has been heard accordingly and is being decided on merits.

4. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the materials relied upon against the petitioner, for passing the order of the compulsory retirement is not sustainable for the following reasons :

(i) The adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for the year 1995-96 was communicated to the petitioner on 12.6.1997. The petitioner represented against the said entry vide representation dated 23.7.1997. The petitioner has brought on record an order dated 6.8.1998, accordingly to which the Trade Tax Commissioner has partially expunged the adverse observation made against the petitioner for the year 1995-1996. To the extent, petitioner’s representation was not accepted, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1397 of 1999, which came to be allowed by the Public Service Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2006. Thus, the adverse entry against the petitioner for the year 1995-1996 has been finally expunged by the order of the Trade Tax Commissioner dated 22.8.2007.

(ii) So far as the awarding of adverse entry for the year 2000-2001 is concerned, the petitioner claims to have represented in the matter and ultimately challenged the adverse action by filing Claim Petition No. 936 of 2004, which has been allowed on 8.3.2007 and the adverse remarks against the petitioner for the year has been expunged and the petitioner’s integrity has been certified.

(iii) So far as the adverse entry for the year 2001-2002 is concerned, the same was challenged by the