JUDGMENT

S.S. Ahmad, J.

1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 12.9.84 passed under Rule 56 (C) of the U.P. Financial Hand Book ' Vol. 2 Part 2 to 4.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 31.8.51 on the post of Cane Development Inspector, in June 1972 he was promoted to the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector. It was from this post that the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the impugned order dated 12.9.84 which is contained in Annexure1.

3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner's record of service has all along been satisfactory and except the adverse entry for the year 197273, no other entry was communicated to the petitioner which could be said to be an adverse entry. It is further stated that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1978 and was once again allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1981, the effect of which would be that even the adverse entry for the year 197273 would stand washed off. It is further stated that the adverse entry for the year 197273 was communicated to the petitioner in 1978 against which he had filed a representation which was rejected by order dated 11.9.84 and the next day i.e. on 12.9.84, he was retired from, service compulsorily.

4. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit. They have also filed supplementary counter affidavit in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

5. We have heared the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the writ petition and the counter affidavit and other affidavits filed in the case.

6. The fact that there was only one adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll and that too relating to the year 197273 is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties who further do not dispute that the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar twice i.e. in 1978 and 1981 and that too after the above entry was recorded in his character roil. Their case, however, is that the petitioner was due for crossing of the Efficiency Bar in 1976 but because of the adverse entry, which was given to him in 197273, he was not allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar from the due date and was allowed to cross it in 1978. In 1981 again he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar. The petitioner, according to the averments made in the counter affidavit, has completed the age of 55 years in 1982 and, therefore, when his case was scrutinised in 1984 for purposes of determining whether he is to be further retained in service, his service record pertaining to a period of ten years immediately preceding the year 1982 was looked into and since there was an adverse entry for the year 197273, he was compulsorily retired from service as he was not considered fit for further retention in service in public interest.

7. The right to compulsorily retire its servant in public interest is a right which is available to the State Government under Fundamental Rule 56 (C). The purpose for which this right is available has been stated by Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak (as he then was) in Gyan Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab &Haryana & another AIR 1980 SC 1994, as under:

......The interests of Public administration require the retirement of a Government Servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency, competence and utility called for by the Government service to which he belongs. No stigma or implication of misbehavior is intended and punishment is not the objective.

The Supreme Court observations extracted above indicate that the authority who has to ultimately decide whether or not to retire a Government servant compulsorily, has to be satisfied, if it decided to retire, that the Government servant, with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the Standard of efficiency competence and utility required of him. The decision has to be bonafide & not capricious; honest and not malicious. It