ORDER PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. : – This intra Court appeal takes an exception to order dated 5-5-2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 126 of 2000, whereby, petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed upholding an order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Process Writer on 5-7-1994 and thereafter, vide order dated 11-9-1972 he was promoted on the post of L.D.C. Since then the appellant was working under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Damoh. The appellant was also holding the position of Divisional President of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Employee Association, Sagar Branch, District Damoh. Vide order dated 11-11-1997 (Annexure-A/9), the appellant has been compulsorily retired in public interest in exercise of power vested under Rule 42(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to “Rule of 1976”). The appellant preferred appeal against the said order which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 11-5-1999 (Annexure-P15). The appellant, therefore, approached this Court in a writ petition challenging both the orders. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order did not find any substance in the case of the appellant and hence his writ petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the appellant has filed instant intra Court appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by way of punishment and, therefore, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. According to him, the communication made by the District and Sessions Judge, Damoh vide his Memo dated 4-9-1997 clearly shows that serious allegations were made against the appellant and it is on the basis of such communication, the decision for compulsory retirement has been taken. According to him, the language of the order alone is not decisive to gather as to whether an order of compulsory retirement is in public interest or by way of punishment. The Court should always go behind the order and find out whether the same was founded upon the misconduct of the employee by lifting the veil. He also states that if there were any adverse ACRs, the same should have been communicated to the appellant. In absence of such communication, the adverse ACRs cannot be taken note of. He also states that even on 11-9-1973, the appellant was promoted from the post of Process Writer to Lower Division Clerk and thereafter, he was further promoted on 13-9-1992 from the post of Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk and if the appellant was found to be suitable for promotion in the year 1992, any adverse ACR prior to his promotion cannot be taken into consideration. He further states that only old entries between 1968 to 1988 have been taken into consideration, whereas, the subsequent entries of remaining 15 years were ignored. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel places reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Ekbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar and another, (1990) 3 SCC 504, Chandra Prakash Sahi vs. State of U. P. and others, (2000) 5 SCC 152, State of U. P. vs. Madan Mohan Nagar, AIR 1967 SC 1260, Union of India vs. J. N. Sinha and another, AIR 1971 SC 40, and also a decision of division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shambhudayal Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1985 M.P.L.J. 461.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents’ state that the appellant was compulsorily retired after assessment of his entire service record. Screening Committee has applied its mind. While demonstrating the entire service record, reliance has been placed to ACR of various years. The same are being shown in the fo