1. The petitioner Jayata Prasad was initially appointed as Bandi Rakshak (Jail Guard) on 3-8-1960. in the year 1984-85, he was posted on transfer to district Jaunpur. He was suspended on the charge that he had taken unauthorised possession of a quarter. After departmental enquiry, he was reinstated and a punishment of stoppage of five increments was imposed. In the year 1992, the service record of the petitioner was screened for promotion and looking to the past performance and the service record, he was promoted to the post of Pradhan Bandi Rakshak (Head Jail Guard) and was posted in sampurnanand Siwir Ghurma Sonbhadra under the control and supervision of Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi. The respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 30-1-1995, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service in the public interest. It is this order which has been termed as being wholly illegal, unjust and unwarranted.

2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30-1-1995, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, by which he was compulsorily retired and has prayed that said order be quashed and direction be issued in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till he reaches the age of superannuation.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. Heard Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner was punished on a finding in a departmental enquiry that he was guilty of misconduct; that the petitioner was guilty of insubordination and adopted an attitude of indifference and carelessness in the discharge of his duties, and consequently the order of compulsory retirement contained in Annexure C. A. 1 to the counter affidavit was passed It is admitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Jail Guard in the year 1993 but he has been compulsorily retired on screening of his entire service record by a committee.

5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30-1-1995 indicates that it has been passed by the competent authority under the amended F. R. 56 clause (c), Chapter IX of the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part II to IV which provides :-

"(c) Notwithstanding anything container in clause (a) or clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time, by notice to Government servant (whether permanent of temporary), without assigning any reason require him to retire after he attains age of fifty years or such Government servant may be notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at the time after attaining the age of fifty years after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner has been passed without being there any material against the petitioner and only within about two years of his promotion from the post of Jail Guard to the post of Head Jail Guard and that since the order visits the petitioner with evil consequences, it is punitive in nature and consequently offends the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing counsel, helpless as he appeared to be, simply contented that the departments and the power and discretion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of the Financial Head Book and consequently the said order is beyond the pale of challenge. This submission of the learned standing counsel appears to be deceptive by its simplicity.

7. Broadly speaking, termination of service of a Government servant is of three types-(1) dismissal or removal from service of a permanent or temporary Government servant; (ii) termination of the services of temporary Government servant, and (iii) compulsory retirement In all these three cases, the services of a Government servant are brought to a premature end. Dismissal or removal from service was always by way of punishment. Termination of the services of a temporary Government servant and compulsory retirement of a Government servant under the terms of the contract of service or under the relevant rules do not normally amount to punishment. But if an order of such termination or compulsory retirement is made by way of punishment it will amount to dismissal or removal from service and will attract the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 1305, the Supreme Court observed that its earlier decisions had land down two tests for ascertaining whether a termination by compulsory retirement amounted to removal or dismissal and one of such tests was whether the order was made by way of punishment. When can such an older be held to have been made by way of punishment ? The Supreme Court has laid down that where the order by itself casts stigma on the Government servant and where the order deprives the Government servant of an accrued benefit, an order of compulsory retirement would be treated as having been passed by way of punishment. In this connection a reference may be made to the various decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, AIR 1966 SC 1260, State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan Nagar and Ors., (1979) 2 SC 4 SCC 491 ; Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India and Anr. ; State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi, AIR 1967 SC 892 ; Moti Ram Deka and Ors. v. General Manager, NEF Railway and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 600 ; State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, AIR 1968 SC 1089 ; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State Of Punjab., AIR 1987 SC 948, and to the cases of Division Bench of this Court is 1976 (2) ALR 316 ; State of U.P. v. Purshottam Swarup Johri and Ors., 1990 (2) AWC 1433 ; Vilas Tewari v. State of U.P.

8. In the instant case, it would be worthwhile to point out that the petitioner was admittedly promoted to the next higher post of Head Jail Guard in the year 1993 after screening his entire service record. The only damaging material which appeared against the petitioner, pertained to an enquiry, which was conducted in the year 1984-85 on the charge that the petitioner has taken unauthorised possession of a quarter in defiance of the orders of his superiors. He was found guilty of the charge and was punished by stopping of few increments. Except for this one incident against the petitioner, there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner had outlived his utility and has rendered himself unless so that he was required to be weeded out of Government employment. Throughout the length and breadth of the counter affidavit, there is no suggestion that except for the departmental enquiry for the year 1984-85, there was any occasion on which the conduct of the petitioner has been held to be blamesworthy. The effect of the punishment awarded to the petitioner consequent upon the departmental enquiry held in 1984-85 stood washed off when he had been promoted to the higher post in the year 1993. To fortify this conclusion, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1982 LABIC 1500 Dr. Girish Behari v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which it was held that the doctrine of washing off the' adverse entries on promotion of an officer is a good doctrine which ensures justice to the public servants. If an officer is selected and promoted to a higher post despite adverse entries against him, those adverse entries lost all value and it is not open to the authorities to consider those adverse entries against the officer again at the time of subsequent promotion. After the adverse entries cease to be effective they cannot constitute valid material and even if the entire record of the officer is taken into account those entries cannot be used against the officer concerned for purpose of denying him future promotion. On the analogy of the above observation of the Supreme Court, it may well be held in the present case that since the petitioner was considered fit for promotion in the year 1993 taking into consideration the stark fact that he had been punished in a departmental enquiry in the year 1984-85, he could not be compulsorily retired within about two years period of promotion on the ground that as his over all record was stinking on account of departmental enquiry and punishment passed in 1984-85, he was liable to be compulsorily retired. After the promotion of the petitioner in the year 1993 there was obviously no reason, whatsoever to dig up his past.

9. The above conclusion is further forfeited by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State Of Punjab., AIR 1987 SC 948. In the said case, the Supreme Court further took the view that while considering the question, of premature retirement/compulsory retirement, it may be desirable to make an over all assessment of the Government servant's record, but while doing that, more value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately proceeding such consideration. It is possible that a new entrant to service may have committed mistake and for that reason he may have earned adverse entries and if those entries of early years of service are taken into consideration for pre-maturely retiring a Government employee, then perhaps no employee would be safe even though he may have brilliant record of service in later years. This aspect was also emphasised earlier by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, namely, Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCR 430, Brij Behari Lal Agarwal v. High Court of M.P. (1981) 2 SCR 297 ; Amar Kant Choudbary v. State of Bihar, (1984) 2 SCR 299 and J.D. Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1984) 2 SCR 466.

10. The consistent view of the Supreme Court is that old and state entries should not be taken into account while considering the question of premature retirement, Instead, the entries of recent past of five or ten years should be considered in forming the requisite opinion to retire a Government employee in public interest. It would be unreasonable and unjust to consider adverse entries of remote past and to ignore the good entries of recent past.

11. Learned Standing counsel pointed out that the petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest. There is no doubt about the fact that the power of compulsory retirement is exercisable in the public interest and is beyond the pale of challenge if it has been exercised on some tangible and concrete material. 'Public interest' in relation of public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employee in service and in dispensing with the services of those who are inefficient, dead-wood or corrupt and dishonest. Therefore, the rule contemplates premature/compulsory retirement of the inefficient, corrupt or dead wood which would subserve the public interest. These observations flow from the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra's case (supra). In the instant case. I find that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was not passed in furtherance of public interest for one simple reason that a stray incident of the year 1984-85 was taken into consideration ignoring the fact that otherwise the record of the petitioner was clean and clear and that after having screened the entire record, he was promoted in the year 1993 to the next higher post. In Smt. S.R. Venkatraman's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that if a discretionary power has been exercised for an unauthorised purpose, it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good faith or bad faith. It would be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy his service career in a manner not warranted by law by using a rule meant to be exercised in 'public interest' to purpose wholly unwarranted by it and thereby to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order based on reasons of fact that do not exist must be held infected with an abuse of power and must be set aside.

12. The provision of compulsory retirement is resorted to get rid of those Government servants whose efficiency has been impaired and who is considered to be a bad lot. In the instant case, the very fact that the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post only two years prior to the passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement goes to establish that the petitioner cannot he treated to be as belonging to a bad lot of employees, who has become incorrigible and whose service are no longer useful to the department. In Madan Mohan Nagar's case (supra), the Supreme Court has followed the test laid down in Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 449 with regard to termination of temporary employment and it was held that the said test has to be applied to the case of compulsory retirement also viz., does the order of compulsory retirement cast an aspersion or attach stigma to the employee when it purports to compulsorily retire him ? In the present case, the order of compulsory retirement has affected the service career of the petitioner and that impugned order, for the reasons stated above, has been passed without any tangible and concrete material.

13. In a Division Bench case of this court reported in (1990) 2 AWC 1433 Vilas Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr., the law on the point has been threashed out and it was held that the order of compulsory retirement was in the nature of penalty though innocuously worded and the same has not been passed in public interest. Such an order was held as tantamounting to the removal from service before attaining the age of superannuation within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that even if it be accepted that the Government instead of taking the drastic step of removal from service and thus depriving him of pensionary benefits has taken a lenient view and has only cut short his service period by two years by retiring him, yet the order of compulsory retirement will tantamount to be a punishment and in total disregard and contravention of the procedure prescribed under 311 of the Constitution.

14. In conclusion, I find that the impugned order dated 30-1-1995, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, compulsory retiring the petitioner from service is not in the public interest as it is based on no tangible and concrete material. The said order has resulted in punishing the petitioner without any disciplinary enquiry as it has cut shot his service period and Is, therefore, clearly in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The said order cannot be sustained.

15. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30-1 -1995 (Annexure 1 to the writ, petition) is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation in the normal course and shall be deemed to have continued in service ignoring the impugned order dated 30-1-1995, which has been quashed by this judgment.