B.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner joined the Provincial Medical Service, Uttar Pradesh, on November 18, 1950. He was confirmed with effect from July 5, 1958. His date of birth is January 2, 1924. Adverse entries for the years 1965 -66, 1969 -70 and 1970 -71 were communicated to the petitioner in the year 1973. The petitioner represented against those entries. By the order dated October 31, 1973, he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. Further, by the order made on January 25, 1974, he was promoted to the senior grade of Rs. 800 -1450 on the criterion of seniority -cum -merit. In the list he superseded certain officers placed above. On his promotion he was posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Pauri. In December, 1975, he was transferred as Superintendent, Police Hospital, Allahabad. On April 20, 1976, he was retired compulsorily under Rule 56 by the State Government. Against this the petitioner preferred a claim before the Public Services Tribunal which was rejected on December 17, 1976. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced two -fold contentions before this Court; I. The adverse entries preceding 1973 -74 stand washed off as a result of the order dated October 31, 1973 permitting him to cross the efficiency bar and, in consequence of the order dated 25th January, 1974 granting promotion to Selection Grade;
(2.) THE adverse entry of 1974 -75 was not communicated to him at any stage. 2. The State Government has not filed counter -affidavit in reply to the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance, however, on the written statement supported with affidavit filed for the State before the Tribunal (Annexures IV/V to the writ petition). From this written statement it is clear that, in justification of the impugned order of compulsory retirement, the State referred to having made over -all assessment based on adverse entries of the years 1965 -66, 1969 -70, 1970 -71 and also 1974 -75. In relation to contention No. 1, it is undisputed that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar by the order dated October 31, 1973. The petitioner referred to this in Paragraph 4 of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal also. The written statement filed for the State did not refute this specifically and the decision given by the Tribunal is completely silent about it. Moreover, by the order dated 25th January, 1974, as mentioned above, the petitioner was promoted to selection grade of Rs. 800 -1450 on the criterion of seniority -cum -merit and posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Pauri. This too remains unrebutted. The Tribunal treated this as promotion made in the ordinary routine. This, it was contended for the petitioner, was without basis. Nothing of this kind is averred in the written statement filed for the State. There was no material whatsoever placed before the Tribunal to make this observation. In the writ petition the petitioner has as well specified that in the process of promotion he has superseded several officers who were senior to him. The particulars of those officers have also been given. Obviously this could not be the position, if the promotion was without selection based on the criterion of seniority -cum -merit. There is no dispute that the petitioner had represented in the year 197(sic), when the adverse entries above mentioned were communicated to him. The respondents did not place anything on record before this Court or the Tribunal for that matter to enable it being held that the representation was rejected. On the other hand, the fact that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and promoted shortly afterwards justify reasonably an inference that the said entries were not attached significance. The Department did not regard them as damaging enough to withhold efficiency bar or promotion being given to the petitioner in the ordinary course.
(3.) UNDER the Fundamental Rule 56 the power to retire compulsorily a government servant in public interest is wide no doubt, but it is not absolute. The exercise of the power must be bona fide and shall promote public interest. When an order is challenged and the validity thereof depends on its being in the public interest, the State, it has been held, must disclose the material so that the Court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which to a reasonable man, reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of public interest justifying forced retirement of a public servant, vide Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 70. It was also observed in this case that confidential reports require sedulous checking since they are essentially subjective in nature. The general accepted principle moreover is that adverse entries prior to a government servant being allowed to cross the efficiency bar may not be taken into consideration when the question arises of his promotion in the future, vide. The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2086. In Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P. : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 269, the fact that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar only a few months prior to the compulsory retirement was considered as a factor in his favour and running against the validity of the order of retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention also to an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 283 of 1976 R.D. Rai v. State of U.P. dated 10.12.1976 which held that it is the settled law of this Court that adverse entries prior to the date of promotion of an officer would not be taken into consideration while considering the case for premature retirement from the promoted post.;