- (1.) I. S. Mathnr, J. The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16-1-1993 (Annexure- 1 to the petition), retiring the petitioner compulsorily.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Consolidation Lekhpal and joined the service on 6-8- 1967. He has been compulsorily retired by order dated 16-1-1993. According to the petitioner he was never communicated any adverse confidential remark and his work and conduct was satisfactory. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from the due dates and was also give increments. His integrity was also always certified. THEre was no material against the petitioner warranting compulsory retirement and, accordingly, the order is arbitrary and has been passed in mala fide exercise of power. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is alleged that the petitioner was awarded adverse entry in the year 1969-70, 1991-92 and in the year 1979-80. his work was found to be ordinary. It is stated that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on the basis of the entry recorded in 1991-92 and his work being not satisfactory presently, The allegations of the petitioner that no adverse entry was ever communicated to him and that he was allowed to cross-efficiency bar and was also given due increments, have not been contro verted. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein the allega tions of the writ petition have reiterated.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and in, my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sus tained. The opposite parties were repeatedly asked to produce record relating the service of the petitioner ; this record was not produced in spite of repeated opportunities being given. Accordingly, there is no option but to draw an adverse inference against the opposite parties. It is settled law that in considering the question of compulsory re tirement entries of remote past cannot be seen and the entries of later years only should be taken into consideration-Baikunath Das v. Chief Medical Officer, AIR S992 SC 1020. It has been held in this case that while consider ing the record of the petitioner more importance should be attached to the performance of the later years. In Baldev Chadda v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 70 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that entries of five years should be seen and it is unjust to see the entries of remote past.;