Summarize the following court judgment. No. 58 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) R.K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Petitioner. V.C. Mahajan and L.K. Gupta for the Respondents. RANGANATH MISRA	 J. In this application under article 32 of the Constitution	 petitioner assails the order dated 5th September	 1975	 of his compulsory retirement from service with effect from 5th of December	 1975	 made under rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. The impugned order ran thus: "WHEREAS the Director of Audit	 Defence Services	 New Delhi (appropriate authority) is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so	 NOW	 THEREFORE	 in exercise of the powers con ferred by clause (j)(i) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules	 the Director of Defence Services (appropriate authority) hereby gives notice to Shri C.D. Ailawadi	 Audit Officer	 Defence Services that he	 having already attained the age of 50 years on the 22nd November	 1969	 shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of the 4th of Decem ber	 1975	 or from the date of expiry of three months com puted from the date of the service of this notice on him	 whichever is later." The petitioner has pleaded that he was efficient and had risen 785 from the rank of a Clerk to the post of Audit Officer in which he was confirmed with effect from 3.12. Accord ing to him	 he had clear and unblemished record of service. He had held independent charge of the senior post of Deputy Director of Audit and had been paid an additional amount of Rs. 100 per month for the period. He also alleged that his character roll entries were excellent. According to him	 it was the obligation of the appropriate authority to review the petitioner 's case six months before he attained the age of 50 or completed thirty years of service. Since no such review had been made or on the basis of review petitioner had not been retired	 he was entitled to continue upto the age of 58	 which is the normal age of retirement. According to him	 all cases of premature compulsory retirement made during the emergency were reviewed in terms of the Govern ment circular of lOth of August	 1978	 but the representa tions made by the petitioner for the benefit of review in terms of the said circular were not heeded to and the peti tioner was	 therefore	 obliged to file the present petition. In the return to the rule nisi by the Director of Audit	 Defence Services	 it has been contended that the order of retirement was made in public interest after review of the petitioner 's case. It has been stated in the said affidavit: "In the case of Shri Ailawadi the Committee after review of his complete record of service observed that his earlier services were of a very marginal nature and he earned some adverse reports later. The Committee	 therefore	 considering the quality of his work on the whole	 concluded that Shri Ailawadi was not fit to be retained in the public interest. The Appropriate Authority felt that his reports for the last few years were poor	 colourless and indicative of steady deterioration attributed to family problems and to his state of health. The Appropriate Authority also took into account his latest report for the year 1974 75 which assessed him as 'barely competent to hold an officer 's post '. " The character roll entries have also been placed before the Court at the time of heating of this writ petition. We have checked the same and in particular those for five years prior to the date of the impugned order. In 1969 70	 his ability was considered to be average. His thought and ex pression were said to be vague and rambling. Deterioration of his physical health was taken note of and the general assessment was that he was an average officer. In the fol lowing year the reviewing 786 authority after treating him to be an average officer en dorsed the following direction: "I am inclined to think that the entire report may be commu nicated to him and he must be told so to exert himself that he earns a more commendable report next year. ' ' This appears to have been shown to him and his signature had been taken on 3.8.1971. During the years 1972 73	 1973 74 and 1974 75	 he was branded as an average officer. In the last year it was indicated that his intelligence was of low order and though he was physically fit	 he was not mentally alert. It was also indicated that he was barely competent to hold an officer 's post. In the report for a part of 1974 75 he was branded as poor and against the column of 'general assess ment '	 it was shown that 'he was not sure of himself. We have extracted entries from the character roll to meet the petitioner 's contention that he had an excellent record of service. Mr. D.K. Garg	 appearing for the petitioner has supple mented the arguments by a written note which has also been looked into. Petitioner does not challenge the validity of the rule; nor does he allege that the order of compulsory retirement is the outcome of mala fides. An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds as settled by several decisions of this Court: (i) that the requisite opinion has not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision. In Union of India vs Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr.	 [1971] 1 SCR 791 this Court held that if the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffered from any of the above infirmities	 the Court has jurisdiction to quash the same. It is not disputed that compulsory retirement under rule 56(j) is not a punish ment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important consider ations for invoking rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. 1n the instant case	 on the basis of the service record	 the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and	 therefore	 should be retired prematurely. We do not think petitioner has been able to place 787 any satisfactory material for the contention that the deci sion was on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record	 the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The service record of more than five years which we have perused shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing officers had also made the entries. Therefore	 the reports must be taken to have re flected a appropriate and objective assessment of the per formance of the petitioner. The writ petition must accordingly fail and is	 there fore	 dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. N.P.V. Petition dismissed.

In a Writ Petition flied before this Court	 the peti tioner assailed the order of his compulsory retirement from service made under rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner contended that he was efficient	 had clear and unblemished record of service and his character roll entries were excellent	 and since no review has been made six months before he attained the age of 50 or completed thirty years of service nor he had been retired on the basis of review	 he was entitled to continue upto the normal retirement age of 58. On behalf of the respondents	 it was contended that the order of retirement was made in public interest after review and that the Committee had concluded after reviewing com plete record of service and considering the quality of work on the whole	 that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in public interest. Dismissing the Writ Petition	 this Court	 HELD: 1.1 Compulsory retirement under rule 56(j)(i) is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules. [786G] 1.2 An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on the ground (i) that the requisite opinion has not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbi trary decision. If the civil servant is able to establish that the order suffered from any of these infirmities	 the Court has jurisdiction to quash the same. [786F G] Union of India vs Col. J.N. Sinha & Anr.	 [1971] 1 SCR 791	 referred to. 784 In the instant case	 on the basis of the service record	 the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the peti tioner had ceased to be useful and	 therefore	 should be retired prematurely. The petitioner has not placed any satisfactory material to prove that the decision was based on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record	 the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The service record of more than five years shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing offi cers had also made the entries. Therefore	 the reports must be taken to have reflected an appropriate and objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner. [786H; 787A B]