As per case facts, the appellant, a Lecturer, received adverse comments for one specific year (1987-88), which he alleged were due to the Principal's mala fides, even though his service ... record generally showed merit both before and after that period. He was later promoted as a Reader. Subsequently, he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, with this decision founded entirely on those solitary adverse remarks and a Review Committee's recommendation. His attempt to expunge these remarks was unsuccessful, and his challenge before the Administrative Tribunal was dismissed. The question arose whether the government's power to compulsorily retire the appellant was exercised in the public interest and was legally sound, particularly when only a single adverse report was considered instead of his complete service history. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the compulsory retirement order was an arbitrary exercise of power because it failed to objectively consider the appellant's entire meritorious service record. The reliance solely on one adverse report, especially after his promotion and in light of an otherwise consistent good record, made the order illegal. The Court stressed that compulsory retirement must stem from an objective assessment of the total service record, not isolated remarks, to genuinely serve efficiency and public interest, and reporting officers should avoid personal bias.