- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 09/05/2003, contained in memo no. 2804, passed by Respondent no. , contained in Annexure -9 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service of the respondents Corporation, i.e. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in exercise of the powers under Rule 29 (B) of the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules of the respondents Corporation. 3 According to the petitioner, he was an Assistant Godown Manager and was posted at Balumath, his grievance is that he has been illegally and arbitrarily retired compulsorily from the services of the Corporation without issuance of any charge sheet or without initiating a departmental proceeding against him and as a matter of fact the impugned order, contained in Annexure -9, has been passed by way of punishment as it appears from the statements made in the counter affidavit, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was acting against the public interest, in clear violation of discipline and conduct Rules of the Corporation. In such a situation, the respondent authorities had no option but to proceed under Rule 29 (B) of the Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rule and, thereby, passed an order to compulsory retire the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Annop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ram Ekbal Sharma V/s. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 1990 Lab I.C. 1188" has submitted that the impugned order, contained in Annexure -9, is nothing but an order of punishment and, therefore, without initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, he could not have been ordered to compulsory retire from service.;