JUDGMENT D. N. Jha, J. - Surendra Shankar Awasthi has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of compulsory retirement passed by opposite party No. 1 dated 28th Dec., 1979. He has further prayed that a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order of compulsory retirement contained in Annexure 18. The usual prayer for costs has also been made. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the petitioner joined as Principal of Bhatkhande College of Hindustani Music, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as the Music College), having been selected by the Public Service Commission on 5th Feb., 1970. He was confirmed on 5th Feb., 1972. Thereafter he went to Allahabad University to act as Professor and Head of the Music and Fine Arts Department on deputation. He returned from deputation on 24th Oct., 1979 and resumed his office of Principal of the Music College. It was on 28th Dec., 1979 that the order of compulsory retirement was passed and served on the petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition, inter alia, alleging that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed on extraneous considerations about which details have been spelt out in the various paragraphs of the writ petition which, in our opinion, do not require to be mentioned. It has been emphasised that the order has been passed by way of punishment and is visited with malice borne by respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Various assertions running from paragraph 19 onwards have been mentioned in the writ petition. 3. The petition has been resisted on behalf of the respondents and counter affidavits have been filed. The assertions made in the petition, so far as they relate to the facts, have been admitted, but so far as other allegations of mala fide are concerned, they have been denied. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Manjulika Gautam, respondent No. 3, it has been asserted that a Screening Committee had been constituted to look into the various allegations with respect to the petitioner and four other officers. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Smt. Manjulika Gautam, respondent No. 3, it has been asserted that a Screening Committee had been constituted to look into the various allegations with respect to the petitioner and four other officers. It has further been asserted that a secret vigilance enquiry had been made and thereafter an open enquiry had also been made by the Vigilance Department and that report was placed before the Committee which was of the view that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest. 4. We have heard Sri S. C. Misra on behalf of the petitioner and Sri J. Bhalla on behalf of the respondents and perused the averments and cross-averments made by the contesting parties. The sole question to be determined in the instant case is whether the report submitted by the Vigilance Committee constituted the foundation of the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner or it was only a motive for passing the order. It has been conceded before us by the learned counsel for the State that no adverse entry had been communicated to the petitioner and so far as the character roll entries are concerned, they cannot be said to be bad or suffering from any adverse remark. He made this oral statement in view of the fact that in transit of papers from one department to another the character roll of the petitioner has been lost and, therefore, it could not be produced before us for our perusal. The petitioner, however, in his affidavit has categorically asserted that his record has been excellent and entries were good or very good ever since he took over charge of the office of the Principal in the year 1970. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of these entries as it has not been categorically denied by Respondent No. 3. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the character roll of the petitioner is concerned, it is unblemished and he cannot be categorised as dead wood which required to be chopped off. 5. The second point, which requires consideration, is with respect to the allegations made in the counter affidavit by respondent No. 3 with respect to the character assassination of the petitioner. 5. The second point, which requires consideration, is with respect to the allegations made in the counter affidavit by respondent No. 3 with respect to the character assassination of the petitioner. A perusal of the counter affidavit of Smt. Manjulika Gautam shows that a secret enquiry was conducted with respect to certain allegations made in the year 75-76 and thereafter an open enquiry was ordered. A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that the basis of the compulsory retirement order is the report submitted by the Vigilance Department. It appears that an Enquiry Officer was nominated who proceeded to record the statements of some persons behind the back of the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was ever confronted with the allegations that were made against his character by various persons in the course of vigilance enquiry so as to enable him to meet those assertions. It is, therefore, clear that neither the report nor the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer reached the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer may have given his findings on the allegations of misconduct and if on the basis of the same the Screening Committee came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a suitable person to be retained in service, then such a decision, in our opinion, would be visited with punishment. It may be mentioned that the form of the order is not decisive as to whether the order is passed by way of punishment. Even an innocuously worded order compulsorily retiring a person from service may on the fact and circumstances of the case establish that an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. In such a case the simplicity of the form of the order, in our opinion, will not give any sanctity to it. In the instant case undoubtedly an ex parte enquiry, although termed as an open enquiry, had been carried out which was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner never had any opportunity to meet those allegations. The learned counsel for the respondents candidly conceded that it was on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Department that the Screening Committee recommended for compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for the respondents candidly conceded that it was on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Department that the Screening Committee recommended for compulsory retirement. In our opinion, therefore, the report of the Vigilance Department in fact formed the foundation for the issuance of the order of compulsory retirement. This being so, the order of compulsory retirement, in our opinion, suffers from the vice of inflicting punishment on the petitioner and is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. If the allegations against the petitioner were found to be substantiated by the Vigilance Department, it was the bounden duty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner for providing a proper opportunity to him rather than to have adopted this short-cut of removing the petitioner from service by passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The order, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We are fortified in our view on the basis of the decisions in Appar Apar Singh v. State of Punjab ((1971) 2 Serv LR 71) (SC), G. S. Sial v. Union of India (1977 Lab I C 378) (All), S. P. Jain v. State of U. P. (1980 Lawyers LT (Services) 79), Baldeo Raj Chadha v. Union of India ( (1980)4 SCC 321 ) : (1980 Lab IC 1184) (SC), Swami Saran Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( (1980) 1 SCC 12 ) : (1980 Lab I C 219) and Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1974 SC 2192 , paras 79-80 at p. 2208) : (1974 Lab I C 1380 Paras 79-80 at p. 1395). 6. In view of the observations made above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of compulsory retirement passed by respondent No. 1 dated 28th Dec., 1979, which is Annexure 18, is quashed. Let a certiorari issue accordingly. We direct that the petitioner will be re-instated by the respondents and he shall be entitled to all such emoluments, increments and other allowances to which he would have been entitled as Principal of the Music College. Let a mandamus issue accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs. 7. Let a certiorari issue accordingly. We direct that the petitioner will be re-instated by the respondents and he shall be entitled to all such emoluments, increments and other allowances to which he would have been entitled as Principal of the Music College. Let a mandamus issue accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs. 7. Soon after the judgment had been dictated in Writ Petition No. 94 of 1980 (Surendra Shanker Awasthi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others), the learned counsel for the State prayed for a certificate being issued for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In out opinion, the dispute centres round questions of facts and the question of law has been applied which has already been laid down by the Supreme Court. In our opinion, therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the case which calls for decision by the Supreme Court. 8. The certificate prayed for is refused.