JUDGMENT K. N. Goyal, J. - The petitioner was an Additional Chief Engineer in the Irrigation Department. By an order dated 9th July, 1982 (Annexure 19 to the petition) he has been compulsorily retired on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice in accordance with Fundamental Rule No. 56(c) of the Financial Handbook, Vol. 11, parts 2 to 4. The petitioner has challenged this order by means of this writ petition. 2. The petition has been admitted only to-day, but on the very first day when the petition was presented, namely, 26-8-1982, the Bench had indicated that the opposite parties should file a counter-affidavit so that the petition may he disposed of at the admission stage itself, as laid down in the second proviso to R. 2 of Chap.XXII of the Rules of Court. There- after further time had been taken by the learned Chief Standing Counsel on 8-9-1982 to file it detailed counter-affidavit but the same has not been filed. Only a short counter affidavit was filed earlier in regard to para. 50 of the petition. Accordingly arguments on merits have been heard. 3. The petitioner was last promoted in an ad hoc capacity to the post of the Additional Chief Engineer. In the same year he was also confirmed as Superintending Engineer. However, on certain complaints made against him an inquiry through Vigilance Department was conducted subsequently. The petitioner was also interrogated during that preliminary inquiry. The inquiry was however, of a secret and preliminary nature and it was neither investigation under the Cr. P.C. nor a formal disciplinary inquiry. The petitioner says that he gave his replies to the investigating officer which ought to have satisfied the authorities. He also contends that allegations against him pertained to technical details of the work relating to the department and accordingly he had suggested that some high technical officers should be associated with the inquiry. This request was not acceded to. Instead according to para. 50 of the petition, a decision was taken to "punish" him. This punishment decided upon was to be two-fold, namely, that he should be compulsorily retired, and further, that such deductions as may be necessary may be made from the pension of the petitioner under para. 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. It was in pursuance of this decision that the order of compulsory retirement was passed. As such the order was penal. 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. It was in pursuance of this decision that the order of compulsory retirement was passed. As such the order was penal. This allegation contained in para. 50 has not been substantially controverted in the aforesaid counter-affidavit. 4. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the order of compulsory retirement as to whether the same was unreasonable and vitiated by malice in fact or in law, because we are of the opinion that the order was bad in law by reason of the fact that the decision to retire the petitioner was coupled with the decision to initiate action under para 470(b). 5. There is a note below para 470(b) which contains the Governor's order. This order incorporates a Government decision to the effect that whenever any action is taken for granting reduced pension under para 470(b), an appeal would lie to the same authority to whom an appeal would lie from a punishment imposed under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The grant of reduced pension under para. 470(b) is not in itself one of the punishments mentioned in the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, but this decision of the Government indicates that the order under para. 470(b) is also of a penal nature and it is for this reason that it has been assimilated to a punishment imposed under the C.C.A. Rules. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the State that so far there is no decision to grant reduced pension to the petitioner. Before any such final decision is taken the petitioner would be given show cause notice and ultimately it is possible that the matter may be finally dropped. It has further been contended that no formal order or even show cause notice has so far been issued. The decision is contained only in the files of the Government and so long as an order authenticated in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution is not issued, the decision is to he treated as a tentative decision only. The argument regarding tentative nature of the decision is however not borne out by, and is rather contrary to the averment in the counter-affidavit. 7. It is true that show cause notice has not yet been issued in pursuance of the decision to initiate action under para 470(b). The argument regarding tentative nature of the decision is however not borne out by, and is rather contrary to the averment in the counter-affidavit. 7. It is true that show cause notice has not yet been issued in pursuance of the decision to initiate action under para 470(b). It is also possible that even after show cause notice is issued the matter may ultimately be dropped. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that the decision to order compulsory retirement is part of a composite decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily and simultaneously to initiate action under para 470(b). The power to order compulsory retirement is a facet of the pleasure doctrine. If exercised bona fide it is not justiciable. A Government servant is ensured a minimum period of service after which the authorities may direct his compulsory retirement. By itself it does not carry any stigma and is not treated as penal in nature. However, whenever a decision to retire an officer compulsorily is taken, it is expected that it would be a clean decision to order compulsory retirement without anything more and after dropping or closing all pending or contemplated proceedings in regard to the matters which form the background motive to the decision. He should be given full proportionate pension so that whatever pension he has earned in respect of the period of his service already rendered is given to him in full. If simultaneously any action is to be taken to sanction only reduced pension under para 470 (b), then it cannot be said to be a clean order of compulsory retirement. It is only a decision to order compulsory retirement simpliciter which carries neither any stigma nor any loss of pensionary benefits nor is coupled with initiation of any penal departmental proceedings that can be treated as a legitimate exercise of the pleasure of the Government to retain an officer or not beyond the minimum prescribed period of service. In the instant case, the two decisions are interlinked. Even though the other decision, namely action under para 470 (b) has not yet been implemented and only the decision to order compulsory retirement has been implemented, the former also does stand and the issuance of the impugned order is in pursuance of the composite decision and as such amounts to an order of removal which is vitiated by non-compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs. The order dated 9th July, 1982 contained in Annexure 19 to the petition, is hereby quashed. The ordinary consequences of the quashing of the order of compulsory retirement will follow. Relief claimed in regard to subsequent promotion cannot be granted in this petition and is accordingly refused.