JUDGMENT K. N. Singh. J. 1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant PostMaster at Mirzapur. On 24th February, 1975 he was placed under suspension as a disciplinary enquiry was contemplated against him. On December 19, 1975 the Superintendent, post offices, revoked the petitioner's suspension and reinstated him. On January 5, 1976 the Director of postal services, U.P., Circle Lucknow, in exercise of his power under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 retired the petitioner prematurely from service on his having, completed 30 years of service. The order directed that the petitioner shall retire from service with effect from 10th Jan. 1976. Before the petitioner could actually retire from service another order was passed on 8th January, 1976 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him in respect of the charges contained in the chargesheet which was annexed to the covering letter. The charges alleged that the petitioner had committed misconduct while performing his duties negligently whereby he infringed the provisions of Rule 3(f)(ii) of the C. C. S. (conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was required to submit his explanation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of premature retirement dated 5.1.76. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on the admitted facts the order of premature retirement though innocuous in nature was passed by way of punishment without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. We find merit in the contention. The petitioner was a Government employee. He was entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution and the Rules regulating his services. He could not be dismissed from service without affording him opportunity of defence. The Director of Postal Services, by the order dated January 5, 1976 purported to prematurely retire the petitioner without causing any stigma or without assigning any reason. Even though the order is innocuous in its face but the attending circumstances make it apparent that the order was passed by way of punishment. As already stated, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 4th of February, 1975 and when the order of suspension was revoked, the order of premature retirement was passed, which was to come into effect on 10th of January, 1976, two days before that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner making serious allegations against him. As already stated, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 4th of February, 1975 and when the order of suspension was revoked, the order of premature retirement was passed, which was to come into effect on 10th of January, 1976, two days before that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner making serious allegations against him. These facts leave no room for doubt that the respondent wanted to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for the negligence alleged in the chargesheet. The attending circumstances, the issue of chargesheet and the proceedings taken immediately after the issue of the order of premature retirement make it apparent that the order was passed as a measure of punishment. Since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of defence, the order of compulsory retirement is illegal. 3. In the result we allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Director of Postal Services U.P. Circle, Lucknow dated January 5, 1976. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. . (Petition allowed)