GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned single judge dismissing his writ petition. ( 2 ) THE services of the appellant as cashier were compulsorily terminated by the Mysore merchants co-operative bank ltd. , pursuant to a resolution dated 16. 9. 1986. the appellant raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 questioning the legality and validity of the compulsory retirement order with effect from 16. 9. 1986. by an order dated 20. 2. 1989 the dispute was dismissed by the 3rd respondent-asstt. Registrar of co-operative societies. The appeal preferred against that order also came to be dismissed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal on 18. 3. 1991. In the writ petition, the appellant questioned the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 12. 3. 1997. That gave rise to this appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as well as the orders impugned. It is an admitted fact that enquiry was conducted prior to the passing of order. The enquiry was conducted without following the procedure prescribed. Fair and reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. The documents sought to be summoned by the appellant have not been summoned. Relief has been denied to the appellant on the technical ground that he had accepted the retirement benefits. ( 4 ) THE mere fact that the appellant has requested for payment of his retirement benefits and receipt of the same will not take away his right to question the action which is bad in law. An action which is had in law is always bad and the same can be questioned at any stage and any time. The appellant might have sought for payment of retirement benefits on account of his poverty and to have his livelihood. Those amounts have to be paid to him at any cost after his retirement. After all they were his hard-earned money and payment of the same will not disentitle him from questioning the bad action. The appellant might have sought for payment of retirement benefits on account of his poverty and to have his livelihood. Those amounts have to be paid to him at any cost after his retirement. After all they were his hard-earned money and payment of the same will not disentitle him from questioning the bad action. In this regard the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of workman of subong tea estate V. Subong Tea Estate, 1964 LLJ SC 333 is extracted hereunder:"it is true that the notices for effecting the retrenchment were issued by Mr. Hammond and it was Mr. Hammond who paid the retrenchment compensation to the eight employees. Sri sastri sought to make a point against the appellants by suggesting that the employees had accepted retrenchment compensation and should not now be permitted to question the validity of the retrenchment. Apart from the fact that such technical please are not generally entertained. That being so. We are not impressed by the argument that the acceptance of retrenchment compensation by the eight workmen should be held to create a bar against them. "it is clear from the above that mere acceptance of service benefit will not be a bar against the appellant for challenging the legality and validity of the order of compulsory retirement. Denial of relief to the appellant on such technical grounds rendered the decisions of the third respondents and the Karnataka appellate tribunal are bad. And consequently the orders emerged on the basis of the order retiring the appellant compulsorily from service and ending with the dismissal for writ petition by the learned single judge cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed. In view of the law laid down in the above decision by the apex court, the approach of the learned single judge and respondents 3 and 4 was not correct. ( 5 ) THIS is a fit case to remand for fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single judge. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders of the asst. Registrar of co-operative society and that of the Karnataka appellant tribunal are set aside. The dispute is restored. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single judge. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the orders of the asst. Registrar of co-operative society and that of the Karnataka appellant tribunal are set aside. The dispute is restored. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law by conducting an enquiry as contemplated under the Provisions of the act and rules and law laid down by the apex court. Further if is observed that the second respondent has to justify its order of compulsory retirement order by producing all the records including the domestic enquiry record and the respondent shall answer all the legal contentions and issues raised in the dispute by the parties by following the law laid down by the apex court. If the award is passed if favour of the appellant on merits, the appellant is entitled to all retirement benefits from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation after giving deduction to the amounts already paid to him including the consequential benefits of back salary and other monetary benefits for which he is entitled to in law. --- *** --- .